[yor_on]

Now this was weird?
Same guy possibly.

and a poet to boot huh
=

Looking at the posts I lean to it being the same one, trolling or teasing?
But I agree, too long to read

[Geezer]

A certain robotic feel, don't you think?

I think we can do something about that. Would you like the posts evaporate? 

[yor_on]

Didn't think of that one Geezer.
But yeah, like some program generating words

Weird stuff huh.

[imatfaal]

Bet it's a bot.  First sentence or two are seeded from part of thread title that says it is a long post. the final ones are internet grabs on an essay on wilfred owen's futility (also from thread title).

Seems quite 'intelligent'  I presume no adverts were deleted.  I must admit if I were to test some form of turing machine-like bot that can add to a discussion, I might try to contribute to forums and see what sort of feedback I get. 

[Geezer]

That's a good idea. See how few words it takes to trigger it. I'm sure it will spawn a new ID.

[yor_on]

Ok, this is a summary of some posts I've written elsewhere.

First A Q about chaos-theory and entanglements That one leads to Quantum Electro Dynamics & Quantum-Chromodynamic QED/QCD.

After you read those you have somewhat of a foundation for understanding the rest.. I'm not saying that I accept all it says, or for that sake string theory as it is, but that have to do with my understanding of it, for the moment being, and that may change with time Lastly I would be glad if you read My view.

In short I see it as if we have two big structures. The first one is Space and that's made out of three properties, length, height and width. Those three are 'properties' not singular dimensions. There is a difference there.  Then we have 'Time'  and 'Times arrow' where 'Times arrow' will be the way 'SpaceTime' wrinkles. If you look at SpaceTime as I do, as a block of Jello, distance and time redefined by each frame then I think I'm correct? And the way I think of it is as if SpaceTime could be seen as one 'whole' surface wrinkling/bending upon itself, with the geometries of that forming both the arrow(s) depending on frame of reference, and matter. And matter creates and 'bend/wrinkles' even more space and time.

Looking at it that way makes for a very 'Aristotelean universe', as you then may define all you see as being uniquely adapted to your 'invariant personal frame'. But at least it's a 'point of stability' in a ever-changing SpaceTime.  But it all falls back to how to define those 'frames of reference' and where their limits are, if there are? In fact I would like to see the universe this way, as I think that is a key to understanding it. But those 'frames of reference' makes it a joke. We define frames macroscopically and they work, and I, I don't understand how they do it? As I as easily can change my perception to a 'smaller' level, and using particles mass and velocities/speeds inside my body find new and different 'time dilations'. Still, and as far as I understands it, If time always will be 'invariant', giving me the same heartbeats per minute by my wristwatch from my 'frame of reference' then that it is. And that 'invariant arrow of time' will then define all other 'relations' versus me.

The radiation you receive looking up will adapt itself to your 'frame' uniquely. The reason it does so is the way SpaceTime wrinkles and bends. That idea of two mirrors and a light-corn 'bouncing' in between describes time dilation as a effect of the distance created by the mirror-pairs motion, forcing the light-corn to take a longer path between the two mirrors. You can use it to describe all 'time dilation' as an effect of space's 'geometries'. Distance, as used here, is time too, and that's one reason why I differ the idea of 'time' and 'times arrow'.

So what is this 'surface' of mine, if it now would exist?

Well to get to that we might look at the gluon/quark interface, in Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), those seem to sort of replace, or at least complement, our ideas of 'virtual photons'. First of all we might look at the State of Matter. In it you can find references to the states we discuss here. To me it's also a question of 'sizes', like a fractal behavior of space and I also expect that what we have macroscopically is an expression of what exist at those most 'fundamental sizes'. There have to be a 'likeness', at least as I suspect. The LHC found some surprising results earlier this year when they created proton-proton collisions.

"In the new experiment, the CMS team took data on the charged particles produced in hundreds of thousands of collisions. The team observed the angles the particles’ paths took with respect to each other, and calculated something called a “correlation function” to determine how intimately the particles are linked after they separate. The plot of the data ends up looking like a topographical map of a mountain surrounded by lowlands and a long ridge behind it. In the most basic case the data looked exactly like the physicists expected it to. But in cases where at least 110 charged particles were produced, the team saw a funny ridge-like structure extending away from the mountain peak.

That ridge essentially means that particles in some pairs are flying away from each other at close to the speed of light along one axis, but are oriented along the same angle in the other axis. It’s as if two particles somehow talked to each other when they were produced, the physicists said. This phenomenon has never been seen before in proton-proton collisions, though it resembles something seen at RHIC (the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. That effect was interpreted to be from the creation of hot dense matter shortly after the collisions." Journal of High Energy Physics.

So, what do we see there?

Well,I have problems with the idea of 'string theory' but that comes from the proposed one-dimensionality it seem to build on. In my imaginary 'surface' I like to think that what we call 3D already are there being present, as 'properties'. You need to understand that I look at it as properties, and as such just as 'real' as the photons 'masslessness' should be That is, very real but in form of 'ethereal structures'. So i would like to see the definitions of what makes a 3D + time in reality only as 'two' definitions, one containing the three properties we call length, width and height. The other containing two, 'time' and 'times arrow' with the arrow being the way that surface treat us.

It solves two problems for me, the question about what the 'interfaces' should be seen as with strings and forces, also it allow time to be a 'whole surface', where what we call the 'times arrow' becoming the expression time gets as it gets 'wrinkled'. And I like that It's real easy to see that distance in some way also is a definition of 'time'.

First we should look at an experiment done in Finland. It's from 1996 and is very interesting. Take a look here Liquid Universe 1 and after reading that read this from 2004 Liquid Universe 2 Then read this The String Net Liquid Theory

When it comes to the way string theory expect several more 'dimensions' to our SpaceTime I think I'm fine with that, as long as they are defined as 'properties' not as 'singular 'dimensions' glued together in different ways. That one never made any sense to me as it introduces all kind of pitfalls in form of 'gluing' and 'interfaces' meeting etc etc..

As for my expected 'fractality'
That's just the 'simplest' way nature seems to treat 'growth' or 'simplicity to complexity' and I see no reason why it shouldn't do the same here. As well as chaos theory is the first serious try to treat SpaceTime non-linearly. And that's the way it works, just as our Earth, and your heart. Oh yes, the absolute '3D' we see, that I expect to grow out of a fractal behavior, so in a way we are all fractals.

It's not perfect, but I like it

[yor_on]

So what could SpaceTimes expansion be if looked from that perspective?

To me it has to do with 'times arrow'. If I assume that I can roll out that surface and from there both get a 'true distance' as well as a 'ultimate time' (not arrow, this is all about basics) then that surface is our home. Wrinkle it up and let the 'arrow' start and you will have a 3D universe in which what we deem as the 3D will be an expression from a fractal growth. So, on that surface I say that the 'properties' of what we call dimensions already rest, and I would assume them to have a different 'time' (or arrow possibly) than what we can see. There the arrow, if so, comes and goes with the combinations of 'relative mass/mass/momentum' created by the geometries wrinkling, and as they only will 'order themselves' to some rules mostly they will just 'fizz'. The surface I speak of is not 'one-dimensional', if you think that way you're still stuck in the 'ordinary SpaceTime', if I may say so

To me expansion could be a 'surface' that in some manner doesn't bound/wrinkle as hard as the geometries does where matter exist, finding nothing to create a arrow from, just fizzing. And as expansion comes out of 'nowhere' but instantly becomes a 3D expression in its growing in a sphere-like manner,bubbles on/in/around bubbles on bubbles ad infinitum, It describes my idea of 'dimensions' as intrinsic 'properties' perfectly. But then again, what about the space created by matter? We say that as matter, like a black hole, becomes the space 'expands'. But then again, I'm unsure if that is the right way to look at it. From you and your 'invariant time' assuming that you are in-falling and hold together neither your time nor your 'distances' will grow. What grows is the 'complementary distances' SpaceTime offers us when you compare your frame to another. So yes, space grows, and no, 'your space' grows not.

That is, assume you're falling towards the Event-horizon, you have another object also falling, so close to you that you started almost in the same 'frame of reference'. As you keep falling in you will find that the distance between yourself and that object grows the higher the gravity becomes as SpaceTime bends and wrinkle. And that's true, as far as I understands it, but is this the same as the 'expansion'? If it is we seem to assume that space can do two oposite things at the same time? Expand but only in space as ordinary matter have their 'forces' and gravity stopping that expansion around heavenly bodies/solarsystems/galaxies as well as 'expanding space' due to just gravity created by SpaceTime bending to invariant mass and motion aka 'relativistic mass/momentum'. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?

[yor_on]

I'm afraid that I didn't express the above too well.

My main point is that gravity dilate (expands) space.
You have an observer A and an observer B

Then you get yourself a 'gravity well' like a neutron star. A strong one. B goes into it, A stays 'outside' the gravitation. When they meet again they compare clocks. B:s clock will say 10 m. A:s clock will say 11 m. The time dilation seen can also be transformed into a Lorentz contraction, and is..

To A all things inside the gravity well will contract as he looks, they will be smaller. But to B the opposite will be true. From inside that neutronstar space will expand as well as all objects in it, so to him A will become proportionally larger. This effect holds true for all things you can think of as I understands it. A have an electric charge which he sends in to B telling him before what he measured, he then measures it again when it arrived at B, and finds it reduced.. Now we let B measure it, and he will find it to be the correct charge for what A told him before sending it to him. What A says the charge to have now B will find incorrect. He then sends it back to A and measure it after it arrives. He now finds the charge to be stronger than than it was when at rest with him.

As far as I understand this is true. And from that fact comes my argument that Space as seen from the inside of a gravity well will be larger. It won't change your 'invariant time though, but your relations, as to all other frames of reference will change. So to B space have grown. And from the inside of a black hole it could be light years, or greater, depending on how close you are to the singularity's center.

Then you take the statement that 'Space expands'.

It does so only when outside of the forces keeping matter 'together'. It also seems to avoid 'gravitation' as we don't see it inside Galaxies but only outside them, as I understands it. So now we have the oposite effects that I was speaking about, acting simultaneously at SpaceTime. Possibly one might see the lack of 'expansion' inside galaxies as some relativistic effect created by the fact that we are like A, watching it from the outside of the Galaxies 'gravity wells', maybe? But we should notice it in our own frame if it was so, unless we all 'expanded', in which case there would be no 'expansion' to notice

So my 'surface' would somehow have to adjust for both of those effects to make sense, as any other idea trying to describe SpaceTime would too, naturally. If I now assume that this surface is a perfect supra conducting 'fluid' having no resistance, why would it build it? That seems to be the question that needs to be answered for space to 'grow'. Somehow it would have to arrange itself so that it constantly built a pressure 'pushing' space apart creating more '3D points' concentrically in all directions, somewhat like fountains inside fountains.

Hope I made the/my ideas a little clearer here.

[yor_on]

It’s been some while since I wrote anything in my ‘essay’. So I guess it’s high time :)Most of the stuff you see here being speculation, like my thoughts on straight and curved lines. I do think I have a general direction in it though. And if you find me making conceptual ‘jumps’? Keep your cool, I better warn you that this is an ongoing project, changing as I see fit, so don’t throw a fit And yes, I do have views. Oh, do I have views. . . Ahem.

Let’s start with a question. In what manner do we consider something ‘objective’? Take a scientist making an experiment, to make the result reasonable he needs to make it ‘repeatable’ under similar conditions, doesn’t he. So what are those conditions generally speaking? For this question I will define one important condition as either sorting under ‘acceleration’ or ‘uniform motion’? Not that we normally need to take that into consideration on Earth as the whole planet is approximately in the same ‘frame of reference’ ‘accelerating’ steadily (uniformly) at one G through space.

Yes I know, it’s not true, if we were accelerating uniformly at one G we should be all dead a long time ago from the hard radiation, but the equivalence is there as you can say that anything falling towards Earth accelerates at one G, and then swap reference frame with Earth saying that it instead is the Earth accelerating toward the object (apple) at the same pace. Maybe I should correct it slightly and say that Earth is ‘uniformly moving’ through SpaceTime, having a proper mass equivalent of one ‘gravity’ about. In fact it’s the premise for the equivalence principle. That a uniform acceleration at one G is equivalent to one G at Earth. That’s also why we needed a theorem defining ‘fixed stars’ very far away as possible ‘fix points’ for deciding who is moving relative whom. It helps us agree And the idea is naturally a ‘black box scenario, meaning that you wouldn’t be able to measure ‘anything’ coming from the outside, except the weight you will feel in your compartment.

When it comes to acceleration we have two subtypes as I see it. ‘Uniform acceleration’ meaning a constant G-force, and ‘non uniform acceleration’. ‘Uniform motion’ on the other hand is any uniform motion, coasting through SpaceTime, like a rocket dancing along the geodesics with its ‘engines off’.

Why did I add ‘geodesics’ there?

A geodesic is an idea of a shortest ‘distance’ between two points. In Einstein’s SpaceTime space is ‘convoluted/bent’ through mass and diverse ‘motions’, the ‘motion’ creating what’s either called ‘momentum’ (photons) or ‘relative mass’, those days mostly when involving matter.

Okay, If you now imagine an enclosed tube (rocket) ‘travelling’ you can get a ‘uniform motion’ different ways. One is by letting the tube coast, following the dips and heights of SpaceTimes geodesics, without accelerating, where you might defining your speed by comparing the tubes motion relative Earth. Or, you can by putting a spin to it, but leaving the tube ‘at rest’ relative Earth, get yet another type of ‘uniform motion’. Both cases introduce a ‘uniform motion’, but only in the case of the tube following SpaceTimes geodesics will you feel ‘weightless’.

What differs, as I see it, is the fact that our tube, ‘spinning’ around its length axel no longer follows any SpaceTime geodesic. You might say that its ‘uniform motion’ is ‘enclosed/ restricted’ in the matters rotation. So, are both ‘uniform motions’ then? I think they are? And doing it this way I seem to have created ‘gravity’. So what energy did I spend doing it? Well, in both cases, travelling following SpaceTimes geodesics and ‘standing still’ spinning I had to spend some, accelerating the ‘motion’. But after stopping both just keeps on ‘moving’, ignoring other gravitational ‘forces’ that may have an impact. Imagine yourself inside that tube, its diameter so large that the floor too you would seem as a ‘flat’ one. Does that mean that gravity implies some sort of ‘confinement’? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting thought. According to what I understand proper mass (matter) is what creates gravity and ‘bends the fabric of space’, that and ‘motion/momentum’.

Although, don’t we also say that space itself is ‘expanding’ in an accelerating manner? What should the frame-dragging be, created by matter evenly placed in a ‘still space’, as compared to the same space ‘rotating’ and ‘expanding’? Weird question Still, there could be a possibility of studying how celestial objects move relative each other and from that, possibly, also see what kind of frame-dragging SpaceTime as a whole have? Maybe using something similar to ‘Gravity Probe B’?

“Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a NASA physics mission to experimentally investigate Einstein’s 1916 general theory of relativity—his theory of gravity. GP-B uses four spherical gyroscopes and a telescope, housed in a satellite orbiting 642 km (400 mi) above the Earth, to measure, with unprecedented accuracy, two extraordinary effects predicted by the general theory of relativity: 1) the geodetic effect—the amount by which the Earth warps the local spacetime in which it resides; and 2) the frame-dragging effect—the amount by which the rotating Earth drags its local spacetime around with it. GP-B tests these two effects by precisely measuring the precession (displacement) angles of the spin axes of the four gyros over the course of a year and comparing these experimental results with predictions from Einstein’s theory.

I better take up Inertia too. Inertia is a gravitational ‘resistance’ coming immediately at a course change for example. Einstein said that both light and gravity ‘propagated’ at the speed of light, as I understands it exactly with the same ‘properties’ as light shows us too. He also said that gravity is like a very malleable web adapting to mass and motion, bending space. Ever thrown a pebble in a pond watching the rings spread? That’s your course change in space, and the rings moving out from the centre are your ‘gravity waves propagating’. Now think of those rings, turning the image around, rotate it in your mind, in all directions possible simultaneously, and you will get a feel for how those ‘waves’ move away from your centre. Then think of a spider web, how does the spider know it has caught a prey? That’s right, through the ‘vibrations’ travelling in the ‘fabric’ of its net, but it’s not really the web ‘moving’, is it? The ‘vibrations’ acts like invincible springs ‘pushing’ against each other ‘propagating’ the vibration. That’s what gravity is in space, our ‘three dimensional web’.  And that’s also why ‘inertia’ becomes ‘instantaneous gravity’ for you, if being at the centre of that course change.

[yor_on]

But that wasn’t what I was discussing. I was talking about what it might be that makes an ‘objective experiment’ in our eyes, and lifted up ‘repeatability under ‘similar/the ‘same’ circumstances as a primary. Then I loosely split those ‘circumstances’ into two general categories, acceleration and uniform motion.

Why?

Well, according to the theory of relativity there is only one ‘frame of reference’ that always will be the same for you, no matter where you are or what you are doing, your own. If you would measure a yard with your yardstick, it won’t matter if you do it being still in space or accelerating away near light speed.

As that’s the frame we all use when making ‘experiments’, no, not the accelerating one. Earth I was thinking of now, we should be glad for that. That all frames I ever will be in is equivalent to the frames you will be in, when redoing my experiment. You lend the rope you measured on Earth to your friend, he jumps into his rocket, speeds up and measure it with a his yardstick. Sure, he agrees to the same length.

But is that an ‘objective frame of reference’?

Consider that with differing ‘masses, speeds and velocities’ we would expect both time and length contraction when comparing. It’s only when comparing ‘frames of reference’ we can show them differing, but still? I think I easily could make an argument that the ‘real objectivity’ only exist in the act of comparisons, as we now know about SpaceTime’s plasticity. But if I did, what would happen to all those ‘objective experiments’?

Where would that ‘objectivity’ exist if I choose that answer? In a ‘mind-space’ it seems to me? Which brings me to a constant called Feigenbaum’s constant, it’s such a weird constant. Most of us those days know that we live in a non-linear world and universe. The Feigenbaum constant is a very interesting example to me, describing a mathematical ‘story’ encompassing all other indeterminate mathematical ‘stories’ in SpaceTime. A linear pattern unceasingly recurring amidst all that ‘probability’. You can find it recurring in the pattern of clouds, stock brokers charts, in most anything where we try to keep a ‘history’ of , with the ‘events’ making them up all being randomly occurring? That blows my mind away.

Think of it this way, we seems to live in a world of ‘randomness’ characterized by such phenomena as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle at a quantum level, ‘free will’ and ‘’blind chance’ macroscopically, and then suddenly there pops up a linear principle stating that out of all this random noise we will see a linear pattern? Yes, you’re right. I think both phenomena, macroscopically and at a Quantum level are related, our ‘free will’ existing as an expression of the same, or similar, principle as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, expressed through ‘emergences’. With both ideas introducing an ‘uncertainty’ to what a ‘position’ really is, as I see it.

“Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which explains the virtual particle phenomenon, is most commonly stated as follows: It is impossible to exactly and simultaneously measure both the momentum and position of a particle. There is always an uncertainty in momentum and an uncertainty in position. More importantly, these two uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero together. One consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that the energy and duration of a particle are also characterized by complementary uncertainties. There is always, at every point in space and time, even in a perfect vacuum, an uncertainty in energy and an uncertainty in duration, and these two complementary uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero simultaneously. The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that "something" can arise from "nothing" if the "something" returns to the "nothing" after a very short time — an interval — too short in which to be observed.”

“Many people would have considered it a flaw that there are no states of definite position and momentum. Heisenberg was trying to show that this was not a bug, but a feature--- a deep, surprising aspect of the universe. In order to do this, he could not just use the mathematical formalism, because it was the mathematical formalism itself that he was trying to justify.”

Just so you get my view right. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not state that with an ‘idealized instrument’ your observation would cover both a momentum and a position. As I understands it, it states just the opposite. Under no circumstances will you, ever, be able to cover both ‘momentum’ and ‘position’, or in this case ‘energy’ and ‘interval/duration’ of that ‘virtual particle’. End of discussion. This is to my eyes another clear proof of what we call matter, space and ‘particles’ as being something different than what we expect it ‘normally’.

[yor_on]

Now you might want to argue that a ‘virtual particle’ could have a measurable ‘duration’ inside Planck time, even though its potential energy then becomes unmeasurable. Enlighten me, how can something existing inside Plank Time, influencing ‘ordinary matter’ in measurable way, have no value for its ‘potential energy’? Also, please show me such a measurement made, in where you measured a ‘duration’ of something having no defined ‘energy’?

As for my use of ‘linearity’ and ‘non-linearity’. Linearity I see as a single outcome of an equation, or general question, observation, one and one becoming two for example. And linear is also like a ‘straight’ line, ending in one place. Non-linearity is then where your ‘answer’ becomes a multitude, ending in all sorts of places, indefinable without the use of mental, mathematical, ‘crutches’ of some kind. That’s when you’re ‘forced’ to decide the ‘answer’ according to the ‘history of outcomes’ formerly observed (probability), using what’s called a ‘best guess’. Normally this way of solutions is described in physics as ‘renormalizations’, using ‘cut offs’ as the metaphysical scalpel, narrowing a solution into linearity. Such a definition gives an ‘answer’ useable for most practical circumstances, although having no singular logical ‘true answer’, except under your mathematical constrictions.  And when it comes to speed contra velocity a speed is a distance measured in time without a defined direction, e.g. like light bouncing between mirrors. Velocity will then be distance measured in time keeping to the same direction (vector). As always it’s about how you narrow down and define a ‘system’, a single ‘light bounce’ between two mirrors will give you a velocity, two bounces added makes it a ‘speed’.

So why did I put those two concepts together? Feigenbaum’s constant and ‘objectivity’? Well, to me it seems as if there is two ‘realities’ coexisting for us. One in where we live practically, killing of our Earth, experimenting, travelling, using a ‘clock’, trusting it and our ‘distances’ to be the same today as tomorrow. The other ‘reality’ I’m talking about being more of a ‘mind-space’, created out of the relations we can observe comparing ‘realities’. Knowing those ‘relations’ we find a clearer image of what SpaceTime is, with one restriction. We won’t ever be able to experience it ‘first hand’.

Now, what is this SpaceTime? Is it made out of building blocks? And how big could they be? We have Plank size as the border limiting our observations. Anything under Plank size makes no sense to us, as all ‘physics’ breaks down at that border. So whatever we have it have to be at Planck size to become measurable for us. Not that we can measure at that level yet, but there are some interesting ideas for how to use black holes, as well as photons having ‘travelled’ very far distances, as ‘magnifying glasses’.  The first idea considers measuring the radiation from a black hole. As the light ‘bounce’ back from the event horizon it will climb a steeper slope the closer it was to the event horizon, and it will lose energy relative us observing it from outside the gravity well, and so become red-shifted, of a ‘greater’ wavelength. At the event horizon of a black hole all scales breaks down, and even the Planck scale will be revealed there, as only a ‘singularity’ can exists beyond the Event Horizon, meaning that we can’t get any ‘information’ from what’s behind it. But as light waves at the event horizon ‘bounce’ and climbs up towards us they get ‘magnified’ in their red shift, just possibly making us able to read its information about the Planck scale. The second builds on how photons will get treated by the ‘roominess’ of SpaceTime, depending on if SpaceTime consist of ‘discrete events’ or not. Neither of them has been made ‘practical’ yet, as far as I know, but they are really cool ideas.

I’ve been arguing for a ‘flow’, and not ‘events’ in SpaceTime, and I still do so. The ‘arrow of time’ is what we use to observe. We split that ‘arrow’ into even parts using ‘clocks’, and by that we measure. The fastest clock I know us to have is radiation, and when we talk about that we have the duality principle telling us that light can be seen both as a wave and as ‘singular’ photons. So take your pick I suspect that there are a lot of historical reasons, as well as the way Earth treats us that makes us expect ‘reality’ be ‘events’. Reminding me of an axiom, or ‘archetype’ as I call it. Nature have seemed as a very ‘linear’ thing to us for a long time.

One way to see it is to take a look at what limit our observations, Plank Size. I said that it’s a limit to our measuring, that means that we can’t speak of anything smaller, not even theoretically. “Physicists sometimes humorously refer to Planck units as "God's units", as Planck units are free of arbitrary anthropocentricity. Unlike the meter and second, which exist as fundamental units in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level.” So maybe it all becomes a word-game in the end. But to me there is an important difference between what we find the ‘limit’ for us measuring and what ‘exists’. Assume that strings, loops, or similar are a correct description of the ‘shapes’ making out our SpaceTime. Also assume that they at the Planck level forms the ‘building-blocks’ creating our ‘room’. Where do they come from? To assume that they just ‘exist’ by some ‘divine accident’ makes no sense, if you’re not religious of course.

But if you think of the ‘thingies’ we observe under our ‘arrow of time’ as being ‘relations’ instead of as ‘objects’ you get another and better question. How can something being a flow express itself as matter, space and light? Through the way it relates to itself I believe. If you imagine a fluid you can have pressure zones and pressure ridges in it, it’s not in any ‘uniform motion’ even though the waves roll one way, there is always turbulence to it. Imagine points in SpaceTime experiencing that pressure, and then stop thinking of them as ‘points’. They are the ‘objects’ and ‘thingies’ we measure. And calling them ‘relations’ is the correct expression too if you look at Einstein’s SpaceTime. There are no ‘forces’ except in the limited sense of something happening inside an ‘arrow of time’ creating an observable outcome from the relations ‘surrounding it’. Quite simple I think? And thinking of SpaceTime’s ‘thingies’ like that you find what I call a ‘flow’, as well as your ‘discrete building blocks’. The thing differing them if they are under or over Planck size. If over Plank size we can measure them and so become ‘discrete events/objects’. Under, never.

[yor_on]

And now we are back at my first question, and the way I split it into two ‘realities’, naming one the ‘mind-space’. To me this ‘fluid’ exist at that same ‘level’ as I think ‘Feigenbaum’s constant’ does, and is to my eyes maybe the ultimate resting place for that ‘mind-space reality’. We have other borders too of course. One is how lights speed in a vacuum will be the same, no matter from where you send it out. You can be on a speeding star-ship, or on Mars, or have observers at both places while releasing that ‘photon stream’. All will report the same velocity. It’s a border. The way your distance shrink with speed/velocity? It’s a border.  Plank measurements? It’s a border. And they all define and keep together one little thing, us.

Let us look at a circle. Like a round ring drawn on paper. So, what is it? Would you agree to it being possible to describe as an ‘infinite’ amount of extremely short straight lines, slightly angled relative each other, forming that ‘ring’?  Can I turn it around then? Saying that a straight line is an infinite amount of, extremely short, curved lines? In a way you can, it’s all a question of magnification, like you standing on Earth, assuming it ‘flat’. But where I would have to magnify that circle up to infinity to see that it become made out of ‘straight lines’ I would have to decrease it enormously to make my bent lines into straight, Earth is not good enough for that really as we all will see that it’s bent just by looking from a height or a ships mast sticking up at the horizon, coming towards us on the ocean. So, do both exist, or is there only one of them existing, and if so, which one? If there only was one, then that would tell us something about our ‘focus’, wouldn’t it? So they become opposites.

And then we have ‘rings’ in themselves, you might want to define them as objects on their own, with bent and straight lines of their own. If you do we will now have three ‘axiomatic shapes’, or ‘archetypes’ to play with. If SpaceTime is a ‘construction’, which I truly believe, consisting of some sort of ‘shapes’ that create us in their further relations, which of those shapes do you prefer? The first, two, or all three? It all goes back to how you expect everything to ‘start’. In my ‘mind-space’ they have no ‘shapes’, only the relations can have that. A shape is created out of ‘distance’ and ‘distance’ comes to exist at ‘Planck size’, not before.

So what is this ‘distance’? SpaceTime gets defined by its ‘arrow of time’. Motion is a ‘distance’ measured in ‘time’. Both of those properties are ‘plastic’ with SpaceTime becoming like a block of Jello that, depending on ‘speed, velocity and mass’. will add or subtract ‘size/distance’ and ‘time’. Plasticity is the right word here.

I differ between ‘time’ and ‘times arrow’. ‘Time’ is an unformed ‘something’ without an ‘arrow’ pointing, existing everywhere in SpaceTime as a property. The ‘arrow of time’ is when you have a temporal direction. That arrow might also be read as going both ways at a quantum level, then making it more of a unformed block of ‘time’ to me having a timely ‘distance’ in the mind-space. The ‘arrow of time’ will have the same ‘duration’ for you in every ‘frame of reference’ you measure, although when comparing your ‘duration’ to what others measure their observations might differ from yours.

Furthermore, to me ‘distances’ changing reminds me more of  ‘magnifying or receding effects’ perceiving SpaceTime. You can get an analogue to it looking at a Mandelbaum fractal on your computer. As you ‘magnify’ the fractal it comes back the same, in ‘distance’ you have travelled millions of ‘times’ magnifying it but it still present you with the same ‘image’. That’s more how I expect a ‘distance’ to be than how we describe and perceive it normally. Hurt your brain? No surprise, mine hurts too

That’s also why I call it the ‘mind-space’, because it’s only when comparing and looking at how abstract relations change we observe those things. And it has nothing to do with us being in a ‘twentyeleventh dimensionality’ where only three, and times arrow, is visible to us halfblind bas**s It’s not about dimensions, well maybe they have something to do with it too, but I’m guessing it’s also about the restrictions laid upon us, evolution to blame. If we accept ‘Occam's Razor’, namely ” the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. ” The way we perceive and handle information is constantly revised by evolution. The way we observe and experience things today is probably the most efficient way nature has to offer for our human needs. I suspect it’s not as much us missing a dimension or two as our brains not being wired that way, and so that it has to do with human limitations. I might be wrong though, it happens

I like to think that SpaceTime in all its ‘points’ have a ‘property’ of three-dimensionality instead. I’m using ‘points’ here not as isolated ‘events’ but as a description of the whole ‘area’ of SpaceTime. And I differ that from the idea of SpaceTime consisting of three singular dimensions that, crisscrossed somehow, creates our three properties of length, width and height. Treat it as ‘properties’ instead, existing in all points of SpaceTime, and everything becomes simpler, no interfaces needed, and no ‘gluing together’ of those interfaces. It’s about the canvas you draw your painting on. Assuming there are singular, lose, dimensions you automatically assume a background on where they ‘play’. My way the background becomes the ‘points’ themselves. Also it has an importance to how I look at ‘distance’.

What is an area? An enclosure containing distances? And a cube? The same from a 3D perspective? If distances are mutable depending on velocity, mass, speed, what will a ‘cube’ look like inside that ‘mind-space’ we have made? Like an area?

 But why do we see a three-dimensionality if it would be that way? I’m not sure on that one, I'm guessing it's partly ‘hard wired’ to some degree, but as for what more? There are actually theorems that I believe supports my twist on 'reality' here. Check up the ‘Beckenstein border’ for that one. It’s about the amount of ‘information’ possible to retrieve from the surroundings, for example, of a speeding star-ship. The information retrieved has to be less than a forth of the visible area expressed in Plank lengths. So what happens if you ask more ‘questions’ measuring, than there are answers in that ‘area’ well, either the area ‘grows’ or some of the answers that was there before disappear/change.

What’s surprising about the theorem is that it only discusses an ‘area’. It doesn’t matter if you treat it as a cube filled with ‘states’’, like molecules bouncing inside a jar. You can make that jar as ‘deep’ as you like as I understands it. As long as the area facing you is the same, the ‘information amount’ will be the same, meaning that the jar contain no more information depending on depth. Thinking three dimensionally we can see that that can’t be right, right The bigger the jar the more molecules bouncing and interfering with each other, and the more ‘states’ there should be. But the theorem is a valid one, even if weird. And it fits right in, explaining both black holes information-loss and ‘Unruh radiation’. It’s the kind of energy associated with ‘Rindler observers’ moving very near light, observing so called ‘virtual energy’ become ‘real’. The idea builds on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, telling you that you can’t measure both the electric and magnetic field of an electromagnetic field with absolute accuracy. When measuring one, finding it at zero, the other field will still have a possibility up to ‘limitless energy’. And that’s where the ‘Unhru energy’ comes from, your acceleration acting as your ‘engine of detection’. Another question here might be how great that, for you measurable, energy might become? Greater than the energy you expended in accelerating that rocket? Don’t seems reasonable, does it? Think about it And that’s what the theorem explains, amongst other thing methinks

But to us the idea of an area deciding the information seems slightly whacky, doesn’t it? Information, as entropy, is the sum of all possible states of a ‘system’, like that jar becomes in our experiment, or if in a binary system the sum will be its ‘bits’. But to say that this sum won’t change depending on the depth of our jar? You will have to take this one on faith for now, but it’s true, and maybe, just maybe it’s applicable to why distances change with speed, velocity and mass?

[yor_on]

Looked on the net and found this PDF discussing 'Gravity, Black Holes, and the Very Early Universe'. It also gives a nice description of Bekenstein's idea at 'page 95'. Gravity, Black Holes, and the Very Early Universe. For those of you wanting a shorter presentation, you can take a look at Bekenstein bound

Let’s put some distance on distance for a while and look at light instead.

Tell me, does light really need ‘distance’? According to the theory of relativity I don’t think it does as it’s ‘time-less’ intrinsically, as well as ‘mass-less’. And if it has no intrinsic ‘clock’ ticking, where do it find the ‘distance’ to ‘propagate’ in? How can it be ’ time-less’ and still inside our distances? Our photon should have severe difficulties noticing SpaceTime as there is no 3D-distance involved from its perspective. The weirdest thing is that it hasn’t, every time you look yourself in the mirror you se your face, no matter your spaceships ‘velocity’ And, if mass-less, would it in a universe of light exist any ‘times arrow? Where, if so, does it get its clock from? There would still be a  ‘momentum’ able to ‘push’ on’ matter’ of course, by some seen as a ‘equivalence’ to mass, but let’s get one thing straight. I don’t see how you think a photon ‘mass less’ particle if you assume it to have a mass? And as I asked, a clock too? Also considering that all particles of ‘rest mass’ needs to be under that ideal ‘speed of light’ we’ve formerly assumed with the photon if so.

The idea of ‘momentum’ is close to how I think of a ‘force’, especially when considering that photons in mainstream physics are expected to be ‘mass-less’. To me a ‘force’ is similar to the concept of ‘energy’. Photons, also called ‘point particles’ as we expect them to take no ‘place’ in SpaceTime are able to be super-imposed upon each other in infinity.  Now, if we want to see a photon as having ‘proper mass’ like matter, or ‘rest mass’ as it’s called when discussing single particles, how the he** can it be super-imposed? Shouldn’t that mean that ‘proper mass’ could be super-imposed too? And if you don’t think so, why, what’s your reason for saying it can’t? I’ve never heard that one proven experimentally? In fact, the ‘Pauli exclusion principle’ strictly forbids it “No two electrons or protons or neutrons in a given system can be in states characterized by the same set of quantum numbers” meaning that all particles made of ‘rest mass’ need its own unique place in any ‘space’ to be considered matter. So assuming that a photon have a rest mass you would also need to disallow the Pauli exclusion principle, proving it wrong.

And to me it makes the difference between matter and light very muddy indeed if I would treat photons as having a ‘rest mass’. You can look at it this way. If a photon has a ‘rest mass’ it should obey the laws of matter accelerated to the speed of (mass-less) light, or as close to that ideal as it can come, right? And if so, shouldn’t that photon see the universe die before ever finishing any interaction? I’m now arguing that a photon in its ‘interaction’ could be seen as needing a ‘clock’. You might consider it getting ‘synchronized’ to the same ‘frame of reference’ as what it’s ‘interacting’ with. Also, how can an object of rest-mass be without ‘acceleration’? But being at that ‘ideal speed’ shouldn’t the photon/matters ‘intrinsic clock’ be of a too short interval for it to have an interaction? Or is the transition from ‘rest-mass photon’ to ‘energy’ instantaneous? How can that be? And if it can, what does that do to the idea of measurable ‘events’? Are photons an exception from the idea of ‘events’? Assuming a ‘times flow’ makes more sense if so. As you otherwise would need to define the smallest amount of an ‘event’ as ‘instantaneous’ which to my ignorant eyes brings it into a flow ‘instantly’?  A simple way of relating the strange effects a photon with rest mass should have is to consider the idea of them getting superimposed. If all photons would become superimposed upon each other, they then should have an ‘infinite’ gravity, still without taking any ‘place’? What would the geodesics end in? Also considering that they should feel an added ‘attraction’ which should make it possible for them to form their own ‘black holes’ possibly?

The ‘equivalence’ we state between matter and light seems all to talk about that strange transformation of ‘energy’ to me, yet not stating them to be ‘the exact same’. So, can matter be light? Well yes, if transformed it can be. And light can then become matter? Well yes, under very high energies you might create a few ‘particles’ that we consider having a ‘rest mass’. But there is nowhere, in any experiments I know, anyone having created even the smallest piece of ‘lasting real matter’ like a stick or a rock from light, except as, quickly disappearing, ‘particles’. And as far as I know, not even the strongest sun can create anything more than singular ‘particles’ containing rest mass. So, no, as I see it there needs to be something more for light to transform into a real ‘lasting’ piece of matter. If I got the Big Bang correct there had to be a moment of ‘light’ transforming into particles of rest-mass, but then we’re also talking about a SpaceTime that was very ‘confined/compacted’, as I understands it?

The interesting thing, if you look at it like me, is not the opposites represented by light versus matter, more what join them together. And that to me seems to be that they both can ‘push’ on things, like a bowling ball does, or like a ‘light sail’ may be ‘pushed’ by the rays of the sun. When we discuss the property ‘pushing’ in matter we call it ‘kinetic energy’, and when we speak of photons it’s called ‘momentum’, well, as I understands it. There is also the expression ‘relative mass’, but that’s not used as much for light as it is for matter ‘speeding away’. Kinetic energy, momentum, relative mass all have a common nominator though, if you’re seeing light as ‘propagating’. They all have a direction/vector in which they move, defined by the source, and they can all be defined as having a speed, meaning that they in some manner use a ‘clock’, as speed only exist as the relation between a ‘distance’ and a ‘clock’. But wasn’t a photon intrinsically time-less? Where does it get that ‘clock’ from? From me, watching an interaction? That one seems a true mystery. You might use it as a proof of light propagating though, stating that the suns rays ‘pushes’ the light-sail in a certain ‘direction’, proving the rays to come from a common source as you trace the direction backwards, and so also have a propagation, the rays ‘moving’ from the sun to the sail.

You could if you like see the universe as a ‘holographic’ one, if you by that mean something not quantified as being ‘discrete events’. Binary we have those ‘bits’ of information, they could also be seen as ‘discrete events’ creating us. Not to me though, my universe I expect to be analogue, not ‘bits’, which makes a ‘holographic universe’ slightly more plausible to me as I imagine such an idea to build on waves. But, don't we find a lot of ‘discrete events’ macroscopically? You being one, and me being another, everything keeping its 'borders/shapes' constantly in 'times arrow'. So somewhere the ‘relations’ I expect to create us ‘coagulate’ into ‘states’ and ‘discrete events’ where each one are perceived as being unique. How it does that is the real mystery, in chaos theory those kinds of ‘emanations’ are named ‘emergences’, meaning that you have something with certain properties that through a transition suddenly begets new and amazing ones, like water becoming ice. You can’t lift a ‘liter’ of water with two fingers, but you can easily do it after it becomes ice.

[yor_on]

I wrote "Knowing those ‘relations’ we find a clearer image of what SpaceTime is, with one restriction. We won’t ever be able to experience it ‘first hand’." Why I think so comes from the way Lorens contraction and Time dilation seems to work. You probably know of it already, but if you didn’t? Take a look at how muon’s is explained. Somehow they hit our Earth, although they clearly are too short-lived to reach the ground. The reason that they still can do so is explained through ‘time dilation’ and ‘Lorentz contraction’.

But there’s a shifty little idea hiding in the explanation. About ‘frames of reference’ too, no less. You see, from the muon’s point of view there can’t be any time dilation. So, what the muon measures is the ‘complimentary’ Lorenz contraction instead, informing him that the distance he measure is short enough. So, if you was the muon ‘falling’ you would find your time to be ‘as always’, instead finding your distance ‘shortened’, making it possible for you to reach Earth in that short instant of existence. But, the same does not hold true for a simultaneous observer on Earth looking at you. The distance and time measured by him uses Earths ¨’frame of reference’, being ‘still’ relative the muon. Meaning that instead of observing a Lorentz contraction he will find the muon experiencing a ‘time dilation’, its time slowing down, while the distance he measures is unchanged between the muon and Earth. And no, you can’t just turn it around and say that it’s the muon being at rest versus Earth rushing towards it. You can use the idea of very distant stars, becoming a kind of ‘still border’ to us, to see what moved relative what, showing the ‘perpetrator’.

Kind’a weird, any way. To me it states that we never will be able to observe both phenomena simultaneously. Depending on the ‘frame of reference’ chosen, your own or someone else’s, you can only confirm one of two things, a time dilation or a Lorenz contraction. Thinking of it, it does make some sense How would the universe look if I could experience a ‘time dilation’ first hand? And what should I measure it against? My wristwatch? But that ‘clock’ is on the same rocket as me, isn’t it? But, if I use someone else’s ‘clock’ then, outside my ‘frame of reference’, like one on Earth? Well, then I’m ‘importing’ someone else’s ‘frame of reference’ and when comparing I will find Earths clock to ‘go wrong’ if compared to mine.

So, tell me, which ‘clock’ should I believe in? 

Another thing, remember my discussion about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and those macroscopic ‘positions’ grounded in what we call ‘distance’? Saying that Einstein and Heisenberg in some weird way seem ‘complementary’ in their descriptions of reality? Well, it seems as if ‘Lorentz contraction’ and ‘time dilation’ also is complementary in some way here, doesn’t it?

Let’s get slightly original. How about saying that ‘times arrow’ only has one ‘speed’? The one measured by me, inside my own ‘frame of reference’? Just as you also will only have one ‘speed’ to your clock. And that this one will be as true when measuring QM as in our macroscopic reality no matter where those ‘arrows’ might point. That we might find those ‘arrows’ differ when comparing between different ‘frames of reference’ doesn’t invalidate the concept. At the same time as it makes a universe of no general ‘objective time’ we will still find one unchanging ‘arrow of time’. And what ever frame you compare yours to will, if you succeed to place yourself in it, beget the same ‘time’ as you have. The one I always measure unchanging in my frame, as you in yours. That ‘arrow of time’ is truly objective in that your decomposing or ‘entropy’ if you like, to you, always will take the same time, no matter where you are, on a speeding rocket or on Earth. There are people differing between ‘times arrow’ and ‘entropy’, stating that entropy is more valid as a description of causality than any ‘arrow of time’ can be. And it’s easy to see how they think if you look at what we discussed here. Entropy can be seen as all possible states you can get a knowledge of, in any ‘system’ defined, like all possible molecules states inside a gas for example, also defining the gas ‘energy’. Binary you can look at it as ‘information’, giving you one answer per ‘bit’.

But for myself I only agree to disagree To me the idea of a ‘arrow of time’ contains and covers all forms of entropy. You will always need a ‘clock’ to define your entropy changing.  There is no way I know of making a measurement without a ‘clock’ being involved? So even though entropy might give us a generalized concept, seemingly without ‘clocks’, it still has to be sorted under ‘the arrow of time’ to me. You could look at entropy as introducing a observer from outside our SpaceTime, somehow able to watch without being ‘involved’ in our SpaceTime, but as it introduces the idea of an ‘outside observer defining ‘reality’ it’s kind of dubious to me. And it also create a need of something existing outside our SpaceTime,  and that’s not proven in any way. Most of the laws we have seems to work on the assumption that SpaceTime is ‘self sufficient’ neither gaining nor losing any ‘energy’ but just transforming it from useable energy to unuseable. If that’s correct, and it makes for a very interesting idea then SpaceTime “manage perfectly by itself thank you” :)That’s the other way, to see our universe as a self contained ‘system’ in where all entropy observed is the result of relations between the observer, the observed, and the ‘clock’ aka ‘the arrow of time’. Also I’m not sure how I should look at the idea of entropy, as an all encompassing phenomena or as singular ‘properties’ unique to each case (frame) it acts on, and in? Most correct seems to look at it as relations, with each one being uniquely its own? Looking at ‘times arrow’ my way I believe I can use it as a ‘ideal description’, ‘ideal’ in a similar manner to how Feigenbaum’s constant might be considered a ‘ideal function’, not ‘materiel’ but still valid and ‘real’ mathematically, describing a measurable function of SpaceTime.

 Now, if we just could isolate those ‘transitions/states’, treating them like some ideal ‘events’ maybe? Objective isolated happenings with clear boundaries, then entropy might stand on its own, as well as the idea of times ‘events’ as opposed to times ‘flow’? But to me there still is needed some sort of glue to bind those ‘still frames/events’ into the causality chain we see. And as there are no isolated ‘frames’ to entropy, as far as I know, I expect it to be as everything else. Constantly transforming and flowing into new configurations seamlessly, and by doing it refusing to become your ‘Kodak camera’.

[yor_on]

I wrote "Kinetic energy, momentum, relative mass all have a common nominator though, if you’re seeing light as ‘propagating’. They all have a direction/vector in which they move, defined by the source, and they can all be defined as having a speed, meaning that they in some manner use a ‘clock’, as speed only exist as the relation between a ‘distance’ and a ‘clock’. But wasn’t a photon intrinsically time-less? Where does it get that ‘clock’ from?"

Well, I have a weird idea there.

If we go back to the pond with you throwing that pebble in it, watching the rings spread on the 'water'. Remember how we 'rotated it' to make those invisible 'spheres' depicting 'waves' spreading everywhere in a 3-D environment, out from a 'center' as we looked at 'gravity waves'?

You can use the same image to see how photons 'exist' inside SpaceTime. The first thing to remember is that a 'photon' only is known to exist in your measurement. We do not take anything for granted now, okay?

The second thing is if that is how photons 'exist' to us, my pond example could be seen as the 'photon' existing in that 'center' of observation according to the observer.

And the pebble?

It's no pebble at all, it's the 'relations' 'forcing' ( ahh, not too good an expression here is it the 'photon' into existence. Remember that 'my SpaceTime' is 'relations', possibly also able to be defined as our 'discrete events'. And the 'waves' is our 'information', telling SpaceTime of it's 'existence'.

Well, don't look at me that way, I told you it was weird, didn't I?

[yor_on]

Sorry, I forgot the conclusion

If that is the way it come to be then the 'clock' is ours, or 'SpaceTimes'? Depending on how you define an 'event.

One possibility is that 'events' need an observer to 'exist', now defining those 'observers' as all other 'objects or events' existing in SpaceTime. Which makes the 'clock' SpaceTimes as a whole generally.

Or the 'event' have to be defined by consciousness, which means that everything you see in some manner is 'created' by you, and you by me :)I prefer the first alternative myself. And remember that the 'information sphere' could be seen as an area, simplifying the relations considerably.

The third one, that they could exist without an 'observation' we already excluded in agreeing on defining a photon as existing only in its 'observation'. And yes, I'm including all 'particles' in this description.

[yor_on]

There is possible to make even weirder assumptions using this analogue of a pond, depicting an 'area', defining the 'information amount' any observer can have. Depending on your 'frame of reference' the information you receive from the pond might also define your SpaceTime. And if we include all 'objects/events' in that generalization then what 'creates' SpaceTime is all those 'observers' observing each other. And SpaceTime as a 'whole' will always have to be just be the amount of information defined by you, or me, or that stone, our 'networking' by light creating the 'real SpaceTime' we know of in our 'mind-space'. That means that we all are somewhat like search lights, lightening up 'reality' but also possibly defining that 'reality' as only existing in our 'shares', simplifying it even more, as information  only 'propagate' at light speed. But entanglements then? They do not contain information until 'observed' right? So?
==

As an example of the way I think you can consider yourself accelerating in a rocket. Only considering your own 'frame of reference', do your 'information pond' grow or shrink as you observe the in-falling light? 'Distances' may shrink for you, but does that mean you are receiving more information?

[yor_on]

Here's an introduction to The holographic principle. from Uppsala university in Sweden.
==

Reading it makes me wonder a little, maybe I'm wrong believing the Bekenstein bound to be applicable to a whole SpaceTime? There seems to be some limitations to it?

"Sad to say though, it has its limitations. In Sec.2.1, the conditions Bekenstein specified for the validity of his bound was not stated explicitly. The system under consideration must be of constant, finite size, have limited self-gravity and no matter components with negative energy density can be available. A system which satisfies these conditions will be referred to as a Bekenstein system."

Now I don't know, he goes on to re-validating the 'Holographic principle' with a new twist it seems, rather likable too

But I will need to reread it to see what I understand of his thoughts.
===

Remember that I'm questioning distance?

Thats one big question for me, making all those other ideas plausible.
And 'distance' is a 'metric' in physics.

Does General Relativity Require a Metric. I'm not the only one that have wondered about it then

[yor_on]

Look I’m not even sure where I’m going with this. I don’t know how it is with you but my understanding is rather slow It takes me time to assimilate; At times I don’t even know why I think as I do? But I’m hopeful that I have a master-plan, I just forgot to inform me, it may be that I’m not trustworthy enough? Ah well, miss understood again, and by myself this time!

Ahem.
So read it and have some fun.

I like the weirder ideas better though, you might have noticed? And yes, I do argue for a universe where light doesn’t move In my way that is. I started with arguing that distance wasn’t exactly what we thought it to be. And that one I expect Einstein and Lorentz to have proved. To prove me wrong there you will need to show me that those effects are mere illusions, and I sincerely doubt you can. The next step is just the logical one to me, if distance is a ‘variable’ and light get all those weird ‘properties’ in our observations of it. Why do we expect it to move? And now some of you will look for the men in white coats, but hey, I’m just trying to keep it simple

So, with the risqué of sounding pompous. If light refuse, absolutely refuse to move in ‘reality’, then why do we think it does? Because it does, naturally, to us it does, heh   And there they are, splendidly dressed in white coats and all. That one I will blame on casualty btw, aka our ‘arrow of time’. No, not those friendly men in their white coats, ‘motion’ I meant. It’s a marvellous concept, ‘motion’, it comes from those ‘distances’ and ‘the arrow of time’ when combined. And it creates a ‘room time geometry’ in where everything we observe can exist, as ‘individual’. Ah, maybe I should add that it creates a lot of ‘room time geometries’?

If you look at a ‘frame of reference’ you will find it a slippery thing, gliding through your fingers just when you think you ‘have it’. I don’t honestly know where  ‘frames of reference’, as we observe them, stops? But, as a guess, I expect it to be around that weird ‘Plank level’ myself. And according to me everything you see, or ‘not see’, have its own ‘room time geometry’. As those ‘frames of reference’ all must be different according to their motion and mass, from a QM perspective and ‘up’. I can’t see it any other way at least, and if you can? Please define where a ‘frame of reference’ won’t exist anymore conceptually, also where its ‘borders flickers out’ relative some-thing/one else.  It makes me head hurt, that one.

‘Frames of reference’ freaks me out

We have so many formalisms that we accept, transformations and equivalences that we observe, invariance’s, etc. Sometimes I wonder if those also could be set as some sort of ‘constants’, in some mathematical fashion? There are also those saying that you can’t join the idea of ‘discrete events’ with an ‘analogue’ universe. I guess they are right as long as we’re looking at defined ‘levels’ of that ‘existence’ (like defining ‘systems’). There seems to be ‘break points/ transitions’ though, where one emerge before the other. My guess is that it will be the same situation there, as the one in linearity hiding in non-linearity, that in its turn hides in linearity, which hiding in non-linearity hides in .. Ad infinitum. I suspect that if we just change our definitions a little, hopefully, it may start to make sense? Also, I’ve started to use the words ‘room time geometry’´, a lot, recently. It’s no recent fad of physics, but it breaks nicely with what rolls of the tongue all too easily, namely ‘SpaceTime’. And the difference is that whereas ‘SpaceTime’ is conceived as one big block of ‘jello’ for me, our ‘room time geometries’ are all unique. Why it is this way confuses me, but never the less, there you are And so am I.

So, if now there would exist a frame ‘unique’ to each one of us? Are we the creators of it? Maybe, at least in the motto of this frame not existing without me being there, it seems complementary to existence? So yes,  it seems likely that my ‘SpaceTime’ will die with me. But don’t we also have our own, and share, a ‘history’? And isn’t we all ‘related’ in that.  Like in my ‘history’ everything, and everyone I’ve meet, and every book I’ve read, every idea, breath I ever taken exist, or not, as you might see it   Before our books humanity already had a rich collection of ‘stories’, preserved by mouth. We still have that tradition going in some parts of the world by the way. Places where you learn your story ‘verbatim’, word by word, so to not ‘destroy history’ as you retell it. Bards and storytellers were the people keeping humanities common ‘history’ alive, a long time before any written word. So, we knew of the importance of preserving ‘knowledge’ before we learnt to write. But your history is more than just ‘knowledge’, it is also what defines you, now and here. And here I argue that everything have its own ‘history’, although it is most noticeable for ‘consciousness’, and then when ‘comparing’.

That ‘history’ is what we all build on, no matter your profession. Now tell me, where does it exist? In your mind maybe? I think so, and so our ‘histories’ becomes part of that mysterious ‘mind-space’ that keeps growing for us, and in where we expect all ‘true relations’ to be shown, sooner or later. Those that we never will be able to see in our ‘real life’. But is it the ‘exact same’ history we share? No, not really, every one of us living differs in what we perceive and in the way we assimilate it, even the ‘same information’. But we all like to think ourselves the epithet of truth and objectivity, don’t we And that’s probably why we need the concept of ‘objectivity’. But assuming that I’m right, heh, you will never find any ‘objectivity’ in any human actions taken, except possibly inside that ‘mind space’. And as if  that wasn’t enough, to get to ‘impartiality’ I would expect us to need something more, something not colored by subjectivity, emotions, greed and ambitions. We need a formalism excluding our ‘impurities’ so to speak.

And where do you think we can find such a remarkable concept? That’s right, logic. Logic creates its own ‘sandboxes’ to play in, all of its own. When in there you can construct a ‘system’, free from human emotion as long as it creates its own validity, as proven by those few, extremely well-chosen, axioms you flatten me with, that we all accept as being, well, rather axiomatic? Like one and one becoming two for example But we’ve gone a far way from that one mathematically. From simple logic like counting one, two, three, and many. Ideas that other animals seems to be able to formulate too according to some studies made, into ideas questioning it, and imaginary numbers, and linearity and non-linearity, and larger and lesser infinities, and negative numbers, and whatnot? And so finally into realms of ‘pure imagination’ where we, from our sandboxes, create valid mathematical proofs for things never, ever, observed in our universe? 

You see, I think our ‘axioms’ have changed slightly. Nowadays we place a he* of a lot more importance in getting them validated by observation (experiments) than in pure Platonic ‘axioms’. And that’s why I think I can argue as I do too, as I think we have observation supporting me That we created the idea of mathematics speaks volumes about our perception of ourselves, and our realisation of our own subjectivity. Without such a realisation I doubt we would have cared to construct those mental ‘sandboxes’ where we could test our ‘reality’ and ‘objectivity’. Why, we would be ‘right’, any which way, wouldn’t we? The ‘crown of achievement’ and all that.

So is mathematics the closest we can get to ‘objectivity’ and that ‘mind-space’ reality? Probably, I have difficulties imagining it any other way. Although mathematics is still just a tool, your tool. It’s you defining and probing its limits. But is it a valid definition for ‘reality’ then? Maybe, as it is an offspring from our common ‘mind well/ histories’ it has a strong relation to what we observe. And as it, as a logical system, will validate itself according to parameters we also find experimenting? That we in it also can construct universes we can’t validate, by experiments, is no shortcoming to me, more like a ‘validation’ of its ‘universal generality’. Furthermore, do you believe that ‘patterns’ can keep themselves and their origin ‘intact’ while evolving, changing biologically, DNA, RNA, a seed and a nut?

Then, how about ‘mentally’?
Can a purely ‘mental’ concept keep a pattern intact?
And that is the weirdest question I will have today I think

(Eh?  How does it do it? (So I was wrong, two, weirdest questions:))

Also, mathematics seems to find new ways with every generation, creating new avenues of ‘logic’ to explore. It’s the most versatile tool we own when it comes to describe ‘relations’. But is it the ‘truth’? Nope, not as I see ‘truth’. You’re the truth. You and your immediate life is the only truth that exist, my life, as observed by you is no ‘truth’ for you, as long as we don’t interact directly it’s only a part of a ‘history’ known to you, so in that motto we’re all islands. And even when interacting directly, we’re still just ‘relations’. Looked at that way, the only truth known can be your own thoughts, as every other thing will be a ‘relation’, touching it or not. And that’s really ‘blows my mind away’ That we all seem to exist, and are able to interact inside one ‘SpaceTime’, observing and touching. Trusting in each others ‘reality’ and our ‘common space’, at the same time as science keeps telling us that this ‘can’t be true’

And if that doesn’t freak you out, you need to widen your horizons, get out and smell the roses etc Also it’s a very good argument for us all needing to take a look at ourselves at times, to see where our ‘objectivity’ is taking us today.  Mine is taking me, somewhere? Nowhere?

Ah well. Think about it.

[cat_with_no_eyes]

What are you doing a pHD?