An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2911 Replies
  • 293304 Views

0 Members and 3 Guests 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 #750 on: 09/03/2013 03:22:08 »
So does this mean that the universe i see don't exist? Nope, it's just my try for a alternative description of what is 'behind' what we see. Newton is right, And Einstein, and all those others, as Noether and Plank and Shrödinger, not to mention those mathematicians defining equations and constants of all sorts. Think they all are right, sometimes you just have to look to their context and time. The sciences we established, and the ways we defined for testing propositions are a remarkable thing, along with philosophy, mathematics, not to forget ethics (and literature, all sorts:) it must be the best representations of the human spirit we have. Then we have the finer arts too of course, as painting, all good representations.

But I love relativity. It's somewhere there between philosophy and hard core mathematics, and before all, it makes you wonder.
"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 #751 on: 09/03/2013 03:29:26 »
If light is considered a constant, and the universe described as relations, then duality is a result of those relations, relative 'c'. It's another way to build a universe. But you need a arrow. To me the arrow arrange outcomes, not outcomes arranging a arrow.
"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 #752 on: 09/03/2013 03:35:53 »
And the arrow, what does it get its definition from? Frames of reference, or locality. I would say locality.

Your clock and ruler. What does it mean?

It's a expression describing your local room, and time. That's the one that never change. That's the one defining repeatable experiments. That's the one giving you a invariant lifespan, no matter how fast you go, or what mass you rest 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 #753 on: 09/03/2013 03:44:34 »
Using light as a constant, we need 'relations'. Those must then define what you see, together. So a experiment showing you a wave will then be a result of your arrangements, as will a 'photon'. And I'm rather strict on the arrow, and outcomes. You might have ideas for how to prove a simultaneous wave/particle duality, but as far as I know you only can get one of those outcomes, at a time.
"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 #754 on: 09/03/2013 03:54:22 »
In fact, give me a experiment that proves both, simultaneously, but I mean prove. And I like simple experiments, so keep it simple please :) Relativity is simple, the mathematics behind it less so. The more elaborated your ideas becomes, the more equations you need to describe it, the fewer will read it. My are simple, light doesn't propagate, we have real causality chains defined from a local arrow, equivalent to 'c'. That arrow does not go backwards, ever.
"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 #755 on: 09/03/2013 04:02:52 »
So how do we get distance and motion? If light refuse to 'move'? Heh, that one is weird, isn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #756 on: 09/03/2013 07:18:56 »
So how do we get distance and motion? If light refuse to 'move'? Heh, that one is weird, isn't it?
Your questions could be clearer in digits.

*

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 #757 on: 09/03/2013 13:15:46 »
Agreed, but that should mean that I have a definite theorem, but this is just blueprints, or an essay :) Simplified, made to my satisfaction, and more I get to 'understand' the less satisfied I will be with it too, most probably. And it's pretty weird, even if it solve some of my problems with QM and relativity. I cut the Gordian knot, by defining light as non propagating, well, as I think now. And that may change :)

Let's go back to uniform motion and geodesics, this time from observer dependencies. It doesn't matter if there are 'real objective' paths and a 'whole unified universe', or not. Because of one reason, as long as both descriptions give you a same result then both are valid. But turning it around it also means that it need to explain all those theories that already been fitted to reality, as well as classical descriptions.

And there light propagates, and we don't see planets and suns jump geodesics just because you change coordinate system, As taking a rocket to mars. Why?

To my thinking it has to do with the regime we're in. Relativistic effects needs a lot of energy expended locally, even though it in no way compare to the effects we see in a universe shrinking. We can spend such a energy, but only in particle chambers/accelerators.

But what differs my thoughts is that I think that even if you can't measure the effects inside our ordinary regime, the universe and energies bound today, they still must be 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 #758 on: 09/03/2013 13:28:16 »
And if they are they share it with HUP. It's about what makes a universe, either you think that 'jumping geodesics' due to changing coordinate system is a 'emergence' created through motion, and inside our arrow it also then must born by accelerations. Or you define it as progressively magnified effect, coming to be as soon you get out of sync , no longer definable as being at rest with a uniform motion. 'At rest' and 'uniform motion' isn't necessarily the same, well, not in the way they express themselves in a geometric universe. All suns should have a uniform motion, but they don't need to be 'at rest' with their neighbors, although it still might be possible to define a sun to be 'at rest' with some other sun thousands of lightyears away. so there is a difference. And that difference leads to a definition of 'relative motion' as something being, or not being 'at rest' with other 'relative motion' but all of it sharing a 'uniform motion'.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 15:23:59 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 #759 on: 09/03/2013 14:30:33 »
Dimensions or paths?

Citing myself here.

"Ever heard of the Fractional Quantum Hall (FQH) Effect? It's a really strange effect where if you pass a electric current through a wire, having a magnetic field perpendicular on the wire, the electrons inside that wire suddenly deflects sideways. Now pointing to the surface of the wire, generating a voltage across the wire's width. and that's called the 'Hall effect'. So, how can electrons behave this way?

Well, it seems the answer lies in that they combines into a new kind of 'particle', called anyons. Anyons are somewhere in between fermions (normal matter, like electrons:) and bosons (photons and gluons for example). Fermions prefer to have a reserved seat in space (Pauli exclusion principle & Fermi–Dirac statistics). Bosons, on the other hand, can happily all join into one big superposition, in where they all together take no place at all (Bose–Einstein statistics). But 'anyons' is a third state which are neither bosons, nor fermions, and as the electrons 'clump together' to create this state they also suddenly begets fractional charges, called the FQH effect.

Sure but how do they do it, and why? A very understandable explanation I saw discussed it from the point of 'folds'. There are some definitely weird things about our 'ordinary electrons' too btw. One electron can in certain circumstances be positioned in two places simultaneously, but, there is also the possibility of two electrons only taking one 'place', 'standing on top of each other', and it is this effect we will discuss now. The reason they can do so has to do with that there are two quantum states possible for each 'reserved place' in space. So the 'space' we discuss here becomes a double-folded, three dimensional, space.

Did it hurt your head? I liked it a lot, to me it has to do with how I should see 'dimensions'. Remember those very small 'rolled up' dimensions that string theory speaks about? Add to that the idea of dimensions, as in our SpaceTime where we have eight 'corners', so 1 2 4  8 (ours)  16 32 ~. So is that it? Or is this another description of what a 'dimension' could be seen as? This idea also takes a fair shot at explaining why you have to 'turn' a electron 720 degrees to give it a 'full turn'. Can you see why? It has to do with those two 'folds' it exist in, turn it a full 'circle' (360 degrees) and you will have 'moved' it in its 'interior fold' to a start position of its 'exterior fold', another 360 degrees will give you the original start position back in its 'interior fold', all as I understands 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 #760 on: 09/03/2013 14:34:08 »
And yes, to me it has to do with how light can be seen as non propagating. Because in a universe of paths, light describes them. And it don't need to propagate, as long as it has a arrow creating causality.
"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 #761 on: 09/03/2013 14:43:36 »
What happens to our definitions of length, width and height in a universe of paths? Nothing as far as i can see, matter and space is something in a symbiosis. A atom is 99,999 etc 'space'. And mass express some really weird properties inside that atoms constituents, especially when it comes to quarks if I remember right? And in relativity both mass and space shrink in the direction your relativistic motion, as I see it. And it is 'real'.

Treat it as a game, with rules.
"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 #762 on: 09/03/2013 14:52:39 »
Stop giving me the impression that each 'dimension' somehow becomes a 'plane of existence', it gotta be wrong. Use paths instead, as points connecting to other points, described by light. Light, or force (information) carriers creates your 'dimensions'. Well, as I see 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 #763 on: 09/03/2013 15:05:26 »
Mass exist, mass takes place and mass can be touched. Space is a description of what is between mass, space can't be touched, but space also takes a place. Then we have 'forces' as the electromagnetic, they too take place (or not:) and, depending on definition, they must touch. Then we have 'bosons'.

Bosons are stuff that takes place, as light, but don't really need to. You can superimpose all photons/light there are and it still will refuse to take a place. But if it didn't take a place in the universe you wouldn't have light. You can up the complications by describing waves, quenching, reinforcing, and decoherence. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 15:16:15 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 #764 on: 09/03/2013 15:30:03 »
Do as God is said to have done :) 'Let there be time'.

Causality needs a arrow,
"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 #765 on: 09/03/2013 15:36:53 »
From my view a particle gets its three dimensionality from the 'forces' interacting at those points, making it up. There must be a way to describe that from paths, without involving 'planes of existence' knitting together, aka 'dimensions'. And as soon as we have this definition of a particle we also must find a room, a arrow, and 'gravity'.
"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 #766 on: 09/03/2013 15:41:35 »
What makes a particle of mass isn't that clear, I prefer to think of it as a emergence due to broken symmetry. A fault in something else. But, as they interact we have something defining our 'dimensions'. Consider a empty space, how would you prove it to be three dimensional? you just see, but you are not there as matter. Can you prove it?
=

You can't actually. Why?

Where is the frame of reference needed for defining a rotation?
Relative what?

(I stipulated 'no matter' just so that you wouldn't be able to use yourself as some 'static' proof of a three dimensionality. But the reasoning for rotations holds even if you would be there as matter)
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 16:10:52 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 #767 on: 09/03/2013 15:59:37 »
Because that is what our universe seems to be in my mind. A number space, or points, defined by some hopefully simple rules, each point using its own clock and ruler to define other points from. All points able to find a exact same frame of reference, when 'superimposed' or positioned. The dichotomy defined by relativity and some few forces, interacting over a causality defined by your local arrow/distance relative all other points.

You need to differ between what is locally constant and what happens between frames of reference. They get redefined by 'c'.
"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 #768 on: 09/03/2013 20:21:00 »
So why do I find problems with a propagation, some of them are quantum related, others may be seen as macroscopic, as us following a 'light path' experimentally. You don't need 'dimensions' to define a universe as i see it, but you definitely need paths, their 'end points/patterns' described in the relations between 'forces'. I would have loved to make it all out as relativistic time dilations and length contractions creating 'forces', creating 'particles' etc, but I don't see how that should be done.
"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 #769 on: 09/03/2013 20:28:45 »
And you need a arrow to create a plausible causality, and if you know a way to reproduce a effect, then you just need to define 'one particle' and some rules for that one interacting. Like some 'fractal universe' huh :) Or as I think, downscale 'c' into a Planck scaled local constant, split into a 'length', and a 'time', and a 'energy'. Then you got yourself the local point from where you can move the moon.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #770 on: 10/03/2013 16:20:05 »

=
Where is the frame of reference needed for defining a rotation?
Relative what?

(I stipulated 'no matter' just so that you wouldn't be able to use yourself as some 'static' proof of a three dimensionality. But the reasoning for rotations holds even if you would be there as matter)
Rotation defines some slowing of time.Rotation is just motion of masses relatively of another masses.We don't know general formula of gravitational-kinematic slowing of time.

*

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 #771 on: 10/03/2013 17:53:57 »
But it's not about time simplified, although any rotation is :)
It's solely directed to the archetypes we live with, 'dimensions'.
And the question is about how you would find one, no less three, in a totally 'empty space'.

Rotations is a solution to it, but only relative something by you defined as being 'at rest' with you. Without that frame the space you see can have any dimension, even none as a guess.
=

And 'at rest' here is a tricky one too. If one believe in motion we can give, the observer and the frame of reference defined as being 'at rest', any motion you like. As long as it is uniform. So what is a 'absolute motion' here?

A acceleration?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2013 23:45:56 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 #772 on: 10/03/2013 18:17:54 »
But we can use time.

Think of the space. It could be a still photo, but introduce a observer inside it and you introduce a (although strictly local to the observer) time. Having introduced time you could argue that you by that also must find a distance, if we go by relativity. Because you have a 'room', and a observer. The observer measure in time, and therefore distance must exist, even if not measurable, to be consistent with relativity. which would exclude the 'none dimension' but still allow us define anything from 'one dimension' to '???? dimensions'

But if you go by measurements solely that 'room' is no 'room', and have no 'dimensions' as far as I can see, until measured.
"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 #773 on: 10/03/2013 23:55:55 »
If you define it as a local energy density inside that room, no body, just a density, to then accelerate it? That one is so weird, and undefinable as it seems to me. Because even in a uniform motion you then can assume a gravity created, possibly? But it seems to me as you also can assume, as it is a uniform motion, that it is moving in a geodesic created by its own 'mass'. And if you then accelerate it you should create a higher energy density which will bend the space it propagates in even more. How would you prove it to move? You can't prove that, you need some other frame of reference even then?

We would define it as 'moving', but that is us knowing that if you accelerate something relative a universe's 'relative motion' you actually displace yourself relative the universe.
"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 #774 on: 11/03/2013 00:17:47 »
Then again, how  can you define a geodesic in that empty space? That is also a assumption from 'relative motion', isn't it? so you may have something acting in a direction (gravity) but you won't find a motion? And as it is energy we're talking about here I see no way to split it in 'constituents' of something. Otherwise one might think of it as those, each one, following a geodesic defined by whole of the aggregate of 'energy constituents' making up that 'energy density', relative each ones 'place'. But as you don't have any way to define that space?

And place here is no easy thing to define anyway, as it must be some sort of bosons, assuming a 'existence'. But something allows two particles colliding at relativistic speed to create more mass than the particles themselves, each one counted on by its own mass (while at rest, before a acceleration).
« Last Edit: 11/03/2013 00:25:12 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 #775 on: 11/03/2013 01:23:42 »
But if we look at a Big Bang we have to assume it comes from something, don't we? Doesn't matter if you define it as 'cyclic', there should still be a instance where it is '0'? If you think of it otherwise I expect you to assume constant interactions and a constant 'space' of some sort existing. And a cyclic universe uses a arrow in that I can describe it as a linear process without problems, even if you think of it as some time symmetric solution where time 'oscillates' forth and back. But I can't define a start and a end to such an idea, then again, neither can you. To make such a proposition the room as defined relative frames of reference should become a illusion. Because the relation between a room and arrow is defined in relativity. You shrink a room through your speed (acceleration) but locally your ruler and time is the same, and all things at rest with you will have a measurable distance and 'time'.

And the arrow we have is only pointing one way, experimentally described. Neither QM, nor relativity has a experimental proof for a time reversal, as I get it?

So, how far can we shrink that room?
"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 #776 on: 11/03/2013 09:24:01 »
99 % of what I write gotta be bs, at least missing that rigorous treatment. But 1% should hopefully make some sense, or we introduce a holistic principle in which that 1%, holistically applied, indeed becomes a 100% of perfect sense. So you see, nothing can be wrong here. Anyway.

One of the really big reasons why I question a space, and propagation, is the wave function and EPR. John D Norton is a nice guy, creating some of the best explanations of relativity I've seen on the net. And he's a professor in the history of physics too, that is a real bonus to me as I enjoy people that present their propositions on what history they searched out for themselves. Because you better face it, as you get older you will find yourself to getting fixed views, and if those views involves only authorities subsequent fixed views new 'Einstein's' will find a problem getting heard. Einstein came when QM was getting created, by a lot of people, trying to describe atoms, constituents, and the mathematical relations between them, and how to count on them. You had a mix of people being pure theorists, with people not so much interested in new theories as with experimentally and mathematically find ways to validate the theories already there. I don't think it's the same now. Now we have two camps, QM and relativity, with QM being what catches peoples interest, mine too. Does this mean that QM 'must be the final answer'? Well, I'm not sure, not as the ultimate answer to the universe, time and all. We've had periods like this before, historically, where people 'at last' thought they had found what the universe stands on.

'It's turtles, all the way down.'
"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 #778 on: 11/03/2013 10:26:48 »
So, how do you want it to be?
Dimensions, or just 'paths'

Wanna bet that we're going to find more 'dimensions'? I think that is a safe bet.
Wanna bet that those 'new dimensions' can't ignore the ideas of 'older' definitions of 'new dimensions'? Another safe bet.

 I like the idea of paths, because that tells us that any which way you find it to be, no matter how many dimensions you find necessary, it still comes down to some principle(s) of how paths connects, relative 'forces'.
"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 #779 on: 11/03/2013 10:55:51 »
Applied this way dimensions is a wrong description, although it is the one that fit a non relativistic approach to reality. Because we really can define three dimensions, and it makes a perfect sense in our normal views of reality. Until we beget relativity, and until we beget QM, and until we beget string theory and branes, or loop quantum theory, or ?.

And the same goes for motion, although motion makes perfect sense normally.

And the same goes for 'potential energy', because you will need another way to describe the stress energy tensor than to place it in a 'space' if there is no 'space', well, as I get it. Depends on how you define that naturally, maybe you already decided that 'space' is a questionable thing.

"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 #780 on: 11/03/2013 11:11:53 »
I'm not saying that 'space' must be 'non existing' from all points of view, just as we can define a length, a width, and height to things. It's a symbiosis with matter, you need both. But it sure becomes elusive, and in a universe of paths it must be the relations between paths that decide the 'space'.
"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 #781 on: 11/03/2013 11:15:09 »
And gravity? Well, looked at it from me, that's just another path. But it is the major path defining 'space' astronomically at least, from a very small point of view we find stronger forces.
"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 #782 on: 11/03/2013 11:19:18 »
And that's also why scales become something in its own right. And then we have chaos theory, and fractals. I expect fractals to be able to describe how a seed becomes a oak, or a human.
==

Well, I'm not sure if it is 'enough' to catch it all, but the starting principle should be fractal to me.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2013 11:22:05 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 #783 on: 11/03/2013 14:09:58 »
It's been taking me all too long to free myself from the concept of 'spaces'. We use it everywhere, as in a mathematical 'space' for example. String theory use it to, a eleven dimensioned 'string space' but its no ordinary 'space' or 'dimension'. Have a look at Dimensions.  I know I started to get confused from the beginning, comparing the idea of a defined 'space' to relativity, and looking at strings and discussions about 'back ground dependencies' or not, as in loop quantum theory (Smolin) I still got that feeling of 'dimensions' being discussed without getting to the 'point', if i may. But paths don't demand dimension's, we are the ones demanding it.

It should be about degrees of freedom to me. Dimensions being something that you 'fill in' automatically, limiting the paths in your mind. There is a difference, in that if I stop 'filling it in' giving me some plane, everything might be described from singular paths, which is how I first thought of strings. As describing paths, the paths describing a universe.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2013 14:24:36 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 #784 on: 15/03/2013 17:16:12 »
So, how weird am I :)

Weird enough to question integers, and weird enough to question fractions too.
Using paths I can allow stuff to do whatever it takes to create a relation, ignoring 'dimensions'.

I can allow 'emergences' as a qubit universe, because it will be just as with our definitions of 'dimensions'. A representation relative 'emergences' and 'scales', relations related to our measurements, and how we do them. We need to free ourselves from too strict definitions of what a universe need to be. It can be many things, depending on definitions and choice of experiments. Each picture has a observer, and none see the same picture, the rest is communications and our need to agree on what we see. Our need to agree on what we see is what have created definitions, as what a 'repeatable experiment' should be, or a 'sigma value' defining something as more 'probable' than something else.

But the universe we find is many colored, it contains a multitude. It likes logic, but it don't like to be 'pin pointed' as being one or another. It can be seen as being both smooth and 'fractured' into 'bits', and that must be scales. We're just starting our journey there, and we will meet surprises.
"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 #785 on: 15/03/2013 17:33:13 »
You can in fact use this way of thinking to look at human relations too. From a one to one description we will constantly surprise each other, well, those of us having a anchor defining ourselves. That anchor is a fragile thing, and 'evil' do exist. It's also called 'because I can', and that definition used with logic will create environments none sane can feel comfortable in. We use communication to agree on what a society should look as, and each other. In a way you can track it all to relations, and they change. But the hope with physics is that they all, in the end will come down to some simple logic principles, creating the complexity we see.
"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 #786 on: 15/03/2013 17:38:15 »
Want to take it a step more?
The universe you live in, in the end, will then come down to ethics, and what they are?
Logic, and ethics.
"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 #787 on: 15/03/2013 17:50:24 »
And using that we're back to 'locality' and the idea I have of it being there we find the real constants. You won't find them by comparing frames of reference, not physically. A mathematical constant are in its own 'space' defining real physical relations. Because that is what we go out from, we go out from that we really are 'here'. And we go out from a 'same universe' in where we exist. And none of my writing would exist if this wasn't true. So we are here, and we better communicate. No doubt about that, but our definitions also want simplicity, don't they? Mine too, I prefer simple :)

And I hope we'll find 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 #788 on: 15/03/2013 18:24:29 »
And that is 'reality', you, relative a universe. Don't run to some other wanting him to define it, define it yourself. And you better start with defining who you want to be.
"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 #789 on: 15/03/2013 18:51:49 »
And 'points'?
Well, I use it because I can't find a better description. Doesn't state that this is the best description. Maybe one can avoid 'points' and just call it 'relations'? I don't know, but I know that using 'points' you will find observer dependencies. And we don't want those, do we? We want one universe being the same for us all. We don't want quantum jumps, we don't want observer dependencies. 'We want it 'simple' for Gods sake' !!! :)

Yeah, but 'simple' might just be us lacking the right words to describe it. We don't have them yet, doesn't mean we never will. We have a lot of new words today, describing new relations that we never would believe in, if we didn't have the experiments validating them. And in a way we 'invented' them to describe it. The mind is flexible and with new words comes new understanding. And that's education, and, you better make it fun..
"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 #790 on: 17/03/2013 14:59:05 »
Better warn you. This is me and my close friend single malt, from the islands. A unique taste, to me reminding me of tar, the sea, and (I'm sorry to admit) seagulls. And as I'm a writer by nature, I need to write :)

----------Quote—

In Galilean SpaceTime the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed.
The pioneer of physics Isaac Newton defined it in the following way.

    "Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."

Because of this absolute time the global notion of past, present and future is the same in all reference frames. If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means that they are also simultaneous in all reference frames. . . Within the framework of Galilean Space-Time, faster-than-light speeds are possible in principle. However, electromagnetical waves are limited not to exceed the speed of light c, which usually depends on the direction of the light signal the reference frame in which it is measured. The speed of light is constant only in the absolute space-time frame, which is also called the Newtonian rest frame.

--End of quote---

So was he right after all?
Use locality.
"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 #791 on: 17/03/2013 15:04:23 »
This is the key assumption, taking a turn.

"If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means that they are also simultaneous in all reference frames."

What does it step out from? A definition of the universe being the 'absolute same' for us all I think? So would you call a relativistic description of a position, in space and time, accelerating, just to make the point clearer although I don't need that, as being 'the same' as the guys, defined as being a 'inertial observer'?
"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 #792 on: 17/03/2013 15:06:02 »
Newton may have had his notions :) We all have our own, don't we? But he was a impressive thinker, and still is 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 #793 on: 17/03/2013 15:09:04 »
Using locality you get it both ways. You can eat the cookie, and keep it. It has to do with how you define 'repeatable experiments', locality, 'c', relative motion, and 'reality', as well as mass and a position in a space.
"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 #794 on: 17/03/2013 15:14:18 »
Then we have 'systems'. Depending on your logic, restrictions and definitions of a 'system' you can make that system truly wondrous. Using QM, statistics (as that is what it comes from to me) and thermodynamics (entropy) you can define a 'negative temperature'. Let me ask you, if I had a thermometer, would I still find that 'system' to fall outside our common definitions of a temperature.

That's what I call a 'reality check'.
"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 #795 on: 17/03/2013 15:20:42 »
A lot of what we do today, is redefining words and concepts. Why? Because the older descriptions doesn't really fit the experiments, although they fit our common impression of a 'reality'. What I think 'systems' are missing though is that (commonly shared) anchor defining them from. And that's another possible definition of what I call 'locality'. the one place where you in your imagination can superimpose all objects there are, finding them to share a absolute same 'frame of reference'. Destroy that definition and everything I write should be wrong.
"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 #796 on: 17/03/2013 15:44:01 »
Destroying locality you either will need another anchor, or you must define it such as there are none. If you define it the last way, you also must question all constants we ever defined.
"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 #797 on: 17/03/2013 16:11:56 »
So, a scale, what is it?
Can you apply a relativistic point of view to that too?

I think you can, if you introduce frames of reference.
Using a local measurement it should be found to be equivalent to any other locally done experiment though. If I'm right.
"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 #798 on: 19/03/2013 21:47:18 »
There is one thing I wonder a lot about. A relativistic frame of reference relative a 'energy'. There is a correlation and if we assume something of mass it must expend more energy the closer it comes to lights speed, in the end finding that energy to become 'infinite'. At the same time its room 'contracts', doesn't it? What about a energy density relative the room it locally measure? Does that too increase to 'infinity'?

Light having its own frame of reference, never at rest, having a momentum related to its 'energy' if we discuss a photon, or frequency if we discuss a wave. But still able to interact with us (matter) through 'motion' and 'mass', decreasing or increasing that energy relative us.

What is motion?
And 'c'?
"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 #799 on: 19/03/2013 22:02:11 »
In a way this becomes a question of what we mean by 'infinity'. The room only contracts in the direction of my motion, allowing me to presume that it stays the same at a straight angle. Now, infinity is by all means infinite to me, but mathematically you can define it to be of different magnitudes, infinity's all of them, but still of different 'size'. Can I assume that type of definition to have a relevance to the universe, existing at a straight angle to my motion? Or does it stay unchanged?

I will assume it stays the same.
Then the 'volume' of a SpaceTime contracts, locally measured.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."