An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2903 Replies
  • 292860 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #900 on: 16/04/2013 12:23:50 »
You could see it as a representation of the possibilities of it existing, created out of 'forces' (it's neighborhood), materializing it constantly, creating something that has to 'move' in a picture. We just need to trust that there are limits to that motion, and there we have some definitions. But the 'spin' is another thing, I don't really think it is a spin myself, because if you consider that the motion (orbital, or possibly orbit) of it around a nucleus is under 'c', as far as I get, then why would a spin become over 'c'? After all, it's the 'same particle', doing both simultaneously?

But if it is a representation of forces creating it, how come we have 'free electrons'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #901 on: 16/04/2013 12:27:57 »
Still, if you accept the definition of no propagation of light, it being a rhythm instead defined by 'c'. then particles can do all sorts of things, as distance then becomes a artifact. But that one would be very tricky to prove I think. It's only indirect evidence I'm using for that idea, no 'hard experiments'. You might say my evidence are 'weak' :) But it do solve a lot of weird stuff, in my eyes. The two slit experiments for example will then be a representation of the logic demanded relative your setup, and circumstances defining your outcome. I like it a lot because it is simple, although its implications for what we call a 'common universe' are not.
=

But it does not explain what 'spin' is as 'c' still is the regulator. Although, if 'c' can be defined as one step at Plank size, you might be able to scale it up to a 'speed' at whatever size a electron is? I wonder about that one :) but it is one Planck step in one Planck time, so you will need add both, getting a distance relative a time, all scale-wise equivalent to 'c'. But it won't tell us much thinking about it again, it's just 'c'.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 12:46:40 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #902 on: 16/04/2013 12:53:40 »
Although it gives me, at least, an idea of a 'cone' represented from locality. Starting at Planck scale, all constants locally defined, opening up into a SpaceTime, mediated by force carriers (information), which I like. Very theoretical and ignoring comparisons for it. The comparisons are defined by the informations speed in that idea, and as that is regulated relative 'c' we have a universe with contractions and 'time-dilations'. but locally, as being at Planck scale, there is no 'speed' to be defined, just a clock.
=

You need 'something to move' to define that distance, and if one step is the smallest meaningful definition of a light-quanta it won't matter if it has no 'size'. You will still not see a 'motion' there, as I think of it. Or maybe you will? But only as something flickering at 'c', not doing a distance.

A very weird thought :)
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 13:03:06 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #903 on: 16/04/2013 13:08:21 »
Although, if we assume that what defines a universe is just frames of reference (circumstances defining your place in a common universe), the first definition, there being 'nothing' to be seen at Planck scale, still makes the most sense to me? But I wish we could 'see' at that scale.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #904 on: 16/04/2013 14:40:40 »
What this states is also that we should have two sorts of 'constants'. One type being 'intrinsic' more or less, as 'c' and the local arrow, another type being a result of frames of reference, defining our common universe, the one we define ourselves to live in.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #905 on: 16/04/2013 14:46:30 »
And then it either should mean that you can track those other to those I call 'intrinsic', or, that we have a imaginary space containing some more definition(s) of constants, that is just as 'real' and 'unchanging'? I mean, we have frames of reference, don't we? If now the only thing would be those 'intrinsic constants', where does 'frames of reference' come from? I think there are more constants to be found, also that those create the definition of 'frames of reference'. You can state that it is 'c' creating them, but not in my universe. Because I go out from locality, which is your local arrow of time, being equivalent to 'c', and I don't really need frames of reference for that. You might say that I turn it around there.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 16:32:45 by yor_on »
"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 #906 on: 16/04/2013 14:48:08 »
Although it gives me, at least, an idea of a 'cone' represented from locality. Starting at Planck scale, all constants locally defined, opening up into a SpaceTime, mediated by force carriers (information), which I like. Very theoretical and ignoring comparisons for it.
I was playing with the golden ration, '1.61803399' the other day, drafting these squares and rectangles together to form the spiral that some people think represents this unfolding space/time you're referring to.

I wish I had some way to graph this and post it here because it sounds very much like what you're describing. What is curious about the diagram is, while it is true a spiral can be drawn, one can also make a representation of ever increasing spheres, one within the other, all spiraling together.

If I had some way to show this and post it, I think you might find it very interesting.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #907 on: 16/04/2013 14:52:07 »
Thinking of fractals are we :)

Me too, but maybe it's better to call it patterns. We can assume that when using scales everything will at some scale become 'constituents', those constituents representing a pattern. Then introduce a arrow of time to change the pattern, will we find fractal behaviors there?

And 'free will' too?

Maybe that is the reason why I'm still searching for that perfect explanation for how 'simple becomes complex'. Because my definition does not discuss 'complex', not really. I use as simple concepts I can find for it, and from those 'frames of reference' becomes 'complex', although related to 'c', just as locality.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #908 on: 16/04/2013 14:58:51 »
I'm still wondering about what Pincho suggested, using fractal time. You can't use it locally, because locally 'c' and the arrow are invariants in my thoughts. but maybe there is some way to relate 'frames of reference' to it? I'm so unsure on that one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #909 on: 16/04/2013 15:01:33 »
There must be, if you define all local arrows as being the same. Or at least a constant, if I'm thinking right here :) a little like Feigenbaum's constant maybe?
==

Thinking some more, I think we need both. fractals are dynamics, just as our universe, and a constant? Well, it's a constant, isn't it?:)
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 15:06:12 by yor_on »
"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 #910 on: 16/04/2013 15:03:06 »
I'm still wondering about what Pincho suggested, using fractal time. You can't use it locally, because locally 'c' and the arrow are invariants in my thoughts. but maybe there is some way to relate 'frames of reference' to it? I'm so unsure on that one.
Truly, it's a shame that he's so argumentative. I've asked him many times to slow down and just try to explain himself a bit better. But he takes offense to any suggestions anyone offers.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #911 on: 16/04/2013 15:06:39 »
Well, he's young :)
"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 #912 on: 16/04/2013 15:08:21 »
Well, he's young :)
I wish I still were, just turned 70, what a bummer!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #913 on: 16/04/2013 15:10:35 »
Yeah, life passes fast, but thoughts can live on.
Heh, I'm becoming a mystic :)
"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 #914 on: 16/04/2013 15:15:43 »
Yeah, life passes fast, but thoughts can live on.
Heh, I'm becoming a mystic :)
Sounds like we're both becoming a little more philosophical lately. And I really don't have anything against philosophy, many times it's the Genesis of scientific thought. But I do like it when we find proof, then we call it science.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #915 on: 16/04/2013 15:16:59 »
My thoughts too, philosophy is what science builds from, then science change philosophy :)
"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 #916 on: 16/04/2013 15:18:37 »
My thoughts too, philosophy is what science builds from, then science change philosophy :)
I'm going to get with an administrator here and see if I can download these diagrams I've been working on. I think you may enjoy them. Talk to you later........................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #917 on: 16/04/2013 21:25:16 »
Don't read me wrong please. I'm not referring to frames of reference as unneeded. Those are what makes a universe exist. Using only some local constants you are in a vacuum, defined by some 'point'. But you can think of it from that point of view to see that there should be constants describing how frames of reference join each other. And 'c' defines the information between them as well as the local description.
=

And it makes me think of Feigenbaum's constant(s)
Because to me it has to be some fractal interpretation to it.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 22:20:22 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #918 on: 16/04/2013 22:14:33 »
The answer to how a macroscopic world becomes from a microscopic is called Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics. Now, it is hypothesis, or hypotheses,  naturally, but it also makes sense :) Well, some of it does. "Zeh (2003) argues from the notion that decoherence can explain ‘quantum phenomena’ such as particle detections that the concept of a particle in quantum field theory is itself a consequence of decoherence. That is, only fields need to be included in the fundamental concepts, and ‘particles’ are a derived concept, unlike what might be suggested by the customary introduction of fields through a process of ‘second quantisation’. Thus decoherence seems to provide a further powerful argument for the conceptual primacy of fields over particles in the question of the interpretation of quantum field theory."

So what would a 'field' be from locality, and, from 'frames of reference'?

I don't think I can speak of a field from locality? But from frames of reference it seems possible. because if you refer a frame of reference to some decided scale, then I would chose Planck scale.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #919 on: 16/04/2013 22:30:40 »
You need more than one particle to create a field concept as I think. I can't prove it but it seems as a proper stepping stone. One seems from many ways to be a meaningless description, one object in a infinite space, does it move? But 'one' also fits locality. And locality craves frames of reference, because it is from those we get that 'speed of light in a vacuum'.

Then again, I'm still not sure I understand what a field is? A field only able to produce a single particle in a vacuum, could that exist? If a universe can be seen as a expression of a wave function, then that wave function must contain everything in that universe. A wave function can also describe one particle though, so it doesn't help me.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 22:37:50 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #920 on: 16/04/2013 22:58:27 »
We define four forces, defining a particle. "the electromagnetic force (between particles with electric charge), the strong force (between particles with color charge, such as the quarks), the weak force (between all leptons and quarks), and the gravitational force (between all particles).

These forces are mediated by yet another set of elementary particles, the gauge bosons: when two particles interact, they exchange one or more gauge bosons. The gauge bosons include the W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak nuclear force, the gluon, which mediates the strong nuclear force, and the photon, which mediates the electromagnetic force."

So four forces. And those should then be parts of a field, with 'particles' being? "The Standard Model groups matter particles into three generations, where each generation consists of two quarks and two leptons. The first generation is the up and down quarks, the electron and the electron neutrino; the second includes the charm and strange quarks, the muon and the muon neutrino; the third generation consists of the top and bottom quarks and the tau and tau neutrino.

The most natural explanation for this would be that quarks and leptons of higher generations are excited states of the first generations. If this turns out to be the case, it would imply that quarks and leptons are composite particles, rather than elementary particles."
==

The Present Theory of Fundamental Particles and forces
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 23:05:11 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #921 on: 16/04/2013 23:13:07 »
So what have we in 'locality' then? We have a clock, 'c', becoming your local arrow, that also becomes a 'speed' when going up in scale comparing frames of reference. but we don't have a particle. Not if locality starts at Planck scale. and it is there it seems natural to put it, and a 'frame of reference'.

Which then might mean that a particle consist of several 'frames of reference', if you see my point.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #922 on: 16/04/2013 23:16:49 »
So maybe I'm wrong? Maybe one particle can be a field too? Expressing a (one) 'particle'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #923 on: 17/04/2013 10:21:32 »
Just want to point out one thing, I'm no scientist and this is thoughts :) I'm getting nervous here. Although I do take myself seriously on some things, what I write above are definitely thoughts, nothing more. But I got one more question, or thought. When you consider a light speed, are you also considering what presents it?

A boson right?
Something dimension less.

And we define some particles of rest mass the same, don't we? As 'point particles'? so when I define it to Plank scale, I'm already 'stepping up' from what we measure, instead using mathematics and logic to define a 'frame of reference', and a local arrow. Maybe that is wrong? Maybe I should look for it as dimension less quality? If you accept the idea of a field, would you define that as a dimension less quality, or property, too?

I really like the idea of paths, and relations.
It makes sense in my mind.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #924 on: 17/04/2013 10:30:37 »
It all depends on how you view a universe. I split it into frames of reference, treating each frame as unique, and defining the local reality, a 'multiverse' of sorts. And from that paths makes a lot of sense, and also the idea of us being like a 'bubble' inside something more, or maybe the other way around, everything that exist exist here, but we can't measure it. Because as soon as you let 'dimensions' go, you no longer have a strict definition of what a universe is. to expect it to have 'walls' of a sort as singular dimensions can only becomes meaningful from an idea of dimensions being 'real'. If they are relations to us, then they are real, for us, but it does not state that they exist, other as a description from where we are.

Why are contractions meaningful? Shouldn't a dimension be one thing, not many, measuring?
And why does your local reality define your universe?
Don't give me 'c', please, because none of us know what 'c' represent.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #925 on: 17/04/2013 10:59:00 »
And this, you defining each frame as unique, accepting accelerations and uniform motion to describe different states. Then a uniform motion really is 'being still', and a acceleration is its opposite, as it seems to me? Meaning that 'relative motion' only makes sense from that 'common universe', but disappear as a definition as soon as you define it as a 'multiverse', split into unique frames of reference, locally defined. And if you, as me, then also want to find out at what scale you can place that 'frame of reference'?
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 11:01:51 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #926 on: 17/04/2013 11:09:25 »
From that definition a macroscopic state of being 'at rest' makes sense to me, but to really make sense, thinking of it from scaling, I want it to be fractal. Can you see why?
=

and yes, this is more or less me thinking in 'ideal' terms. I'm not considering particles now, only being 'at rest' relative a acceleration, as some ideal states, defining a universe.
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 11:11:20 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #927 on: 17/04/2013 11:18:22 »
You can forget about energy changing in relative motion for this. Those are representations relative 'relative motion' and 'c'. But as I'm splitting all frames into unique 'universes', also discussing if a frame of reference can have a scale, you could see it as something dimension less. From locality we then get two new 'constants' of a sort, to add to a 'clock' defined by 'c', equivalent a arrow. Uniform motion, and accelerations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #928 on: 17/04/2013 11:45:52 »
Then we come to 'space', and here you better hold to your hat :)
As this won't make you happy.

Using locality, I do not need to fill a vacuum with energy. I think it should be possible to define it from the mass we see instead, Because a vacuum should then be a artifact of the 'common universe' we define us living in. In my 'multi-verse' though, and as strictly from locality as I can make it, I don't need it to 'jiggle', at different energy levels aka a 'Mexican hat', although I still need indeterminism describing it. Because it exist, just as dimensions.

It solves the problems I have with defining where the energy should be defined in a vacuum, in a acceleration. I like cutting Gordian knots, maybe a little too much.. This one is highly controversial though, and also very preliminary for my thinking, meaning I still need to see where I go wrong :) And there is no mathematics to it either.

But, if it now could be that way, would the stress energy tensor be wrong? Not from a common universe, as I see it. To me it has to do with that you can see a universe several ways. light is a particle is a wave is a field.. Three ways, none the ultimate answer, why not accept it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #929 on: 17/04/2013 12:00:48 »
This one also has to do with my definition of light 'not propagating'. Because, if it doesn't, what makes you think that it would need to spread 'energy' everywhere? Think of it as a pattern, with holes. The holes are 'something', they are where matter is not, but from locality? How would you define a patch of 'space' from locality? But if light isn't propagating you can imagine the arrow presenting us 'sheets upon sheets' giving us a temporal direction, each sheet giving us a slightly changed pattern.

Against this idea: light is a dimension less property. For it: light do have a energy, we still have to prove without doubt that a 'vacuum' has it too. Casimir force is not a proof, it could be a result of mass as well.
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 12:10:09 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #930 on: 17/04/2013 12:08:18 »
Those are most definitely thoughts though. Mathematically I'm very sure the stress energy tensor makes perfect sense, even though I don't get it myself. But it would make sense from locality too, you just need to exchange 'frames of reference' for a 'common universe' and it will be needed.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #931 on: 17/04/2013 12:21:31 »
Remember

This is just 'New Theories'..
So I refuse to be sued :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #932 on: 17/04/2013 12:36:37 »
And what would be local equivalence to that origin, filled with temperature and energy, before matter? Well, I don't know really, but I'm wondering about those 'micro states'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #933 on: 17/04/2013 14:50:42 »
Then again. Assume a Higg boson. We can't measure it, but we find it to 'exist'. There is no 'energy' measurable, unlike a photon or a wave, which we always will be able to define at its detection. From that you can assume a 'space' filled with 'energy'. And it fit's the idea of a 'field', although it makes it hard for me to define it from locality, unless I want to define a 'particle' as containing several frames of reference interacting in some way. I can do that of course, as I define it to Planck scale. But the energy must then become unmeasurable, only existing from indirect evidence. And there is one thing more, even though 'space' or a vacuum has no definition more than being a distance in three degrees of freedom, (and so possibly a arrow?) you can still use it to define yourself locally from it, relative the universe, or 'frames of reference'.

So maybe? I don't know. I would prefer it as it is classically described, something without matter and without resistance, a void. I don't find distance being the main problem there, but the idea of it containing energies. Because it fits badly with the idea of a 'infinite' space to me, and as I take observer dependencies seriously it also open for interpretations on how you will define a 'energy' to some defined patch in that 'common space' it assumes.
=

and yes, it also won't fit a expansion. Not if I define conservation laws as something belonging to a 'system'. You can make it open ended of course, meaning chaotic or if you like 'infinite' but that's not how I read it. "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves."

Isolated?
In what manner?
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 14:56:52 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #934 on: 17/04/2013 15:06:27 »
The point is that I believe in the conservation laws, and Noether's theorem. But with a expansion bringing in 'new energy' you will have to both redefine the conservation of energy, as well as you will have to accept some sort of enclosure defining your common universe, with the new space somehow welling in at all points (as I read it), 'gravity' and mass counteracting it, keeping their positions stable relative each other. You don't have a 'isolated system' from that point of view. And nature are 'open ended systems', that's the exact reason why global warming is so tricky to model.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #935 on: 17/04/2013 15:14:18 »
Take a look at the definitions of Conservation of mass and energy 

"The concept of mass–energy equivalence connects the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which continue to hold separately in any isolated system (one that is closed to loss of any type of energy, including energy associated with loss of matter). The theory of relativity allows particles which have rest mass to be converted to other forms of mass which require motion, such as kinetic energy, heat, or light. However, the system mass remains. Kinetic energy or light can also be converted to new kinds of particles which have rest mass, but again the energy remains. Both the total mass and the total energy inside an isolated system remain constant over time, as seen by any single observer in a given inertial frame."

by any single observer in a given inertial frame.
That's locality. And that's the only way making sense of it too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #936 on: 17/04/2013 15:16:49 »
Will this be correct assuming space to expand?
With new energy coming in to keep 'space' in a same equilibrium?

Maybe?
But it's no longer a isolated system.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #937 on: 17/04/2013 15:24:02 »
To keep it a 'isolated system' you will have to assume this common universe to 'loan' or 'grab' the energy for a expansion from something else existing? What would that be, 'zero point energy'? Nah, that's a oxymoron (contradiction in terms). We have two things, space and matter, so if it isn't space, from where can you 'lend'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #938 on: 17/04/2013 15:26:04 »
anyone feeling lighter, have the planet shrunk today? :)
Well, if we all shrink together then.

And that one can be seen two ways. Either that is the 'expansion', or it is the universe 'grabbing' what it need for it.
=

But, in that case, will all constants stay the same?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #939 on: 17/04/2013 15:31:15 »
I think that is the only case in where I would expect all constants to stay the same. But I'm not really sure if they would do that? Everything involving a constant would need to balance out for this proposition to stay true.
=

What about gravity, and mass? In such a proposition mass disappear. That mean that the gravitational potential must change, doesn't it? Even though you still will weight the same, assuming a balance, your mass versus Earths, shouldn't you still be able to measure a difference? Between 'heavenly objects' for example?
=

Nah, don't think that will be 'it'. So, where does it get this expansion from?
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 15:56:17 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #940 on: 17/04/2013 15:48:55 »
There might be one way though? Assume that with less 'unmeasurable' energy in a vacuum, you make it expand? But, how would that fit a inflation? And what would it do to the Higg boson, or field? Geometrically you have a expansion, taking 'energy' from 'space', not new 'energy' welling in. And in the Higg model that should mean a weaker inertia over time, if I'm thinking right. I don't believe in that one either.
=

But I still like it . .
I place that one in the same proud category as my idea of light being what give us that 'dark mass' :)
You know, depending on direction in a 'system'.
Heh.
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 15:53:11 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #941 on: 17/04/2013 16:01:16 »
I need to make this a SF, although fantasy's are more open ended, thinking of it :)
I will offer a limited pay for rent here. A franchise sort of :)

You give me money for a book, I promise to spend it. And, presuming all go well, in the end we can write a book about the book, I was meant to write. Eh, not by me of course :)
"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 #942 on: 17/04/2013 17:00:31 »
I need to make this a SF, although fantasy's are more open ended, thinking of it :)
I will offer a limited pay for rent here. A franchise sort of :)

You give me money for a book, I promise to spend it. And, presuming all go well, in the end we can write a book about the book, I was meant to write. Eh, not by me of course :)
While reading your thoughts yor_on, I've observed you beginning as a scientist, transforming into a philosopher, and now becoming a comedian. But the truth is, you did make me laugh my friend.

On a serious note however, I'm slowly being persuaded that you may be on to something. As time ticks by at the Planck rate, I'm beginning to see and understand the value of the fractal in all this. And while doing some math last night, I found a peculiar connection between phi and pi. I'm still trying to unify these figures so I'll wait until I've found sound math before posting it.

In any case, I'm now convinced that we live in a fractal universe and about this knowledge, I must confess, you deserve the credit for my transformation.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #943 on: 17/04/2013 19:58:16 »
Hmm :)

If you think it might be fractal, I'm sure you've been toying with the idea before too Ethos. what I write started from confusion, and considering it all, it will most probably end in confusion, so please, don't take it too seriously.

What I am serious about is the arrow and 'c' equivalence, and the idea of it being possible to judge all arrows as equivalent. the rest seems to follow naturally in some way, although in its own time, and for a trained scientist it will be no certain proof of anything, although I think it fits my thinking. And I argue for fractal processes, because I hope for the universe to have the good sense of not getting more complex than it needs. Just as we humans want it, at times at least :) Although, I don't think of a arrow in itself as fractal, I still see it as a 'linear process'. Processes inside this linearity are most welcome to present me with a fractal behavior though, and as it is processes that fills up, and define, a universe?

but don't expect me to make sense, even though I try at times :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #944 on: 17/04/2013 20:14:32 »
The thing is, were I bold, or crazy, enough to define it as a 'fractal arrow', I would also need to define a fractal 'c', and that one would most definitively give me a extensive headache. There are two schools (more, but for this it will be two, I'm lazy, no joke) about the properties of a arrow, as I think. One defining it from processes, one way or another. The other thinking as me, that there is a arrow, although I don't necessarily see it as a dimension, more as a major path, that you can 'stop', there referring to comparisons with other frames of reference, but not reverse.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #945 on: 17/04/2013 21:59:09 »
In a universe with both matter and space being a artifact we need Planck scale, and 'forces', or a field? And if we need a field we might need 'energies' too, don't we. energy everywhere, some defining matter, others defining 'space'. I need to sleep on this one, maybe it will make sense tomorrow?

Today I'm happy over my sudden understanding of 'relative motion' being a effect of 'frames of reference', 'comparing' each other, sort of :) because that's one irritation less for me. I hope i can limit it to uniform motion and accelerations in the future, from locality. also the realization that comparing energies in a uniform motion not being a answer to anything more than the fact that 'frames of reference' exist, and that we do compare.

It's rather small steps as I should have seen that one a long time ago, but it's hard breaking free from one daily observations, and there everything can 'move' relative something. Good on me :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #946 on: 18/04/2013 13:27:36 »
Nope, didn't become any clearer :)

ah well, if we think of frames of reference from Planck scale instead we get two definitions. Point particles and bosons being without a known scale, becoming one thing under that definition. And those we can relate a scale to becoming a other. Without size, no frames of reference 'comparing each other', with size 'comparisons being made'. Rather weird that one :) isn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #947 on: 18/04/2013 13:40:44 »
So, do a photon have a frame of reference? Depends, we see them, don't we? How else would we exist? But they are indeed 'dimension less'. We are, in a way, drawn out (painted on? Don't find the right word in English, in Swedish I would call it 'utsmetade' but?) on the 'fabric' of space time, just as a holographic universe imagine. there we become 'three dimensional' representations of a two dimensional reality if I got it right.

'Forces' filling us in? don't know.

From the point of a photon, we become something that have a beginning and a end, or just a end possibly. In this universe we find photons to have a beginning, and a end, but nothing in between, experimentally that is. We find the signs of a 'recoil' as a photon leaves although we will not observe the photon leaving. And we detect them annihilating. From that we assume a motion, even though unmeasurable. Using locality, ignoring comparisons between frames, we are left with what? Planck scale, isn't it?

So, is a recoil possible from that scale? Don't think so, you need 'composites' of a greater scale (atoms) to see that one. Annihilations then? No, and for the same reason. Where are the composites? light interacts with matter.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #948 on: 18/04/2013 13:44:28 »
And that might be 'fields'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #949 on: 18/04/2013 13:50:00 »
From that point of view you also get a cone, 'materializing' a arrow, following the scale, magnifying.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."