An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2911 Replies
  • 293308 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 #800 on: 19/03/2013 22:07:52 »
But you can't measure it locally, in a uniform motion?
=

And if you think of it, in a acceleration, assuming you do it in steps, uniformly 'coasting', interleaved with accelerations? will the next time you accelerate, at one G constantly and uniformly, give you a new and stronger blue/redshift as measured locally inside a black box? Or will it give you the same value, not caring about your definition of a 'speed', from those earlier uniform accelerations?
« Last Edit: 19/03/2013 22:14:22 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 #801 on: 19/03/2013 22:26:32 »
What do you think. Myself I think it will give you the same value?
And that one should be testable.

Where is then the 'infinite energy' located?
Can't be in your local definitions of a energy measurable, can't be in your local definitions of a clock and ruler. Your atoms won't start to jiggle any more, at least not in that uniform motion. You might expect it to jiggle in a acceleration though? But as that also is a question about how I should define a frame of reference, relative scales? And I just don't know there. Using a ideal definition I would definitely refer that to the question, if Planck scale is a meaningful definition in physics. If you think it is so, then I'm with you :) And to me it fits so well with light as a ultimate time device.
"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 #802 on: 20/03/2013 09:23:51 »
So, assume you do this, over and over again. Will you reach 'c'.
Nope.
"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 #803 on: 20/03/2013 09:29:39 »
Will your flashlight still tell you that you are 'standing still' relative 'c'?
Sure, it must.
"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 #804 on: 20/03/2013 09:32:06 »
So, is 'c' a definition relative a 'speed', or is it a relation relative you?
"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 #805 on: 21/03/2013 13:10:54 »
From a definition of it being a relation foremost, and a 'speed' secondly, scaling becomes all important to me. Because what is a frame of reference from scales? And what will being 'at rest' mean? Can I consider being at rest as some type of fractal behavior from mathematics? Or do we need a 'qubit' defined as being what 'really is'? Then we have strings and loops :) See where my headache starts?
"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 #806 on: 24/03/2013 20:13:19 »
Take a quark gluon plasma, ask what its entropy are, not its temperature. Can we limit it to two big definitions, out of equilibrium and in a equilibrium? The equilibrium could then be seen as a symmetry, a 'entropic sameness' and when coming out of that equilibrium you get symmetry breaks. Or would that be too simplistic? It would huh :)

It is about temperatures, but looking at it this way it seems as symmetry breaks isn't defined to one single temperature. Instead it becomes about what the 'micro states' of a 'system' are, in a 'equilibrium', or not?

"In April 2005, formation of quark matter was tentatively confirmed by results obtained at Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The consensus of the four RHIC research groups was that they had created a quark-gluon liquid of very low viscosity. However, contrary to what was at that time still the widespread assumption, it is yet unknown from theoretical predictions whether the QCD "plasma", especially close to the transition temperature, should behave like a gas or liquid. Authors favoring the weakly interacting interpretation derive their assumptions from the lattice QCD calculation, where the entropy density of quark-gluon plasma approaches the weakly interacting limit. However, since both energy density and correlation shows significant deviation from the weakly interacting limit, it has been pointed out by many authors that there is in fact no reason to assume a QCD "plasma" close to the transition point should be weakly interacting, like electromagnetic plasma."

"scientists at Brookhaven RHIC have tentatively claimed to have created a quark-gluon plasma with an approximate temperature of 4 trillion degrees Celsius." Is it about temperatures or is it about microstates?
Or both?
=

Both I think? Because we already have one definition of what temperatures is, and now we're getting some 'flip flop mechanism', inside all temperatures, possibly? It's getting weirder and weirder, the universe :)

So was a quark gluon soup 'entropically' in a equilibrium, at some arrow of time? And from where did it get created, from what? Light by itself has no temperature I know of? If it had a vacuum would get warm, and it won't. But then again, maybe it's not about temperatures at all, maybe it's about microstates? Which then should mean that light (radiation) had a different (same) state at that instant before a symmetry break? But I don't get how it would lead to a quark gluon plasma?
"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 #807 on: 24/03/2013 20:24:39 »
As if you need that setting of light to get a symmetry break. You then get mass (quarks) and 'force' (gluons) or fermions and bosons if you like, and from there we introduce temperatures as we see it normally, those able to interact through that same 'flip flop mechanism' introducing new 'symmetry breaks'. It's a very nice idea at least :)
=

But not very probable, I think we can test that one too, as it must mean a entanglement, if I'm thinking right.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2013 20:27:39 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 #808 on: 24/03/2013 20:30:52 »
What is a boson?
A Higg?
"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 #809 on: 24/03/2013 20:33:08 »
Can fields be entangled?
"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 #810 on: 24/03/2013 20:40:13 »
Entropy and entanglement becoming a symmetry of sorts? *Think I need to sleep on that one.
heh :) And I thought I was the one weird here? Jumping to conclusions I am (Yoda)
"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 #811 on: 24/03/2013 20:53:26 »
Or am I bicycling in the great younder? I'm not sure on how to define that entropic quality of 'sameness'.

"Not all systems have the property that the entropy increases monotonically with energy.  In some cases, as energy is added to the system, the number of available microstates, or configurations, actually decreases for some range of energies.  For example, imagine an ideal "spin-system", a set of N atoms with spin 1/2 on a one-dimensional wire.  The atoms are not free to move from their positions on the wire.  The only degree of freedom allowed to them is spin-flip: the spin of a given atom can point up or down.  The total energy of the system, in a magnetic field of strength B, pointing down, is (N+ - N-)*uB, where u is the magnetic moment of each atom and N+ and N- are the number of atoms with spin up and down respectively.  Notice that with this definition, E is zero when half of the spins are up and half are down.  It is negative when the majority are down and positive when the majority are up.

The lowest possible energy state, all the spins pointing down, gives the system a total energy of -NuB, and temperature of absolute zero.  There is only one configuration of the system at this energy, i.e., all the spins must point down.  The entropy is the log of the number of microstates, so in this case is log(1) = 0.  If we now add a quantum of energy, size uB, to the system, one spin is allowed to flip up.  There are N possibilities, so the entropy is log(N).  If we add another quantum of energy, there are a total of N(N-1)/2 allowable configurations with two spins up.  The entropy is increasing quickly, and the temperature is rising as well.

However, for this system, the entropy does not go on increasing forever.  There is a maximum energy, +NuB, with all spins up.  At this maximal energy, there is again only one microstate, and the entropy is again zero.  If we remove one quantum of energy from the system, we allow one spin down.  At this energy there are N available microstates.  The entropy goes on increasing as the energy is lowered.  In fact the maximal entropy occurs for total energy zero, i.e., half of the spins up, half down.

So we have created a system where, as we add more and more energy, temperature starts off positive, approaches positive infinity as maximum entropy is approached, with half of all spins up.  After that, the temperature becomes negative infinite, coming down in magnitude toward zero, but always negative, as the energy increases toward maximum.  When the system has negative temperature, it is hotter than when it is has positive temperature.  If you take two copies of the system, one with positive and one with negative temperature, and put them in thermal contact, heat will flow from the negative-temperature system into the positive-temperature system. "

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/neg_temperature.html

As well as.

"Exploration
Entropy drop: Scientists create “negative temperature” system
Bizarre setup may help researchers model dark energy.

by John Timmer - Jan 4, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

    Physical Sciences

120
In a negative temperature system, temperatures get lower as more atoms pile up close to its maximum energy.
LMU/MPQ Munich

Over the past decades, researchers have made significant progress in cooling objects closer to absolute zero, the temperature at which all molecular motion reaches its minimum. This has allowed them to study unusual states of matter, like Bose-Einstein condensates, which behave quite differently from the materials we're familiar with. But absolute zero is as low as a temperature can get, and we can't actually reach it, so progress will ultimately be limited.

Maybe not.

As thermodynamics defines temperature, it's theoretically possible to have a negative value. Yesterday, a team of German researchers reported that they were actually able to produce a system with exactly that. They found that the negative temperature system was stable for hundreds of milliseconds, raising the prospect that we can study a radically different type of material.

To understand how temperatures can go negative, you have to think in terms of thermodynamics, which is governed by energy content and entropy. In a normal system, there's a lower limit on energy content—absolute zero—but no upper limit. If you start with a system at absolute zero and add energy, the atoms or molecules it contains start occupying higher energy states. With more energy, they start spreading out evenly among these states. This in turn increases the entropy of the system, since fewer and fewer atoms are in the same energy state.

Now imagine a system where there's an upper limit on the energy state an atom can occupy. As you add more energy, more and more atoms start occupying the maximum energy state. As this happens, entropy actually starts to go down, since an increasing fraction of the atoms begin to occupy the identical energy state. In thermodynamic terms, you've reached negative temperatures."

It is a very weird idea, and I like 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 #812 on: 24/03/2013 21:23:27 »
And this is a byside.

A theoretical physics FAQ by "Arnold Neumaier
(University of Vienna)
I like to see people grow"

I have used his thoughts and views several times without linking to them. And I really think I should. He's quite enjoyable.
"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 #813 on: 24/03/2013 22:17:04 »
Okay, Verlinde. Tried to read him but lost myself on the way once. But he's been in my mind since then, not because I think 'entropy' answers the universe tea and all, but because I got this feeling that he was sincerely trying to present a alternative description, even when getting 'hyped'. And 'micro states' makes sense from my perspective too, although I'm not sure how it would explain gravity. You could imagine them as opening and closing 'paths', possibly? Macroscopically becoming what we call 'geodesics'. But then we have 'bosons' as the Higgs bosons, which is a rather different idea than 'photons' to me in that I can't measure it. What are the microstates imagined for that kid of pimpernel's? And I say imagined, as long as none show me the experiment proving the concept. Anyway, reading about micro states I found this.

"Gravity is not a force let alone an amalgamation of forces. Since Einstein we know that the effects we refer to as 'gravity' can be understood as the absence of straight line motion in bend spacetimes. And now Verlinde has postulated that this bending, and hence gravity, is nothing more than the consequence of differences in densities of micro states available to the system.

Verlinde's central idea is that in a theory in which spacetime is emergent, inertia and motion are both based on differences in information content. "

Which indeed are related to some of my questions too.
What is 'motion'?

I'm using 'locality' describing the universe, based on relativity. Verlinde is using the concept of a 'same common universe' as it seems to me now? But maybe I'm wrong 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 #814 on: 30/03/2013 13:41:44 »
Multiverses :)

Think of it as 'paths', not dimensions. Accept that relativity insist on observer dependencies. Accept defining a universe locally. Then each description becomes a multiverse. Now accept the other definition of a 'multiverse' in where you have splits aka bifurcations, each 'branch' becoming a instant tree. Now think of 'paths' again. Relations defining a universe, not dimensions. Then what you have is not 'multiverses' but a infinite amount of concurring relations, each path containing a multitude of simultaneous branchings, as 'connection 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 #815 on: 30/03/2013 13:46:29 »
And I'm not sure it needs to be a infinite amount any more. Because maybe it's describable from a origin of a finite amount, although leading to 'infinity' of combinations? If we define a infinity as something uncountable.
"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 #816 on: 30/03/2013 13:52:34 »
Can you see it? As some imaginary space in where you have all those paths coexisting, ignoring the arrow for this. The relations connecting to the observer, defining a 'reality'. Now you can have your multiverses back :), and they will not disturb conservation of 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 #817 on: 30/03/2013 14:04:32 »
And this one I think Douglas Adams should have some recognition for. Because, remember the mice? Creating Earth as their 'super computer'? Doing diabolical experiments on us, laughing darkly at us as we thought we were doing it on them?

Well, this (multi) universe becomes just as the inside of a 'brain' too, in my thoughts :)
But a 'brain' that gets its definition from a arrow. You only need one arrow, equivalent for all of those 'multi verses' I drew up here. Because they 'coexist'.
"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 #818 on: 07/04/2013 13:41:23 »
Another thing to ponder.

What would, or could, be a definition of a dimension, without a space for it to exist in?
I like paths more and more.
"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 #819 on: 08/04/2013 10:00:14 »
Bear with me now :)

Remember how I want to split reality into two camps? 'Uniform motion' being equivalent, giving us a same platform from where we define 'repeatable experiment' locally? Although I presume the same to be possible for accelerating frames, if equivalent, I still differ that from the former. The universe is in 'uniform motion', and if it isn't, it at some place and time will 'correct it' into geodesics, aka 'uniform motion', after a collision for example.

Now think of microstates from observer dependencies. Will they be express themselves the same? As observed relative some other frame of reference, defined by your local clock and ruler?

In a uniform motion?
In a acceleration?

What I'm asking is if a 'local equilibrium', as I like to call it :) also will be observed to be a equilibrium relative being observed from another frame of reference? Also if you think your measurement would differ between being observed in a uniform motion, relative being in a acceleration?

To see it better you can think of it in form of red and blue shifts, and temperatures naturally. As different frequencies/wavelengths contain different 'energy', that will interact differently with rest mass, 'jiggling it'. Also it depends on, and now I (typically) forgot that one :) Ah well, hopefully I will remember it later. Heh, remembered it, what do you think? Even though uniform motion will reset both time and distance when comparing between frames, just as a acceleration. Will a '(locally measured) equilibrium', in one uniform (relative) motion, still be a equilibrium if measured (as in 'compared') from another 'uniform (relative) motion? It's worth thinking of.  And now I better let this one rest for a while.
==

Wish one had a little more time correcting a text, and making it more understandable. As it is I keep getting those ugly comments :) at the bottom here..
Life huh :)

And it's still weird :)
Micro states as 'symmetries' and 'symmetry breaks'.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2013 14:44:44 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 #820 on: 08/04/2013 10:24:05 »
Better point out that if you think it won't present the same 'entropic equilibrium' when compared from another frame of reference in uniform (relative) motion, it still can be seen two ways. From a 'same common universe' it can't then be a 'entropic equilibrium' for a whole universe. But from locality it is you that defines that 'entropic equilibrium', always locally.
"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 #821 on: 08/04/2013 14:52:48 »
You can argue the same about any symmetry I presume? To be a symmetry it should have a way to be 'whole', without observer dependencies before a symmetry break. Then we at least get a universe that's united, behind those frames of reference we observe. then again, maybe it's the other way around though :)

So, how will we describe observer dependencies then? If so I will presume that there must be a way to mathematically find a equivalent pattern, which then to my eyes should represent some sort of fractal behavior. Because the universe must be simple, or maybe it isn't, we go out from archetypes when we define 'from simple to complex' although it seem to be correct as far as I can see, inside our symmetry break, But it don't have 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 #822 on: 08/04/2013 15:40:12 »
To have anything similar to a meaningful, eh, conversation about this we better check up on how we define it.
Always liked 'math pages', the guy writing is quite clear and educational. You might have to reread it at times :) But, who cares? Things must be allowed to take the time they need.

So first. Reversibility and Entropy.

Although, I have my own view about time reversibility. I find it proving a logic, the universe is logic :) doesn't mean that you can reverse time practically, but for all other purposes you can treat it that way mathematically.

Then the big question. Is a symmetry also a entropy?
How?

Stackexchange has a interesting exchange :) of ideas there, that you might want to ponder.
Does high entropy means low symmetry?

Finally I was thinking of Smolin :) Primary because I value his honesty. It's that and imagination one need, and dare to be brave. He and strings look at it somewhat differently, at least as I read, but both are valuable tools in my eyes, for exploring what might lie behind what we see. But I guess those two will get our minds working overtime as it is :)

So, may I wish you welcome to headache central :)

"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 #823 on: 10/04/2013 17:13:57 »
On the question of God.

God is what you make of him/her. It will be your daily life that tell you how seriously you take it. And it's a existentialistic question before all, a question about if there is a right way, and a wrong, to live. I'm not religious myself, as far as I know :) But I've meet some, very good, people being so. And.. I don't know, do I?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #824 on: 10/04/2013 18:04:20 »
Reversibility and Entropy.
Experiment has shown evidence of time reversibility at the quantum level. The question we should be asking is: "Can we possibly equate such phenomenon with the obvious complexity at the macro level?"

For me at least, the Vector that Entropy shows us is one directional at the Macro level. This is because, to have complete reversal at the Macro level, every single quantum action would need to also reverse in harmony. And the law of probability is totally off the scale against this.

The law of Entropy is the framework thru which Time operates in our current cosmos. Can we imagine a different universe where this law works in reverse? Of course, with an infinite possibility, we have to concede that. However, IMHO not in this one.

In our universe, Time and the law of Entropy skip happily along together. And I believe they do so in one direction, the single vector of time.



"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #825 on: 10/04/2013 19:11:11 »
Then you have to link those experiments Ethos, so we can see them. Because to me there is no such thing existing, I'm afraid :) Although I limit myself to our universe primary, although giving it a somewhat broader definition.

On another matter, in another post I wrote "If you imagine yourself free falling towards a event horizon, it doesn't matter if we define it as moving, or you, as long as we are discussing uniform motion. If we now define the speed to close to 'c' it means that from the infalling observers perspective the rest of the universe would speed up, possibly even go to its entropic 'death of equality/heat bath' before you ever reach that singularity's center, maybe even at the event horizon."

Now, should I take myself seriously? That it won't matter whom I define as 'moving' for a time dilation? We need uniform motion to define time dilations, as well as we need accelerations and gravity to define it. But will it not matter who is moving relative who? We can find that a acceleration is a excellent description defining who is 'moving', but without it?

Well, one answer possible is that relativity is about one frame of reference, as compared to another. And so it is a relation between two frames, both using a local clock and ruler to define the other.
"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 #826 on: 10/04/2013 19:29:21 »
1. Can you see what such a reasoning imply if there only was one frame of reference existing in a universe?
2. Can you define your local room and time using someone else's clock and ruler?
3. Do your local clock and ruler ever noticeably change relative yourself?


To make a little better sense of those questions we will assume that macroscopically being 'at rest' with something is approximately correct. And that 'yourself' is a representation of the whole mass of you, at rest with your room, or earth, for example.
"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 #827 on: 10/04/2013 19:47:57 »
1. I'll leave this one to your discretion :)

2a. Yes you can, although it may become difficult practically you can naturally import whatever definitions of 'time and distance' you want. And set them as your 'local measure'.

2b. No you can't, not if we define it relative comparisons between frames of reference. Because it won't make observer dependencies go away. Your time and the next frames time will still differ, as will contractions.

3. No, if it did we would have to question all agreed upon repeatable experiments, as they then would become approximations.
==

2b. (?) Can we use that one to define who is moving? What contraction we find locally measuring?
Well, what is 'uniform motion'? Is it equal any other 'uniform motion', or is it not?

Locally all 'uniform motions' are equivalent, but relative other 'frames of reference' they are not.


"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 #828 on: 10/04/2013 19:54:19 »
2b is really complicated, because it is also so that you are perfectly free to define, who is moving relative who, in that case. There is no certain way to define it, that I know of? So you might want to define that one as being equivalent too? But then we have 'relative motion' as expressed by three or more objects relative each other, and there we definitely can define different 'uniform speeds' to exist.
"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 #829 on: 10/04/2013 20:07:38 »
On another matter. Am I right in assuming that a contraction and a time dilation are two sides of the same coin? I assume that to be correct, but if I'm wrong there a lot of my reasoning would change. Because then we can't use a gravitational time dilation to also assume a contraction being involved. And a universe does not need to 'shrink' just because of your 'uniform motion/speed/velocity'.

But I'm pretty sure they are a symmetry.
"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 #830 on: 10/04/2013 20:15:31 »
Think of mass, your mass. You stretch out your arm to lift your mug. The mass of your fingers and hand touch it, and hold it. What frames of reference, by your rest mass, will be closest aligned to the same 'frame of reference' with your mug? Think of gravitational time dilations (NIST) and the way I assume contractions to become the other side of it. It becomes a chain, doesn't it? Where the part of your rest mass, closest to the mug, becomes more or less 'at rest' with what it holds. And the chain goes all the way back to the rest of you, doesn't it? A unbroken chain of particles, as much 'at rest' with their neighbors as they possibly can be, biologically.
"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 #831 on: 10/04/2013 20:50:41 »
But then there is one thing more, and it is macroscopically being at rest relative microscopically. Either you can go out from a microscopic definition in where you may want to use Planck scale to define a smallest common nominator for a frame of reference. Then you just keep using it, scaling up to macroscopic phenomena. Or you define it as it somewhere becoming a 'jump' from the microscopic to the macroscopic, a 'emergence' if you like. If you do that you can keep both definitions, as I think, the macroscopic being 'at rest' as well as the microscopic example. How do QM treat it? The change from a microscopic system to a macroscopic?
"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 #832 on: 10/04/2013 20:56:18 »
Doesn't it make you think of fractals too?
"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 #833 on: 10/04/2013 21:16:17 »
Ethos, rereading myself, what I mean is that I do not expect time reversibility. Entropy I expect though, it makes sense to me too, even though some of its definitions seems to collide for me. But I expect only one arrow, as defined locally. With that arrow directly related to the clock 'c' becomes, split to Planck scale.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #834 on: 10/04/2013 21:18:17 »
Then you have to link those experiments Ethos, so we can see them. 

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v74/i16/p3249_1
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #835 on: 10/04/2013 21:24:44 »
Ethos, rereading myself, what I mean is that I do not expect time reversibility. Entropy I expect though, it makes sense to me too, even though some of its definitions seems to collide for me. But I expect only one arrow, as defined locally. With that arrow directly related to the clock 'c' becomes, split to Planck scale.
Yes yor_on, I don't expect time reversibility on the Macro level either. But there seem to be cases where it may in theory occur at the quantum level. For the sake of argument, I too believe in only one arrow of time, at least as viewed on the cosmic scale.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #836 on: 10/04/2013 21:28:56 »
"The maximization of entropy postulated by the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps the most general law of physics, remains one of the most puzzling issues in contemporary science. There have been at least twenty other different and often mutually exclusive definitions of entropy.

Thermodynamic entropy (Gibbs) always increases; statistical entropy Boltzmann) tends to increase, while informational entropy (Shannon) decreases with the arrival of a message. In Shannon's equation, entropy and information are positively related, but many authors consider information as negative entropy.

This terminological confusion reflects deep conceptual discrepancies. Contemporary science includes three contradictory models: (1) Mechanics (Newtonian, relativistic, quantic or statistical), postulating static structures and reversible change; time reversibility implies a cosmic symmetry and the conservation of information. (2) Evolutionary theories that postulate a temporal increase in complexity and diversity. (3) Thermodynamics, postulating involution toward resting equilibrium (Clausius) and disorder (Boltzmann).

Statistical Mechanics provides a scenario in which mechanism and thermodynamics can coexist by explaining entropy as a probabilistic phenomenon; however, it allows for reversibility (excluded by the second law), it fails to explain why either evolution or irreversibility occur, and it must explain the tendency to maximize entropy as the result of initial conditions, which are both arbitrary and untestable. 

Two solutions have been offered to the contradiction between evolution and thermodynamics: (a) the expansion of space, both physical, and genetic; and (b) the hypothesis that entropy increases necessarily only in closed systems, whereas open systems such as biological organisms and other complex processes may reduce their internal entropy by importing free energy from the environment, and exporting entropy to it."

From "Entropy as symmetry: theory and empirical support".  By Sabelli, H. (1994)
==

And yes, there are people arguing for time reversibility. But that's no proof Ethos. They state that they interpret it, arguing for it to be a proof.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #837 on: 10/04/2013 21:39:26 »
But then there is one thing more, and it is macroscopically being at rest relative microscopically.

The Macro and Micro cosmos reside within the same universal space. The problem with seeing any time reversal in the Macro is; one would have to organize every single quantum artifact within a single Planck unit of time for it to become a universal event. And that would only be for one unit of Planck time, 1.6E-35 sec. Absolutely no way for these rare phenomenon to become a universal fact. Therefore, absolute time moves in only one direction. Maybe reversed in another universe, but not here.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #838 on: 10/04/2013 21:45:27 »
Ethos, you need to open a thread for your ideas :)
And start from what you think are the simplest definitions.
Break it down into small parts and we will see.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #839 on: 10/04/2013 21:49:25 »
Ethos, you need to open a thread for your ideas :)
And start from what you think are the simplest definitions.
Break it down into small parts and we will see.
I'm confused, I thought we were agreeing? I'm sorry if I've offended you yor_on, I must be misinterpreting something................Sorry
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #840 on: 10/04/2013 21:58:33 »
What I meant is that you have your own ideas of how it might be, not the exact same as mine Ethos :) You need to evolve them in a thread, then we argue :)

another way to see it then.

Time reversibility becomes a logic in my eyes, the logic defining a arrow. How would we find a arrow if the history of interactions wouldn't be reversible (as in recording some process to then play it backwards). If it is a logic it should demand to be reversible at any scale, if it isn't reversible we will have to look at emergences as I think now. And change the way we measured it, to find that reversibility process, which in a way also can be interpreted as some sort of fractal behavior, possibly?

What my view means is that we need reversibility to make sense of our 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 #841 on: 10/04/2013 22:33:48 »
There are two different major definitions of time 'reversibility' that I know of Ethos. One is discussing causality itself, suggesting that the effect/outcome can precede the cause. That one is easy to argue against as, accepting a arrow, you then only need to destroy the cause coming after, to create a effect/outcome without cause, which becomes mind boggling to me. The other is the idea of time-like closed loops, as traveling backward in time using some brane, or maybe black hole? In that idea you can 'change' a outcome by preceding it, traveling backwards in time, to then change its initial state, sort of splitting it from the universe you came from. That one is harder to argue against as I don't see how I ever would know that it had happened?

But myself I don't expect the arrow we have to disappear before we too disappear scale-wise. And there is a thing differing our views, in where I think you have more support for your view Ethos :) But to me it's logically inconsistent to assume that you will see something expressing itself under the arrow we know, but backwards in time?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #842 on: 10/04/2013 23:01:59 »
But myself I don't expect the arrow we have to disappear before we too disappear scale-wise. And there is a thing differing our views, in where I think you have more support for your view Ethos :) But to me it's logically inconsistent to assume that you will see something expressing itself under the arrow we know, but backwards in time?
Defining what we mean by past, present, and future is really at the heart of these issues. Allow me to ask you a question regarding these aspects of time.

Generally speaking, when people talk about the past, present, or future, they typically assume that the past, present, and future somehow reside in the same universal space.

My question: How do you view this, does the past, present, and future all reside in the same universal space? Or as others understand reality, are each artifacts of different and separate existences?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #843 on: 10/04/2013 23:15:18 »
I know I may seem inconsistent there :)

But I'm getting old, heh. Anyway, yes I agree, you can define the universe as a 'block', theoretically. In that 'block' you have all interactions possible. but that 'block' is not what we will see. We will see a universe consisting of four 'dimensions' as I think, not glued together. They will have one arrow at all scales, pointing into the future. That's what makes us unique. Because in my eyes we are only a part of a 'larger' timeless universe. But the universe we have will not allow the arrow to go backwards, the best I expect us to do is to find something 'frozen in time', as hanging on the event horizon of a immense black hole. But to find time to step backwards in this universe would then become equal to finding light propagate from sink to source, and yes, I've heard about that one too :) Feynman was a man of immense imagination.

but in my view light doesn't propagate, in that theoretical universe, but I differ that from the one we can measure. Here we define light to propagate, and it does.
"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 #844 on: 10/04/2013 23:28:55 »
There are a lot of things I question Ethos, just as you :)
But we need to define what we expect inside the degrees of freedom we have, and I do not expect time reversebility to be anything more, or less, than the expression of the logic defining a arrow, and 'c'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #845 on: 10/04/2013 23:39:59 »
How would it be possible to have an arrow of time? The energy would have to navigate around everything.. it seems to be impossible to me. If you like a fractal universe then use fractal time as well.
It's your fault if you don't understand me.

*

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 #846 on: 10/04/2013 23:41:35 »
We have one Pincho, you will grow old you too :)
"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 #847 on: 10/04/2013 23:43:24 »
But yes, I think fractals can be used for a lot of processes. With the arrow being the container of it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #848 on: 10/04/2013 23:46:30 »
I am not necessarily growing old. That's just an interpretation. I say I'm not growing old. But I can't go into detail in your thread.
It's your fault if you don't understand me.

*

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 #849 on: 10/04/2013 23:51:53 »
Good on you :)
Myself I doubt I ever will become older than thirty three :)
At most, and I do have to insist there..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."