An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 287475 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #850 on: 10/04/2013 23:54:51 »
We have one Pincho,

About that fact, we should feel fortunate.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #851 on: 10/04/2013 23:57:23 »
Yeah, it would become rather confusing if we didn't :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #852 on: 14/04/2013 17:51:55 »
I think I can give two good arguments for not expecting a time reversal from relativity. One is thinking of 'c', the other is about the guy 'frozen' at the event horizon. As you approach 'c' , accepting relativity, the distance you measure in front of your motion will shrink. What would you expect to happen in a time reversal? And that one can be seen two ways, either never 'overcoming c', or 'overcoming'. From 'c' and relativity the last on doesn't exist, but we can still wonder 'if' :)

The other is the case of that guy frozen at the event horizon, according to your measurements. Neither is logical, or if they are, they still becomes so tangled up in my mind that? Because the guy frozen is just a gravitational equivalence to the first question of 'c', as I think.

And the one defining any experience and measurement you make is the arrow we find. Somehow you will need to assume no arrow existing at all for you measuring, to be able to define it to go backward. Because as long as you believe yourself to have a arrow under which you measure I don't see how you will be able to define what you observe under it to have a different direction.
=

(what I did here was to imagine it just as some imagine a 'systems processes' to present them a time reversibility. I just stepped up to a macroscopic system and did the same. Because if you can define a microscopic system as time reversed, then I expect myself allowed the same in a macroscopic. If that isn't true then we have not only 'two arrows' possible (under one:) But we also introduce 'emergences' locking it macroscopically.)
« Last Edit: 14/04/2013 18:38:56 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #853 on: 14/04/2013 18:02:17 »
The last one is presumably possible. But then we don't have a arrow of time at all. And all constant are either downright wrong, or at least terribly inappropriately described. And I don't think they are, some things may need some redefinitions in my mind, 'motion' for example, but just as motion exist, and distance, so do constants.

Constants are theoretical definitions, and possibly also sort of 'time less' representations, in my mind. But the way we create/find them involve time, as they represent mathematical constructions defining natural processes under a arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #854 on: 14/04/2013 18:14:55 »
If you treat it from causality, then we have a arrow. If you treat it from relativity, you can reverse any action, but you can't lift out one of them, in this case the arrow, or 'time' solely. And if you treat it from the idea of it all being a movie, in four dimensions, you will find the same. So no, I don't believe in it.
=

That's also why I use locality to define this arrow. Because if it exist, why does it differ in comparisons? The best way to attack that one is to look under what circumstances we can find it to always be the same, and then, from that, find a way to relate it to a constant.

And that constant is 'c'.
« Last Edit: 14/04/2013 18:45:20 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #855 on: 14/04/2013 19:22:37 »
And yes Pincho, you're not bicycling thinking of it (time) from a fractal perspective, but I'm not sure how it would join frames of reference. Time can to me be seen as a representation of a 'whole universe', as well as a representation of something creating that local arrow. You might be able to use some fractal behavior describing a universe as related to your local arrow, maybe? But then also realizing that in my view, all local arrows are the same :) Which becomes a rather theoretical description if you want it to be a 'whole representation' of a 'common universe'.

And as the force carriers are light, informing us of change?
And locally a constant?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #856 on: 14/04/2013 22:45:38 »
There are some other, more obscure, reasons for my thinking too. More particles than anti particles are one. CPT symmetries and violations are another. Both seems to me to indicate a arrow under which we live, and symmetry breaks or 'emergences' becoming under it. That's also why I presume we will find ways to describe all processes as describing a arrow, when finding the right experiment. And yes, it may be so that some processes can't be described both ways, yet, but if we have a arrow they should be describable from it, and we should be able to reverse the process. What would a 'emergence' be without a arrow?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #857 on: 14/04/2013 22:59:19 »
And now we're back to entropy.
So, does that describe a arrow, and does it allow for a 'time reversibility'?

"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)
=

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #858 on: 14/04/2013 23:05:55 »
And doesn't it seems as we found one more just now? The one describing micro states. in or out of equilibrium. How do they get in or out of those states? If there is no arrow under which they can be defined to change?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #859 on: 14/04/2013 23:40:56 »
You can't use temperatures, even though those are related to it. You can easily assume that final state of entropic sameness/equality to have a temperature, how would time end with that? I don't think you can define it that way. If you use 'c' as a clock, then the clock either stops passing some scale (Planck scale, anyone?:) or when no more 'photons' are exchanged. Are there no more photons exchanged at that state? Then there are no temperature possible either if I'm thinking right.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #860 on: 14/04/2013 23:46:47 »
Entropy must be important, and very relevant to a universe like ours.
But it's not a arrow.
Not to me.
=

It is a major expression of our arrow, as I think.
If the arrow was a hollow tube in which processes 'moved' and 'changed' then entropy tell us about the conditions of those processes, but not about what the tube comes from.
« Last Edit: 14/04/2013 23:49:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #861 on: 14/04/2013 23:55:07 »
Because the 'tube' is also 'c'. And nowhere have I found anyone able to explain why 'c' is, and what makes it exist. And everything ticks to 'c' here, inside your body and outside it. Einstein does not explain 'c', he uses it. The guy or gal explaining 'c' will be the next Einstein in my eyes, or Newton, or Planck, or ... There are so many good thinkers out here :) But we seem to forget about the axioms. They are what needs a explanation, together with constants.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #862 on: 15/04/2013 00:27:58 »
Now think of that 'point(s)' from where a universe might come. Use 'c' as a clock. Imagine at what scale it would be emergent, containing a room and arrow. Is that scale gone? Or is it still here.

It's still here. We have scales, we have physical descriptions in where things stops making sense, under Planck scale. It's also the place where we define light to take 'one step', propagating. Is one step countable?

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #863 on: 15/04/2013 00:36:01 »
To me it becomes similar to the question of 'relative (uniform) motion'.
1 object= no motion perceivable.
2 objects= free to define any, or both, to move. (relative motion)
3 objects or more= Relative motion, containing measurably different 'speeds'.

This is assuming a motion to exist naturally, we could assume all objects to be at rest with each other too, which is another proof for motion existing.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #864 on: 15/04/2013 00:51:04 »
This one is really strange. You start with defining a arrow locally as a constant, and then relate it to 'c'. Those two I'm sure of. Doing so scales automatically becomes all-important. Because the definers of my, and yours, reality must then be at a scale that I can't measure? And as everything breaks down with scale? A Black hole compressed becomes a infinity, a inflation starts form a very small scale, no matter where you define its possible 'center' to be, or not. It all relates to scales. Quantum mechanics is all about scales.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #865 on: 15/04/2013 00:52:59 »
Scales, and fractals.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #866 on: 15/04/2013 00:58:07 »
Because fractals is still the best argument I can find explaining how something simple become complex, ignoring evolutionary theories not using a fractal behavior for this. Or do you have a better argument for why something becomes complex? And yes, I don't think you need to assume it taking up more space becoming complex? We can give it a predefined space, and then a arrow, to see it evolve in our minds.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #867 on: 15/04/2013 01:15:26 »
Let us assume a universe of fractals, each defined from local constants. Between those fractals we have force carriers we call light, informing us of all other objects. That must involve a way of defining a common space. That we all find the arrow to tick the same is then related to those force carriers too.

So, what would dimensions be, from a local definition?
=

I don't like the idea of predefined space really, because it becomes too much of a archetype to me. You could also assume that 'space' is a relation to the complexity, and amount of possible relations, we find. That would allow a 'space' to adapt to the descriptions you find, possibly :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #868 on: 15/04/2013 01:32:19 »
Because the 'tube' is also 'c'. And nowhere have I found anyone able to explain why 'c' is, and what makes it exist. And everything ticks to 'c' here, inside your body and outside it. Einstein does not explain 'c', he uses it. The guy or gal explaining 'c' will be the next Einstein in my eyes, or Newton, or Planck, or ... There are so many good thinkers out here :) But we seem to forget about the axioms. They are what needs a explanation, together with constants.
Allow me to first confirm that I in no way consider myself an Einstein, far from it. Having said that, the suggestion I am putting forth here does not represent any preconceived assumption about my self assumed intellect.

Now that I hope we all understand, I am just suggesting a possibility for the foundations that determine light speed in our universe.

Several years ago, before we found that the universal expansion was accelerating, it occurred to me that observation put the expansion very close to light speed when comparing distant objects in opposite directions. Some were even saying that it appeared that if one added the velocities of these together, one would find velocities greater than light speed. Of course, we know that speed is relative and nothing in our universe can exceed that of c, relative one to the other.

I then began to wonder if universal expansion was, in fact, the limiting influence on the speed of light? That is to say, the expansion itself determines the velocity of light.

Now that we have observed the acceleration of expansion, and if my former suspicions were found to be true, we would have to conclude that the speed of light may be accelerating also. But how many years of observation would we need to calculate the difference?

I realize this idea is rather flimsy but I thought I'd post it here anyway just to see what you think about it.

 
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 01:42:20 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #869 on: 15/04/2013 01:56:04 »
well, as I remember you can define a expansion as moving FTL, you just need to find the proper astronomical distances between you and what you measure. The problem with defining it is two-folded though . You won't be able to measure that object anymore, as soon as the distance becomes so great that it can be defined as FTL, that as no light signals ever more will reach you.

The other is that the expansion is at a fixed rate, sort of, although accelerating. That means that even if we define the distance between two objects to expand FTL, there will be no part of a locally measured patch of space that expands any faster than the next one, beside it. It's just when you add all those patches up you will find a FTl effect. And we don't experience anything changing although you can assume, defining it as a infinite universe, we already are 'moving' FTL relative some other, to us never knowable, objects. A real 'speed' of Earth, accelerating to 'c' would give all sort of relativistic effects, time dilations relative the rest of the universe, as well as contractions.

What you may be thinking of is the light having a scale, adapting to the scale of a universe?
And so also take a less 'time' propagating, if compared with a former scale?
=

No, that one would also show itself locally, unless you assume everything to scale the same. and then we won't be able to prove it, one way or another, anyway, a nice idea though :) And I agree, a expansion seems to tell us something about 'space' and the universe too.
=

One thing I'm satisfied with, using my ideas, is that we won't see any time reversibility, unless you get down to Planck scale at least, but there 'time stands still' using my formulation. Maybe you can imagine a 'negative time' as in reversible passing it though? I don't know, myself I rather think of that as 'time less'.

And we need to remember that we all carry scales with us. You can choose any frame of reference and scale it down, any location in space and time. As for the last posts I sort of lose myself there :) It's easy to see why I prefer 'degrees of freedom' before 'dimensions' though, thinking this way. But 'dimensions' are here, just as 'motion', and that I would call emergences, defined by force carriers.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 02:10:26 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #870 on: 15/04/2013 02:05:44 »



What you may be thinking of is the light having a scale, adapting to the scale of a universe?
And so also take a less 'time' propagating, if compared with a former scale?


Exactly yor_on, you've managed to say it much better than I. This is exactly what I'm thinking. Because the scale changing with expansion could represent the management over light speed itself.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #871 on: 15/04/2013 02:14:46 »
The problem is that if light really changed relative the universes expansion we should be able to measure it locally. Unless everything changed, but then we still would need to explain how we still can find that expansion existing. Because in such a scenario nothing should change locally, but neither should it do so globally, if you see how I mean there. Everything would expand the same, meaning that nothing would change relative something else, and a expansion shouldn't exist then as I think.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #872 on: 15/04/2013 02:20:19 »


unless you assume everything to scale the same. and then we won't be able to prove it, one way or another, anyway,


That would be the problem wouldn't it. But it seems to me that everything would scale the same, together as it were. We would never notice any change but the change might still exist.

Nevertheless, as you say; Most assuredly, expansion is telling us something profound about the underlying nature of the universe. And maybe, the reason light has chosen the speed it now propagates at.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 02:21:50 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #873 on: 15/04/2013 02:35:29 »
There is one way more to define it, and that would be from constants, and histories, using the arrow of time. Because if those constants would change with our measurements (over time) it won't matter if everything seems to stay 'the same' macroscopically described. And using 'c' for it we find that this is a definition relative a arrow split into even chunks, and a distance. So if you assume that 'c' gets faster, relative some earlier description, although unmeasurable so, you then would have to assume that the arrow also are 'speeding up' :) to make it fit, as it seems to me.

From my view, as I relate 'c' to the arrow, it doesn't matter what speed 'c' is, it will still be a constant relative the arrow, and distance. I think of 'c' as a constant first, a clock next, and a 'speed' as a distant third. All of this are local definitions though.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 02:46:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #874 on: 15/04/2013 03:02:21 »
So, can constants change with scales? If a whole universe would change, would constants change? Two ways, either you somehow 'know' the earlier measurements, distances, clock etc, in which case you should be able to find it change. The other would be if everything was in a equilibrium, all balancing out the same, giving you the same constants as always, one ampere still being one ampere, even though 'changing' using the eyes of a God. I don't expect constants to change under that definition, but I'm not sure? What constant do we have not relying on natural processes? Because it must be some constant not related to nature at all, as it seems to me?

Take a look at dimensionless constants.
And Dimensionless quantities.

Would any of them be able to change under the second proposition?
=

This one relates to the way you arbitrarily can decide a number for some definition, and then use that to define the rest. If you change that number you naturally change the calculations, but the results should still be of a same balance, relative outcomes. Otherwise the universe becomes magical to me :)
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 03:20:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #875 on: 15/04/2013 03:27:41 »
The only way I think we ever will find a constant to change, is when something, creating its definition, isn't constant. And in that case it can't be one either. A constant should, per definition, be something 'unchangeable' under time to me. As 'c' is expected to be (locally). But I may be wrong there, although I think we will have different definitions, defining it, if so.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #876 on: 15/04/2013 03:40:45 »
And, oh damn it, sorry but I really enjoy this one. It's about my favorite constants :) excepting 'c'. and it in a way, takes up the same questions Ethos asked.  Can the laws of physics change?

Well, I will cuddle up to 'c', and Planck scale, while you read..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #877 on: 15/04/2013 04:37:10 »
Just to make you see how nice Planck units are Better than teddy bears.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #878 on: 15/04/2013 05:44:07 »
And, oh damn it, sorry but I really enjoy this one. It's about my favorite constants :) excepting 'c'. and it in a way, takes up the same questions Ethos asked.  Can the laws of physics change?

Well, I will cuddle up to 'c', and Planck scale, while you read..
I also enjoyed this article but this is not the first time physicists have questioned the stability of a constant. The constant G has also been under scrutiny for a while now, I haven't found the link yet, but I will post it when I do.

And yes, c and h are also two of my favorite constants. But I'd like to include G along with e.  Anyway, these four; The speed of light, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, and the elementary charge constant all play a symbiotic role in the construction of universal reality.

There exist many more constants that we could apply to this exercise but, for the sake of time and simplicity, I'll only speak of these four to make a very simple point.

If only one of these change, it changes every out come. However, if two or more change, the outcome can remain the same when done in proportion.

A very important mathematical concept is the proportion. The fractions: 1/2 = 2/4 is the simplest of examples.

The point I'm making here is; I believe it's very possible that change may occur among the various constants but without effecting the overall outcome. And if I might add, I think it possible that the link between universal expansion and the speed of light may control these proportionalities.

When considering these possible changes, it could still be possible for universal expansion to dictate the speed of light even though we might observe various changes taking place in these other constants. And like defining the possible change to the Planck length, even these changes may be so small as to never be observed with present technologies.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #879 on: 15/04/2013 10:37:40 »
Ethos, you should really open that thread and start to define and describe your thoughts.
We are not of a same mind there.

I use 'c' as a constant, not as a variable. and I do not expect constants to change without us noticing. And if they do they can't be what I consider to be a constant. What I drew up was a thought experiment, wanting to see under what circumstances I could might define constants to change, without me noticing. And the one I imagined isn't one, in my mind, where you ever would be able to proof a change, as it to my eyes crave 'everything to be as usual' measuring.

Any circumstance where you change just one, or a few constants, should be noticeable, as I presume. You are of a different mind there, and that mean that we are talking about different views. What limit our physical definitions, and precision, are our measurements as I think, as long as we don't discuss HUP, although that definitely has to do with it.

But, I presume Plank units to be 'constants', just as I presume 'c' to be one. I don't need Planck scale as such, but it exists, limiting our knowledge as I see it, 'under it', and it fits my thoughts perfectly defining one limit for SpaceTime, 'c' becoming another macroscopically.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #880 on: 15/04/2013 11:02:44 »
And the only thing you have to do defining it is to split 'c' down to Plank scale. And as I define our local  arrow to be equivalent to 'c', becoming a 'clock' I find it most suggestive :) In my mind that is. Furthermore I define all local arrows to be equivalent to each other, using frames of reference 'superimposed/super positioned' to present my idea there. And that makes the arrow a constant in more than one way to me. Even though we then leave comparisons aside, instead looking at what we can define as being locally invariant. From that I want to explore.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #881 on: 15/04/2013 15:25:04 »
That is not the whole of it though. As soon as you identify the equivalence between a arrow of time and 'c' you can lay a new puzzle. Whatever circumstances limiting and defining 'c' should then be applicable to the arrow too. So using this we get a round robin sort of, in some circumstances asking yourself how you would expect your local arrow to behave, from logic and personal experience, in others using 'c' to define how you think the the arrow will behave. And I don't allow 'time reversals' as that would mean what I already pointed out. Light, moving from sink to source. I expect the arrow to define processes, not processes to define a arrow.
=

By that I mean time reversals as questioning causality, making a outcome precede a cause. Not that I find time reversals unneeded. They becomes another proof of the arrow to me, as they can be used to find that there is one existing. When it comes to 'splitting universes' I already define that as we have 'observer dependencies', splitting my reality from yours, as locally measured. But the arrow won't go backwards.

Well, in 'my universe' that is :)
=
=
Why people want the other way to be more logical I don't know, actually? I've tried to see the reasoning, but as far as I can see it starts from comparisons, and assuming a absolute same common universe in where we exist. I expect the idea of us all existing together to be defined by light, force and information carriers, and that one, or very similar, was first suggested by SoulSurfer, if I remember right? As soon as I read it I realized that his way of looking at it simplified a lot of things for me, and recently I have found that what I call 'paths', defining 'relations', are much more to my taste than using dimensions. Both of those fit each other, and my thinking, although it has taken me a long time to free myself from dimensions. Because we have them :) And they, as much as 'c', define the universe locally and globally.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 17:04:20 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #882 on: 15/04/2013 15:35:00 »
So using this way of thinking I'm slowly moving away from what we see, to something existing in the same 'imaginary space' as 'constants' exist in. What Einstein liked to think of as his fifth dimension maybe? I don't know, but I can see why he wanted it. And I want it too. If we use 'paths', and look behind what we find to be matter, and possibly also use the idea of fields(?) to describe a universe, then dimensions becomes a expression defining us, and the universe. It's just one limitation more.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #883 on: 15/04/2013 15:41:52 »
and thinking of a universe in terms of limiting us makes 'emergences' and 'symmetry breaks' very plausible to me. It also fits with the idea of 'micro states', at least as I think. And I need fractals.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #884 on: 15/04/2013 15:45:55 »
That's also why I'm asking if someone has another idea, simplifying the process from 'simple to complex'. And as I do not use arrows, jumping forth and back, instead expecting it to point one way solely this process need to be explained in as simple a 'initial state' as possible, although leading to complexity. And that is what fractals do, as far as I know?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #885 on: 15/04/2013 15:59:51 »
And as relativity question both distance and time, defining it as local expressions, I accept that. Einstein was right, as in most things I've read about. (and that people stole and run around with his brain, without any consent, is a sacrilege to me. Reminding me of the dark ages. We should be better than that by far, but we're not. We're still thinking in archetypes.)

I'm not twisting his theories, just looking at it from locality.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #886 on: 15/04/2013 16:09:15 »
Using dimensions you lock yourself up. Using 'paths', or loops, or strings and branes, you open up for new ideas. They are not what we see, but assuming they can exist the question should be why we find dimensions to exist, and what they signify? I'm not partial to a holographic universe (yet:) so I need some other explanation to why observer dependencies, coming from 'c' exist. But the idea of 'paths' serve me well there, as they allow me to ignore dimensions, and using 'relations' to define processes, as well as those paths, you can connect whatever sinks you like to a source, as long as it has a logic and fit my presumptions, or archetypes.

Because I have some. And they are called constants.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 16:13:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #887 on: 15/04/2013 16:14:49 »
So maybe the best question is.

Do you think constants exist? If you think they do, what do they signify?
The limits of a symmetry break?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #888 on: 15/04/2013 16:31:54 »
One more thing, using Planck scale as one limitation, 'c' definition as a 'speed' as another, we find ourselves in a universe that is what I call 'plastic'. It adapts to observer dependencies. And then thinking of a inflation, black holes, accelerating expansion, and what more?

Scales.

We have a universe that won't fit the Newtonian definitions, although those are what we still use, normally. A relativistic regime is also connected to temperature, 'relative motion' and definitely accelerations, 'energy' and 'mass' relativistic and proper. But it exist now too, being at rest with Earth, if you just use scales.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #889 on: 15/04/2013 17:47:43 »
I wrote "I expect the idea of us all existing together to be defined by light, force and information carriers, and that one, or very similar, was first suggested by SoulSurfer, if I remember right? As soon as I read it I realized that his way of looking at it simplified a lot of things for me"

You don't need dimensions for that, you need paths and a arrow defining lights 'rhythm'. Because either you define it as 'propagating' in which case both QM, and Relativity, becomes mysterious, with the duality existing, and different camps defining it as having a origin either as 'photons' or 'waves' or 'fields with excitations'. Using light as a clock you can allow it to 'propagate' as one definition, but also assume that you don't really need one. As long as it follows the logic we find from defining a propagation, and sources and sinks. Using that you also can define the duality as belonging to the circumstances defining the measurement. Because you and your equipment, and the way you set it up, are part of the measurement as I think. All relations defining it are. And to my mind there also is a fractal pattern to it, although I don't see how to describe, or define, that one. But there should be, in my mind.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #890 on: 15/04/2013 18:11:07 »
From that point of view a 'weak measurement' becomes just another way of arranging circumstances under a arrow. And it won't prove a thing, more than you can arrange a experiment to any satisfaction. Or if you like, it proves that there still is a logic, however you measure. Direct (local) measurements are more valid as stepping stones for ideas than 'weak' in my eyes though, but that is me.

Although, if your local arrow being equivalent to 'c' would be correct, can either be seen as a definite proof? It's a logic puzzle where all experiments outcomes, weak and 'strong' (direct, locally defined) just would describe the relations defining them.

So, if the arrow is what I propose, do you find repeating several 'identical' weak experiments under it to come closer to a 'truth', than making a single 'strong' one?

And from probability then?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #891 on: 15/04/2013 18:20:18 »
It also has to to do with those four dimensions we define. In relativity, and as I read it, they are one thing, So using this as a stepping stone, no 'weak experiments' can ever be defined as 'identical'. although using light as a 'clock' and defining it such as it will be the relations defining a outcome, light giving you a same pattern each repetition, you may be able to define them as being 'identical', assuming that all things involved are. Because then you can keep the cake, and eat it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #892 on: 15/04/2013 18:45:03 »
can scaling something be defined as a fractal behavior?
=

If you stop thinking in terms of matter and space, instead defining patterns, to what we observe. Is there a smallest scale for those patterns, and what would you think their constituents to be?
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 18:48:58 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #893 on: 15/04/2013 19:11:14 »
can scaling something be defined as a fractal behavior?
=

If you stop thinking in terms of matter and space, instead defining patterns, to what we observe. Is there a smallest scale for those patterns, and what would you think their constituents to be?
Spheres of Planck dia.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #894 on: 15/04/2013 19:35:44 »
Maybe?

I was thinking of light myself, but that is a dimension less quantity.
Although it fits 'paths'

But yeah, I don't know, the universe we have is presumed to break down at Planck scale, becoming infinites.
Wish I knew that one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #895 on: 15/04/2013 19:56:10 »
Maybe?

I was thinking of light myself, but that is a dimension less quantity.
Although it fits 'paths'

But yeah, I don't know, the universe we have is presumed to break down at Planck scale, becoming infinites.
Wish I knew that one.
Light does propagate from it's source outward as waves, similarly we view a sphere with a center having various paths from this point outward. Maybe these fractals you speak of are only the geometric possibilities that the geometry of a sphere structurally resembles?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #896 on: 15/04/2013 20:08:47 »
Depends on how you define it Ethos. Myself I was long attached to the idea of discrete light quanta, still is at times :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #897 on: 15/04/2013 21:12:12 »
You know. I've been thinking about spin. I guess we all do when we dive deep enough, oxygen disappearing etc :) The spin of a electron is defined as, classically described, being faster than lights speed in a vacuum (around 100 times greater than 'c'). And that one goes a long way back if I remember right? So where is that 'spin' situated, the whole electron, or just a part of it, and could one give it a 'scale'?

A electron is approximately a point particle, maybe definable somewhere down to a limit of 10^-18 meters, possibly?
A Planck length is equal to 1.616199(97)10−35 meters

So, and don't take me too seriously here. could one use scales and spin, for defining where our descriptions lose coherence? and yeah, I need to think about that one, a lot I guess :) And then we have HUP too complicating the picture. But it would be nice to define some limit for where particles start to do 'impossible things', as having a full rotation of twice 360 degrees. Then again, maybe it really is a 'point particle', which then handsomely would explain its behavior, as it then 'breaks down' from any realistic physical description. Against that is the fact as we have 'photographed' it in a fashion, finding it to present us with a size?

« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 21:14:55 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #898 on: 15/04/2013 22:35:55 »


A electron is approximately a point particle, maybe definable somewhere down to a limit of 10^-18 meters, possibly?
A Planck length is equal to 1.616199(97)10−35 meters


Depending of course upon which shell we find the electron, there seems to be a definable size but from what I've read, the location of a single electron can be represented more like a cloud of sorts incasing the nucleus. Nevertheless, your question about an approximate point particle starts one to thinking. And spin, ...................that is one peculiar idea for us to wrap our minds around.

There are going to be many interpretations for the true geometry of a single electron. Just for the record, mine would be something like this; I see a point at the center of an electron with Planck scale dia. around which the negative charge spins creating the spherical cloud we observe as it's size. This definition is of course coming from someone who has never seen one and probably never will......................?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #899 on: 16/04/2013 12:16:09 »
I don't know. Either it is in a 'probability cloud' for real, or this is just a mathematical description stating that we can't pinpoint it, except approximately. I lend to the later myself as a movie with it 'moving' indeed states that something is there, even though I'm not sure what 'this' thing moving is.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."