What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

  • 245 Replies
  • 62065 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #200 on: 03/02/2011 19:44:14 »
Ahh, then you and Geezer might agree?
Okay.

So what about 'gravity'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #201 on: 03/02/2011 20:04:52 »
Apples in Geezer's garden  are their quantity, but motion is not quantity of motion. Because the quantity of apples can decrease or increase.  Quantity of motion only increases.
 Here I am wrong,because quantity of  created apples only increase.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 13:45:06 by simplified »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #202 on: 03/02/2011 20:08:54 »
Try another example Sim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'quantity of motion'. Are you imagining the apples containing 'frozen motion'?

So if motion is 'time' and matter is 'motion' in some other state, what is gravity?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #203 on: 03/02/2011 20:48:42 »
Try another example Sim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'quantity of motion'. Are you imagining the apples containing 'frozen motion'?

So if motion is 'time' and matter is 'motion' in some other state, what is gravity?
Quantity of motion is time.Quality of motion is speed.I do not know what is gravity.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 13:48:23 by simplified »

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 363
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #204 on: 04/02/2011 22:20:55 »
I'll make a prediction. The speed of light slows as the Universe expands and has been slowing since the BB. The less dense (mass per cubic meter) the Universe becomes the faster it's clocks will run hence the slowing of c.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #205 on: 05/02/2011 01:01:04 »
Let's try a new track.

Assume that SpaceTime is a whole thing, whatever that means. Like some blob of jelly, in that blob we have four properties we can see. Length, width, height, time. Those four are needed everywhere.

Then assume that they have some sort of 'proportion' to each other and that by doing one of them you will affect the other. Like speeding :) So you speed away.. Now, three of them are interchangeable. Width, length and height are just names for one thing.

Distance.

Then we have 'two' things to look at. Distance and time. Those two combined will give you a position. to get the position you will need all three types of distance of course, but they all represent the same. You don't need 'time' for that, even though it is meaningless introducing a position without involving the arrow i believe you can do so on any surface/dimensions theoretically. But time will get introduced when you move, you can't move without involving 'times arrow counting' durations.

For this we also have to assume that none of those dimensions are special. So when you move you simply change the jelly, pushing three dimensions in one way, and time in another. Does this explain it? I can't say it does. It depends on how you look at the universe of course. Me, I look at it from expending 'energy' and from that view a time dilation, as it actually involves less energy consumed by one of the twins relative the other (Younger than) there has to be some equivalence to the 'energy won' by him, if you like.


But I also look at 'energy'  as something only existing as a relation to what defines it. You will get a 'time dilation' from gravity too, and as the 'gravitational potential' even might be outside the invariant mass in a complicated system, as a guess here :) I could be at rest relative some system in space, moving uniformly, still having a stronger 'time dilation' than any of those objects of invariant mass.

So where is the 'energy' in that? You might assume that gravity then is a form of 'energy' on its own. Which actually make sense to me :)

If you assume that infinite gravity equals timelessness then all gravity is a time dilation. But it doesn't take care of speed, not without introducing 'invisible/non existing' things like relative mass/momentum/'energy'.

And all of those need an interaction to be true.
==

There are two ways too look at it. From the conceptual plane you can define infinite gravity as being 'timelessness', watching the object hovering forever as it closes in on that center of gravity. Then there is the viewpoint of the object itself. There, as far as I understands it, times arrow never stops ticking, and what you observe as no motion, equaling 'timelessness' that object will see as both a motion, and durations.

As I said, no motion without durations.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 01:48:55 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #206 on: 05/02/2011 01:50:28 »
So what exist without needing relations to be shown? But before we do let's put down some ground-rules. Although everything may interact through radiation there is a simple and definite difference between that, and what we observe as being 'here' in a prolonged manner. And you just have to find those socks, just where you put them last night to confirm that(fat chance of that though:).

Distance? that one is really interesting. Is Lorentz contraction a geometric illusion or is it real. but still, even if Lorentz contraction exist distance will still be needed for matter, how ever contracted it might become. And that should mean that matter and distance have a 'reality', independent of anything else. So matter exist, and 'distance' exist, even though 'plastic', changing according to invariant mass and speed. What more exists independently? Light?

I don't think so myself. Light only exist in its interactions, that we find it to have a speed is not a proof of it existing independently. Remember that I'm speaking from the inside of our jelly discussing the idea of 'independently' here. Meaning that I look at what I could expect to exist inside without needing to be defined by anything else but as seen from the inside. I do have some other ideas about light, but those are not as seen from inside our jello. And I'm jumping between concepts the whole time, but I have a purpose with it, I hope :) Anyway, speed becomes, as we can see conceptually, only a expression of what frame you are in. Then again, we have one frame where times always tick, the one you exist in, and in that one speed must exist as long as you're made out of matter. But even so it doesn't prove that light has one, as you only can observe it in its interaction. Light quanta is not your socks.

There are two ways here of course. You might want to define it as the only thing being sure is those light quanta, as nothing can exist without them confirming it through their interactions, be it touch, looking, or measuring some other way.
==

So yes, in one way you can define both speed, distance and matter to have a existence 'independently' as they never, not even nearing a infinite gravity will totally disappear. They can't. That I define 'timelessness' as 'infinite gravity' doesn't mean that any of those properties can reach that state, from any frame. Except when compressing, aka a Black Hole that is. But not by speed.

What would happen if the universe suddenly got a infinite gravity? As far as I can see the whole universe would, from a 'outside' observer, contract, maybe under what would be possible to measure for that observer. What would happen for us inside that universe then?

Assume no new 'tidal forces' coming for it, would we all disappear, becoming infinite gravity too, would we get event horizons? If we would then the universe still would need to exist.
==

So what differs a compression from speed? With a speed there will never be a state where you won't be observable from another observer, no matter how near you come to lights speed in a vacuum. With a compression there comes a 'state' in where the universe closes you in behind that event horizon and where we can't know what's happening anymore.

How did it do that?

It eats the radiation. Assume that this universe of infinite gravity exist, eating us. If there is no event horizon(s), where is its center? Assume you were alone in that universe of infinite gravity, no tidal-forces acting on you, would you notice a gravity? For this you might assume that the 'gravity' is equally in all points.

Would it exist to you?
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 05:00:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #207 on: 05/02/2011 02:11:55 »
Assume that SpaceTime is a whole thing, whatever that means. Like some blob of jelly, in that blob we have four properties we can see. Length, width, height, time. Those four are needed everywhere.


Works for me. I'm glad to see you are finally coming round to accepting my atmospheric pressure analogy  [;D].

BTW - what flavour is the jelly? Personally, I like lime best.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #208 on: 05/02/2011 02:17:10 »
Ha, just you wait. I'm going to turn it outside in :)
The jelly should be lime, shouldn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #209 on: 05/02/2011 02:23:10 »
Careful now. We don't want to accidentally rip the fabric of spacelime, do we?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #210 on: 05/02/2011 02:31:00 »
Nah, turning the universe outside in should mean that it still is 'whole', just outside in :)
Maybe ::))
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #211 on: 05/02/2011 02:42:22 »
There is a definite difference between 'gravity' and anything else I can think of. If we look at SpaceTime as this ah, lime-jelly then that jelly will exist for an 'outside' observer no matter what speed he deems our universe to have. but with a 'infinite gravity' acting on it I expect him to see it disappear.
==

And one more thing. As seen from where we are we exist, and time, speed, distances, light and matter, and space all play a game defining limits for that existence. And the only thing I see crossing that boundary defining SpaceTime is gravity.

Compression is another description, is that the same? Nope, compression is a definition we use for describing matter under pressure. The pressure being gravity in my example. So, could we compress something into a black hole without using gravity? I don't know, but I know that the last state will be gravity alone, taking care of the creation of a Black Hole.
==

I called speed and distance, and matter 'independent' didn't I? I'm not sure of that description, they are independent in that they seem to be able to exist inside the jello without 'disappearing', having a true existence if you like, unlike our concept of 'energy' that I only can see as a expression of relations coming true. On the other hand they all seem to be relational to the jello 'SpaceTime', don't they? But Gravity seems to be able to 'exist' on its own even without a SpaceTime. And then we have 'light'. If I look at light as the traffic police of SpaceTime, setting the speed limit then does that mean that light also show this adaption?

Nope.

In a way light is even weirder than gravity. Where gravity is one thing only, well, as I see it :) light is two things, or more. Light have only one speed, the same from wherever you look. But it also have this 'frequency' that also is its energy, adapting to all other frames. We also find that light can be something not having any definite boundary at the same time as it express itself as 'light quanta' aka 'photons' begetting the same finite properties as all other 'particles', well, except a 'restmass'  that is.

So if I want to look at particles, how should I do it? How do we do it? We measure by radiation, or by other particles of restmass, right? We take a massless timeless point particle and 'bounce' it, or a particle of restmass. And what we use is either 'kinetic energy' or momentum. You can also point out that we use 'energy' 'frequency' for it, but as I doubt 'energy' as anything else than a relation, well, maybe, to me you can see it several ways? But however I see it light exist, and it have a 'energy' that can differ. So how do we create it? Its energy I mean. We use a relation, something, a laser pumping maybe, A cyclotron using EM. We set the 'energy' by that, and of course by what way we let it interact. But if you look at a particle my way it is the relations that define it.

And light is weird.
==

How did we define a 'time dilation'? By comparing frames, right? How do we compare frames? By radiation. That was the way Einstein realized that there would be a 'time dilation' too as I understands it. By looking at the radiation, and the way it only presented one speed, in, and from, any frame of reference chosen. It didn't matter if you already was traveling at 99.99999~ of 'c'. We on earth would still see the light from you coming at us at 'c' no matter if you were traveling towards us, or from us. And to make sense of that he looked at 'time'. Adapting 'times arrow' as compared between frames of reference made it possible for light to behave this way. But it also meant that 'time' no longer was a isolated entity, for it to adapt as it did he had to assume SpaceTime to be a 'whole experience'. It meant that we no longer could expect 'time' to be one unchanging continuous 'force' sweeping the same through SpaceTime. But there is one catch to it as I see it, to you, or me, or anyone it still is that 'force', if we just stay inside our own 'frame of reference'.

So radiation defines a 'time dilation', but to do it we need to compare frames of reference, or bring back the twin to Earth, as in the twin experiment, to actually see the biological difference created by the speed. Does this mean that any of those twins found their time elongated or compressed? Do you find your time being such? Well, as far as I understand it is both, simultaneously, you just need to choose the right 'frame of reference' to compare yourself against, and you can measure both if you like. Assuming that this is correct, have you now lost your past? Your present? Your future? Did your 'arrow of time' jump out the window as you read me :)
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 04:26:57 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #212 on: 05/02/2011 17:50:37 »
Plowing through this thread in order to get up to date has been really hard, and i admit to skimming sometimes... I take it the last 3 pages are thought experiments directed at building a model in which an arrow of time objectively exists, as a function of gravity, perhaps. I also take it that the kernel of the vast discord in this thread is objection to the idea that time is an illusion. As physicist like to have at least a provisional answer to questions as huge as 'what is time', even though currently physics is completely unable to answer that question scientifically, I think it is fair enough to call it an illusion. They have plenty of well established, well developed fundamental theory that implies it does not flow. All the formulas dedicated to calculating how it *does* flow in our perceived reality are not concerned with the fundamental nature of the universe, just with how it apparently functions. But 'illusion' is just a fill-in assessment as investigation continues. There is no explanation for the arrow of time, so it has to do. With your thought experiments, you have just tried to flesh in a more mentally comfortable structure, but in order to do that, you have had to engage in a huge amount of speculation. Some people prefer to solve the dilemma in this way, some prefer to use QC's method of sticking to what has been established so far, however uncomfortable and inadequate the resulting conclusions are. Humans are weeny, tiny, insignificant creatures. We will never know what is really going on in the Universe. I believe it is important to remember that, in discussions like these, in order to avoid getting all tensed up about it. After all, if there really are beings out there whose understanding are completely beyond our own (i vote there are, on another question in which nobody can claim to know) they would look at our musing on time and chuckle tolerantly. Or be bored. Or crush us with their cosmic pinkies. Something like that.

That said... i am also tremendously interested in the question. I find it pleasant to think of time as a landscape where past and future always exist, even though we for some reason cannot perceive that. I tend to think there is more than a psychological reason for that, as psychology is much less fundamental to reality than physics (unless you assert there is no such thing as objective reality, which is certainly logically defensible). The model i come up with in order to feel cozy with the idea is that our universe is sort of like a wave moving through the dimension of time, like how if you passed a 2D plane through a 3D object, the figures on the plane would constantly change, but what was visible on it at any moment existed for the entire time, and was not moving at all.

I can't find it, but i remember reading a proposition that the double-slit experiment can be nicely solved if you remove time. The patterns on the screen are due to the fact that the photons (or atoms, or what have you) are connected to the future and the past, so the fact they are measured in the future naturally affects the path they take. Feynman also was comfortable with explaining ramifications of his Feynman diagrams in terms of some particles moving from the future to the past. It comes up in the lectures of his that are available online - http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8  . The April 2010 issue of Discover reported experiments by Tollaksen and Aharonov showing future measurements affect past measurements. It is available through coverleaf.com, but you have to buy it. I'm going to try to put in an excerpt in my next post.
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #213 on: 05/02/2011 17:59:18 »
Yep, you're right. It's all thought experiments, from us all :)

So, what defines SpaceTime?

Radiation defines it, everything we do, everything we see communicates through radiation, right? And radiation have a 'speed'. How do we know that radiation have a speed? Well, we use the properties we can see inside SpaceTime, like distance and time. Then we say that everything '¨moves' relative each other and that there is no way we can define anything as being at rest relative each other. That's one way of looking at it but not the only one I think.

We already know that 'gravity' can operate outside SpaceTimes boundary's. That we assume it to communicate is a direct result of our idea of SpaceTime as place where nothing is 'lost', and where the conservation laws have a reality of their own. So, how do a Black Hole 'communicate with SpaceTime? This is my view okay :) I say it doesn't. The Hawking radiation may set a spin by its pair-particle twins annihilation but that spin isn't read by anyone. the idea of a communication is only meaningful if it gets 'read'. It's not enough with assuming that it 'exist'. If nobody had heard Einstein, would the information exist? Yes, on the conceptual plane it would, but for you, here and now, and your sons? And their daughters? That's number one. Then we come to the idea of how it 'communicates'. Nobody more than me having a problem with how we define that spin? If we define it by a measurement what do we mean by that?

That it only can be when a human look at it that the wave function collapse and a 'final' state of that spin comes to bear? how about a dog? How about a steel plate stopping our particle? How about a 'beam splitter' splitting a photon? How can we guarantee that this didn't set a spin? That we will see a opposite spin is true, but that will be true any which way, won't it?

Then we come to the idea that the universe is 'meaningful'. That is the assumption you make when you define an idea of the Universe that in its 'smallest parts' containing 'information' that also need to be 'conserved' for the universe to 'work'. I agree in that the universe for us is 'meaningful' but I'm not as sure if it is our ideas of meaningfulness that defines it. I look at the Universe as a place where it's our mission to find out what that 'meaningfulness' really is. And I expect the universe to have a different conception than us. We have already changed those ideas of meaningfulness several times through history and I'm sure we will do it again.

So is the definition of what spin that particle twin have 'meaningful' to the universe? In a way maybe? We might expect that in 'n' number of annihilations it should be a fifty percent statistical even distribution. If it isn't then that should tell us something about the 'rules' we play by. So that way it should be 'meaningful'. But do the universe need to set every spin to a preset pattern? I don't expect it to need that.
==

And yes, we're still discussing 'time' and 'time dilations'. And I agree, that's my point of view too. That there is a 'arrow of time'. You might want to define it as process of 'decay' like entropy, but it won't chance the facts. Inside your own 'room time geometry' there will always exist a 'arrow of time'. That one is very easy to see. And without it nothing would be able to be discussed. When it comes to Feynman diagram they rest upon the 'time reversibility' we see on a quantum level. That reversibility is a sign of what 'time' is too, just as time dilation is. But so is the arrow you actually have. One can't just pick two and ignore the third, at least I can't?

So the arrow exist.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 18:14:02 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #214 on: 05/02/2011 18:28:57 »
Coverleaf won't let me copy and paste from their site, so i have to put in an image:

Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #215 on: 05/02/2011 18:44:04 »
Quote
We already know that 'gravity' can operate outside SpaceTimes boundary's.
How do we know that?
Quote
If nobody had heard Einstein, would the information exist? Yes, on the conceptual plane it would
The conceptual plane? As in, an actual plane that actually exists? I know the human mind really can't get away from that way of looking at it... but we aren't proposing it's a 'place', are we?
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #216 on: 05/02/2011 18:51:49 »
If i understand correctly, yoron, you discuss 'measurement' and 'meaning' in order to show the inadequacy of the interpretation of the double slit experiment as showing that human interaction affects reality. But if past and future always exist, their is no need to think what people 'measure' affects what is real. The particle/wave behaves according to what its past, *and* its future dictates. What it does is interact with its environment, including the dimension, if you will, of time.
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #217 on: 05/02/2011 18:58:18 »
Well, yes briligg. As I see it there's a lot of stuff we define conceptually. Time dilations, entanglements, how we think it works on a Quantum level etc. And it has a 'reality' too, even though sometimes at a right corner to what we see normally. the 'reality's' clash, don't they :) If you're a convinced QM you will defend that 'reality' above all others. If you want a reality based on what we see macroscopically you will 'defend' that.

But that you know already, right?
==
As for how a black hole operate 'outside' SpaceTimes 'boundaries'? It depend on what you think information is, don't it :) But it is also a fact that a 'Black hole' is a 'singularity', closed to SpaceTime. If you want to define it otherwise you need to show me that you can. I would love to see that proof, and yes, it will need more than string theory, like a actual experiment?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #218 on: 05/02/2011 19:01:48 »
Okay, that one suits me fine. But I need to take up some history first. Let's first look at entanglements. Einstein was the one that with Podolski and Rosen set up that experiment. He did not like the idea of a 'spooky action at a distance'. "The idea is this: set up an interaction such that two particles are go off in opposite directions and do not interact with anything else. Wait until they are far apart, then measure the momentum of one and the position of the other.

Because of conservation of momentum, you can determine the momentum of the particle not measured, so when you measure it's position you know both it's momentum and position. The only way quantum physics could be true is if the particles could communicate faster then the speed of light."

That is the essence of the EPR experiment, not the spin, even though the spin is as described. The Copenhagen interpretation of this, according to Bohr is that before its measurement the particle exists in a superposition of all possible states. " Bohr liked the idea and used it in his Copenhagen interpretation. Remember our experiment with electrons? Each possible route that the electron could take, called a ghost, could be described by a wave function.

As we shall see later, the "damned quantum jumping" insures that there are only a finite, though large, number of possible routes. When no one is watching, the electron take every possible route and therefore interferes with itself. However, when the electron is observed, it is forced to choose one path. Bohr called this the "collapse of the wave function". The probability that a certain path will be chosen when the wave function collapses is, essentially, the square of the path's wave function. Bohr reasoned that nature likes to keep it possibilities open, and therefore follows every possible path. Only when observed is nature forced to choose only one path, so only then is just one path taken."

And the equations Bohr saw supporting him was primary Erwin Schrödinger's wave functions. "Erwin Schrödinger created quantum equations based on wave mathematics, a mathematical system that corresponds to the world we know much more then the matrices. After the initial shock, first Schrödinger himself then others proved that the equations were mathematically equivalent.

Bohr then invited Schrödinger to Copenhagen where they found that Schrödinger's waves were in fact nothing like real waves. For one thing, each particle that was being described as a wave required three dimensions. Even worse, from Schrödinger's point of view, particles still jumped from one quantum state to another; even expressed in terms of waves space was still not continuous. Upon discovering this, Schrödinger remarked to Bohr that "Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business."

And then we have the Pauli exclusion principle splitting what it mean to be of 'restmass' (electrons/Fermions) and of no 'restmass' at all, like photons (Bosons)and perhaps the most important of them all? The Uncertainty Principle where Werner Heisenberg in 1925 proposed that it is in fact physically impossible to determine both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. "if you determine an object's position with uncertainty x, there must be an uncertainty in momentum, p, such that xp > h/4pi, where h is Planck's constant."
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 19:51:24 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #219 on: 05/02/2011 19:05:53 »
Quote
As I see it there's a lot of stuff we define conceptually. Time dilations, entanglements, how we think it works on a Quantum level etc. And it has a 'reality' too, even though sometimes at a right corner to what we see normally. the 'reality's' clash, don't they :) If you're a convinced QM you will defend that 'reality' above all others.
Maybe that's heaven. [:D]
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #220 on: 05/02/2011 19:09:24 »
Yeah :)

It's fun, isn't it ::))

When it comes to 'weak measurements' it have a one fault, maybe two, as I see it that is. It still involves a, or many, measurement(s). And it build on a conceptual truth, statistics, don't it? Then, on the other hand, is there any other way to define reality, than 'statistics'?
==

But at least we now have an idea of entanglements and the history behind it.

The point being that entanglements 'exist'. It, as far as I see, do not state that it have 'meaningful' information. We can't know, for example, its 'spin' before the measurement. If we could then that would make it 'useful' for us, and that's also what I mean by 'meaningful'. 'Meaningful' is a relation to 'useful' is a relation to 'what we can use'. So when we speak of the universe we want it to make sense from our perspective, and also to be 'useful' to us. There I think we are applying preconceptions of ourselves as the 'crown of evolution' to justify an expectation in where everything needs to make 'sense'.

Which nevertheless won't stop me, or you, from continue to try to do so :)
==

Statistics is in one way very close to constants. Constants are the universe's statement of 'what is'. It stops there, light makes 'c' a 'barrier' for no specific reason I know? The Feigenbaum constant defines a sudden linearity in a non-linear system, where the bifurcations (paths splitting)taken inside each 'constant' still will be impossible to backtrack. The list is long. Then we have Statistics, That, even though all about probabilities, still will tell me that some things are so 'probable' that I never have to worry about them. Like, for example, all oxygen moving to the corner of my room and wait for me there, that won't happen. At least I've never had it happening, yet?:)

So what differs a constant from probability? A constant just 'is' as I understands it, probability still opens for a small possibility of something different happening. So we have a 'statistical' reality conceptually, but with its borders staked by the 'Constants'. What does that remind you of? Monopoly, ever played that? Or a RPG? Same thing, certain borders set that you're not allowed to 'step over', and then inside those a 'fluid' reality in where all is possible, as defined by the 'rules'. If you look at it that way, then it's not really necessary for it to make sense, as in being 'useful' to us. The 'game' is to hack the game.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2011 00:40:45 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #221 on: 05/02/2011 20:20:31 »
Alright, i'm struggling with this... i have no physics training, so i am trying to take it all in..

So, this work of Pauli, Hiesenberg, Bohr and Schrodinger, means that even if time is considered as static and eternal, and everything in the arrow of time is responding to its past and its future, there is still the problem of what determines its behaviour? What a 'measurement' or an 'observation' is? That even if awareness of the past and the future of a boson or fermion was possible, the Uncertainty Principle would still prevent you from knowing both the position and the momentum of a particle at a particular moment?
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #222 on: 05/02/2011 20:27:43 »
So what defines reality according to the Copenhagen interpretation?
Consciousness?

Only when something 'thinking' looks? Well, that ain't true macroscopically at least. There we have objects interacting at all times, without us ever looking at it, like those sock stealing midgets I believe live under my bed, or not :) And at a QM level? what would make the paths come true, without our measurement? It would have to crave some tremendous 'micro management' from us all, wouldn't it, if it was us that was needed for anything to come true?

So I prefer to expect things to do just okay myself, whether I'm there or not. And that makes me wonder about 'entanglements' and 'beam splitters', possibly setting a 'spin' before our 'measurement'. The weak measurement seems to expect it to be possible to measure without measuring. If that is a truth then we need something explaining how the universe defines what path it will take without a measurement.

And that I think of as 'energy expended'. The path of least 'energy expended' will be the one taken, as a guess.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #223 on: 05/02/2011 20:32:03 »
Alright, i'm struggling with this... i have no physics training, so i am trying to take it all in..

So, this work of Pauli, Hiesenberg, Bohr and Schrodinger, means that even if time is considered as static and eternal, and everything in the arrow of time is responding to its past and its future, there is still the problem of what determines its behaviour? What a 'measurement' or an 'observation' is? That even if awareness of the past and the future of a boson or fermion was possible, the Uncertainty Principle would still prevent you from knowing both the position and the momentum of a particle at a particular moment?
==

Well, it's about 'paths taken' before we look, and then with us looking one 'path' being , more or less forced. But it's also about if we really need to look for a specific path being chosen, or if there is some principle defining it even without measuring.

And yes, it's definitely about what 'time' is :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #224 on: 05/02/2011 20:42:28 »
Measuring always involves physically interacting with a system, right? So couldn't it be that some sorts of interactions force the particle to take only one path, while others don't? Maybe that the trick is not to look at them one at a time, or at groups that are entangled?

Even on a macroscopic scale, if you interact with thousands of objects, the result will be dramatically different than if you interact with only one. Forces get distributes and transmitted, and such. You couldn't predict the behaviour of one object in the group if your action affects thousands of objects in the same system. You would have to interact with just that object. You could make general predictions in some cases, in others, none at all.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 20:48:45 by briligg »
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #225 on: 05/02/2011 20:45:38 »
Maybe :)

It's just thought experiments.

I look at it as 'relations' defining what we see. Those can be without us interacting, or with us interacting, setting up a specific experiment a certain way for example. To me the universe seems all to be relations, with some few exceptions, like gravity.
==

When it come to 'groups' I think of light. Imagine a very closeknitted web or matrix. Then shine a flashlight through it. Let someone stand on the other side in a dark room looking at the wall where that light gets represented. What do he see? Dots? move the matrix, will the dots move too?
==

Not a good one that one, the dots won't be seen to move, just 'flicker', but it's still what I'm wondering about :) what is light?
==

And yes, statistics isn't about defining a individual choice, it's about 'averages' and to look at those you will need chaos theory too.
==

Another thing, the inflationary theory, and that SpaceTime's expansion. Ever wondered how that is possible? I'm sure you have, just as I :) Why I take that one up? Well, it has a relation to how i see light, and distance too in fact. If it is right, as we're doing a lot of assumptions, let's assume that is is :) what does it tell us about 'particles'? That depends on how you define them in fact. You might want a 'particle universe' with all particles having a independent existence. Or you look at it like me, thinking that a particle seems to be defined by its relations. If you do you will still have 'matter' but on the quantum level you will have 'forces' if you like, interacting.

And now we come to the expansion, what does it do? It creates new distances, doesn't it? If it can do that then we know that one property of what we call space contain 'distance'. Can we measure it? Sure we can, as a distance, nothing else. So why doesn't particles 'expand'? The explanation as I understands it is 'gravity', gravity seems to be able to negate it. But Gravity is no 'force', is it? It's a property of SpaceTime, but no force. So why would the property differ inside a galaxy, as compared to the outside of it, or is it the 'space' differing? How about inertia? Does inertia gets stronger at a course-change being close to a neutron star, and weaker in deep space? It should shouldn't it? So even though 'gravity' might be 'everywhere' it will differ locally, and inside the galaxies it is 'stronger' than outside.

So, how do 'expansion' do it? does it pick out four dimensions and knit them together in each point of space-expansion. Or does the points come as 'whole' objects, containing distance and time directly they gets 'noticed'? That's how I see it, they have too. It's by far the simpler explanation. And where do those new points 'come from'? Nowhere I think, at least as we can see it. But this 'nowhere' is that then everywhere? It has to be, hasn't it? Just as 'gravity', and 'light' if my idea is right.

Why I 'drag it up' is primary to point out that we already accept the idea of 'stuff' coming from 'nowhere'. Another description of this light is 'virtual particles', and that weird idea of a 'quantum foam' existing. That foam isn't only in Space, it has to be in everything that exist, you and me too, but expressing itself differently depending on the relations defining it. 'Distance' seems to be constructed in the creation of new space, 'virtual particles' on the other hand seems not to bother with creating 'distance'. Speed as I said before is a matter of 'distance and time' combined. It leaves us with a weird SpaceTime, infused by all sorts of 'properties' from 'expansion' to 'virtual particles' existing 'everywhere' but expressing itself according to 'rules' we don't really know yet.

So that's what I suspect 'light' is too. Something 'existing' everywhere, but only expressing itself following strict guidelines. And that's a really, really, weird idea. But I might be all wrong in it, probably are :)
==

So what has it to do with 'time'? Assume that I'm right, then time is a 'property' too, it will be a 'constant' inside your own frame, 'room time geometry' as I like to call it :) and in fact regulate most everything you ever meet. It's an expression of change coming from the way we get modeled by the 'forces/relations' defining our macroscopic reality. That light have 'c' as a limit has nothing to do with speed. Speed is just what we see it as, but 'light' just interacts, limited by what relations it meet. And I would like the background to be, I don't really know? Gravity? Light? 'Energy'? Pick your choice. It's like we have all those 'rules', knitted together macroscopically they present us with Einsteins SpaceTime, on a quantum level they present us with 'particles' and 'forces'. Under that, and under Plank size there is something else. One of the things why I like Gravity is because it seems the 'smoothest' thing there are. You can't 'pick it apart', light has its quanta, and particles takes a 'place', even space has its foam. But 'Gravity', that's just a property, isn't it?

And time and 'c' must have a lot in common.
==

Think of it like 'levels'. From under a quantum level there is no 'space' there is no 'matter'. There is possibly a 'foam' or 'relations' existing. Their interactions have a relation to the QM-level which will have a relation to the macroscopic level. At the foam-level distance can't be. That what makes entanglements possible in QM. And distance seems to be a property of a SpaceTime over Planck-scale.
 
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 23:51:37 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #226 on: 06/02/2011 02:29:11 »
I think i need to read the Barbour piece on fqxi. I think i sort of follow what you are getting at, but i need more background. Anyhow, the idea of trying to model reality not in terms of points and particles, but systems, relations, and interactions, appeals to me. And as many people here, this 'c' thing definitely strikes me as a very suspicious character, probably up to all kinds of things.
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Jung

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #227 on: 06/02/2011 02:38:57 »
Yep, I quite agree. I mean I get a real headache reading myself, sometimes it makes no sense at all :) But I still find this 'c' weird. And that light, a shady character indeed :)

But it makes still sense, in a weird way :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #228 on: 06/02/2011 16:33:22 »
Try another example Sim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'quantity of motion'. Are you imagining the apples containing 'frozen motion'?

So if motion is 'time' and matter is 'motion' in some other state, what is gravity?
Gravity is oppressor of motion.Gravity oppresses quantity of motion(time) and quality of motion(speed). [:P]

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #229 on: 06/02/2011 17:00:05 »
So gravity would retard motion, that's one way to describe it Sim. And if we then define motion as 'times arrow', yeah maybe. Maybe we could play with 'c' for that one :) letting light be what is the trend setter for all 'motion'. And then turn it around and define a state of rest as infinite gravity, that as I think it is :). And that as all matter 'free falls' when 'accelerated' by gravity, without expending energy, if you look at a photon it actually 'gains energy' in its 'acceleration' as observed from a 'inertial observer' on Earth.

But motion in itself? Is that an expression of energy? If you have a object 'free falling' following a geodesic, does that object expend any energy? Will it be time dilated if close to 'c' relative its origin (Earth). Then it will answer your description Sim, but you will have a problem in that all uniform motion, from inside that black box will be the exact same. Meaning that you won't be able to differ the speeds and so they become equivalent. And if time dilation is defined by motion you will need to answer how the equivalence of all uniform motion can be solved. On the other hand, assuming that time dilation exists depending on 'speed', not only acceleration, any such description will have to answer the same question?

Got an idea how to answer that one?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #230 on: 06/02/2011 17:25:11 »
One possible answer is that a time dilation always is defined as between 'frames'. that it exist has not with this to do as the twin traveling at no time will find himself experiencing time 'differently', so just as all motion becomes undefinable in uniform motion so will a time dilation be. But then again, where is the equivalence if we have a different 'aging' of that twin, depending on his uniform speed?

You could also argue that, as seen from his own frame, the twin experience no 'time dilation' as time is 'as always' to him. But, what have then experienced this 'time dilation'? The rest of the universe? Only those parts of a universe 'slower' relative our twin, with those at rest relative it the same 'age', and those faster than our twin 'slower aging' than the traveling twin?

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

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #231 on: 06/02/2011 18:16:21 »
Difference of oppression of motion turns into energy. [;)]
« Last Edit: 06/02/2011 18:20:39 by simplified »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #232 on: 06/02/2011 18:53:46 »
You better explain that one in ah, 'plain English' Sim. I'm not sure how you think there?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #233 on: 06/02/2011 19:41:29 »
What if we look at it, after all, as 'density'? Like, if not 'space', but the whole 'SpaceTime' consisted of an unseen 'density' of its own, unseen by us. This 'density' would then be 'thicker' where invariant mass was and then 'thin out' in 'Space'. Then we could use 'motion' as a way to 'contract' the density, creating a friction that will slow our room time relative the rest of the universe.

Think of it as your 'time' having a even pace, marked out every meter. then as you meet the density the 'negative time expression' will space that time-meter out as seen from another frame of reference, a little like a 'gravity wave' is expected to do. In fact a 'gravity wave' should contract the 'invariant mass' and so increase the 'time dilation' slowing, whatever it wanders through, down relative any other frame.
==

Although I'm not sure of how it would do it? It's (the gravity waves) 'edge' should be able too anyway.
==

Or you can turn it around and say that the density is inverted. Define it as 'thicker', if you like, when out of the reach of 'invariant mass'.
==

Using the Higgs bosons is one possibility, although then I would like the space ships atoms to 'jiggle' as the overall 'mass' effectively should become greater the faster you move. But they don't..
==

Okay, the thing I keep coming back to is. What is a 'distance'. I can't seem to let that one go. Maybe I should change it though? Too 'what is a position' instead. In relativity a position is something defined by what relations you use. Maybe there are 'unchanging positions' when considering inertial frames? But as soon as you introduce an acceleration that balance get skewed. When it comes to uniformly moving it is a little different though. So, does there exist any single positional way to define objects in SpaceTime?

I doubt it.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2011 21:40:20 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #234 on: 07/02/2011 17:32:29 »
You better explain that one in ah, 'plain English' Sim. I'm not sure how you think there?
If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. [:)]

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #235 on: 07/02/2011 17:54:46 »
If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. [:)]

This all goes back to how to define what we talk about I think :)

Here's my definitions.

1. Gravity is a property, not a 'force'. That means I can look at 'space' as if it was a 'topology' having dips and heights and even 'swirls' and stuff, a little like a 'fluid'.

2. Energy is also a property, having no existence until a 'interaction' is being made. The relations of this interaction will define the energy, and photons red/blue-shift is the perfect example of such a relation.

3. Relative mass, momentum, potential 'energy', are also properties, only expressing themselves in a interaction. That means that although you may count on them, having them 'defined', they do not exist. And to prove that I use 'atoms jiggling' in that spaceship.

Because if they were true as anything more than a relation to something else, in this case 'speed' then they should get 'stored' in that spaceship.
==

To change it you will have to move outside what you measure, and then define the relations as being true on 'another plane' not reachable for mere humans. Which then may be true, I'm inclined to think it is, but to me there should still be something expressing those properties in 'real time' from the 'frame' that experience it e.g 'a speed'. Or we have a universe in where only 'interactions' count, and the rest becomes our framework for explaining and wanting to make sense of how those 'interactions' occur. And that we do inside a causality chain we either call 'times arrow' or 'entropy'. In fact it is our acceptance of that causality chain that makes us expect that there have to be something making sense in this universe, isn't it?

So if some spaceship speeds away in space relative us on earth. When does it get a 'gravity'? Only in the acceleration it seems to me. Does the ship 'store' any additional energy as measurable by those on that ship? Not as I know, no additional jiggling perceivable. Does it do so from any other frame of reference? Nope, no signs of 'glowing' radiation, as I now off?
==

In fact, that is wrong, from a frame of reference meeting that ship you will see light from it as being compressed/more energetic. But it is as true, that you from behind that ship will perceive it as 'stretched'/less energetic. So?
==

To see what I mean, define it as 'speed'.

Then look at it as leaving you, from the spaceships origin, Earth_1. It goes really fast doesn't it? But is the light reaching us from that ship now more 'energetic'? It isn't, but we still assign this 'energy' it shows to its 'speed. Now instead meet that ship, coming towards you on Earth_2. Wow it goes really fast, don't it, having a tremendous speed. And yeah, the light coming from it is really 'energetic' too. So, not knowing any of our physics. And only able to notice the light as  this 'speeds' expression. What would you on Earth_1 define speed as? And you on Earth_2.

We know that the energy just is a relation, but they don't. So, is this energy true? Yep, it will deliver more or less work. Does it have a relation to 'speed', yes it does. But to see if there really is more or less energy stored you need to look at the ship itself, in its own frame of reference. and there I don't expect any more jiggling of the ships 'atoms'.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2011 18:35:45 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #236 on: 07/02/2011 18:32:11 »
If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. [:)]

This all goes back to how to define what we talk about I think :)

Here's my definitions.

1. Gravity is a property, not a 'force'. That means I can look at 'space' as if it was a 'topology' having dips and heights and even 'swirls' and stuff, a little like a 'fluid'.

2. Energy is also a property, having no existence until a 'interaction' is being made. The relations of this interaction will define the energy, and photons red/blue-shift is the perfect example of such a relation.

3. Relative mass, momentum, potential 'energy', are also properties, only expressing themselves in a interaction. That means that although you may count on them, having them 'defined', they do not exist. And to prove that I use 'atoms jiggling' in that spaceship.

Because if they were true as anything more than a relation to something else, in this case 'speed' then they should get 'stored' in that spaceship.
==

To change it you will have to move outside what you measure, and then define the relations as being true on 'another plane' not reachable for mere humans. Which then may be true, I'm inclined to think it is, but to me there should still be something expressing those properties in 'real time' from the 'frame' that experience it e.g 'a speed'. Or we have a universe in where only 'interactions' count, and the rest becomes our framework for explaining and wanting to make sense of how those 'interactions' occur. And that we do inside a causality chain we either call 'times arrow' or 'entropy'. In fact it is our acceptance of that causality chain that makes us expect that there have to be something making sense in this universe, isn't it?

So if some spaceship speeds away in space relative us on earth. When does it get a 'gravity'? Only in the acceleration it seems to me. Does the ship 'store' any additional energy as measurable by those on that ship? Not as I know, no additional jiggling perceivable. Does it do so from any other frame of reference? Nope, no signs of 'glowing' radiation, as I now off?
==

In fact, that is wrong, from a frame of reference meeting that ship you will see light from it as being compressed/more energetic. But it is as true, that you from behind that ship will perceive it as 'stretched'/less energetic. So?
I do not understand your english without math too. [:P]

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #237 on: 07/02/2011 18:38:07 »
Well then, use your math. Define all your variables clearly, so that we can understand them, then prove your idea.
==

(Sim, that doesn't mean that you can assign 'x' a property of 'tachyons', or 'gravity' for example, without defining how you come to this conclusion. So you need to build every statement clearly and with proofs.)
« Last Edit: 07/02/2011 18:46:11 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #238 on: 07/02/2011 19:01:38 »
Well then, use your math. Define all your variables clearly, so that we can understand them, then prove your idea.
==

(Sim, that doesn't mean that you can assign 'x' a property of 'tachyons', or 'gravity' for example, without defining how you come to this conclusion. So you need to build every statement clearly and with proofs.)
Axioms do not need proofs.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #239 on: 07/02/2011 19:41:35 »
Yes, gravity is a axiom. But to use it without coupling it to acceleration or invariant mass will need a definition, at least for me :) Those are the two thing I know defining 'gravity'? Uniform motion do not define any gravity to itself, neither any 'inertia' as I know that is. And to assume gravity to exist in a uniform motion it needs to be noticed as is. But is is not there :)
==

If you do like I did and assume that there would be a infinite 'gravity' permeating 'SpaceTime', with matter and speed regulating its 'expression', you might get away with it though :)  But you would need to redefine a lot of other things too to make it work I think?

But if you think you can make sense of it, do it, it's a view I like actually :)
==

There is another possibility, equating 'energy' with speed though. That one we can lend from the compressed spring. After all, the spring won't glow even though it have a added 'real mass' from a compression. And that should be true how much you ever try to compress it, as long as you let the kinetic energy cool of. But it builds on assuming that a Lorentz contraction being real. If I do so, could I assume that the Lorentz contraction applied on a moving frame of reference, as defined from another frame, equals a compression? I don't know? We meet the same problem again there, all uniform frames of reference being equal and that you're the one defining who moves against who? So it would crave a way for the universe to define who is moving against who. But if I could the mass would change, wouldn't it? It must be noticeable as an added weight in a acceleration, at least? And that would then be an added 'gravity'. In a uniform motion weight lose its meaning, but the mass of the spaceship might still be higher due to the Lorentz contraction, if real?

Maybe?
=

The more I think of it the weirder it becomes huh :)
But if we have a state of singularity in 'SpaceTime' being Black Holes?
And for this we better define a singularity as non-communicative, with a one way reception.
Because then it will fit my idea of what gravity is.

Hawking radiation may come as a result of a 'interaction' but that interaction is not a communicative event. The event horizon is a real divider between a SpaceTime and a singularity, and the in-falling light can only point in one direction, into it, not from it. If we could transfer information by entanglements I would be wrong there, but so far we can't. If we can inject energy in a entanglement as a proposition I've seen recently, then the surviving pair particle inside our universe should have an added 'energy'. And as one idea is that the negation of a anti particle inside the event horizon should leave a surplus of 'energy', creating a 'uneven balance', then that might correct that 'balance' evening out the 'score'?

Or alternatively prove that a 'injection' of energy in a entangled particle by your measurement won't work. Pick your choice there, myself I would be very surprised if a added 'injection' of energy in your measurement would work, as that seems a communication to me. On the other hand plants seem to use entangled 'energy', but there I will assume it not to be the same injected 'energy/momentum' whatever, but just a efficient way of distributing what 'energy' a entanglement already has, instead to me proving the impression I already have of 'least energy expended' being a rule. If we assume that light and the arrow of time have a relation, as I see it now, radiation to my eyes being no more than time, both expressing their self in 'changes', both obeying 'rules/constants', just like that Feigenbaum constant 'rule', impossible to backtrack? Maybe? Anyway, I'm sure I can find more arguments, but for this it's enough. Then we have two remarkable things I think. We have 'gravity' and 'compression'. Why do a compression store mass? And what happens to a 'mass' once its compressed to a point particle? Does it 'radiate', or does it just disappear?
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 14:46:17 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #240 on: 09/02/2011 20:57:46 »
Rereading you Sim. Are you using Newtons definitions? Quantity of matter as mass, and Quantity of motion as the product of velocity and mass?

Then quantity of matter as mass makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how you think of quantity of motion as the product of velocity and mass? Do you include for example momentum and/or relative mass in that? Because that's the mechanical laws we use since Newton? Well, momentum may be new but 'relative mass' is a concept that have followed us a long time, in one shape or another.

So how do I look at 'gravity'? Simple, to me it's what's not explained. How did Einstein reach the rest of his conclusions?

"Einstein bases SRT on two fundamental principles: the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. The principle of relativity originated in Galilean-Newtonian mechanics: Any frame of reference in which Newton's law of inertia holds (for some period of time) is now called an inertial frame of reference. From the laws of mechanics it follows that, if one such inertial frame exists, then an infinity of them must: All frames of reference (and only such frames) moving with constant velocity with respect to a given inertial frame are also inertial frames. All mechanical experiments and observations proved to be in accord with the (mechanical) principle of relativity: the laws of mechanics take the same form in any of these inertial frames.

The principle of relativity, as Einstein stated it in 1905, asserts that all the laws of physics take the same form in any inertial frame-in particular, the laws of electricity, magnetism, and optics in addition to those of mechanics."

So we seem to agree there? We both define your own 'room time geometry' as uniquely 'the same'. The funny thing about that is that the revelation of all frames outside your own being 'different' blinds people. The only way we use it is in defining it as 'entropy' or 'the arrow of time', but to my eyes it's a 'constant' of sorts.

Gravity then?

"he assumed that a person cannot distinguish whether he is in a gravitational field or under constant acceleration, i.e. these two things are equivalent. This assumption provided a link between gravity and mass, or gravity and energy. He concluded then that mass and energy must affect the gravitational field. Secondly, he stated that the gravitational field is not actually a force as Newton has described, but instead a curvature in space. To put it in simple words, the bodies are affected by gravity not because of a force directly exerted on them but because space is curved and therefore they have to follow space's grid. The presence of mass or energy does not affect the bodies directly; it affects the space first, and then the bodies move in this curved space. Earth always moves in a straight line (not in the Euclidian sense though). The presence of sun curves space, and therefore curves this straight line and forces earth to appear to be moving in an ellipse... Imagine being in a sea (or pool) using your finger to create ripples on the water. The presence of your finger in the water creates these waves and alters the geometry of water, it's not flat anymore. If you look through the rippled water you'll see the bottom distorted. Well, the same things happens to 3D space if you try to move your finger like that on the air! Your finger has mass and it actually can create ripples in space... The only reason you cannot see them as in the water is that the mass of your finger is so small that the ripples it creates are of the tiniest magnitude; there are so small that do not affect anything considerably."

Now, this analogue made by the author is rather cool. The problem with it is that it gives SpaceTime a 'density'. Do we accept that? I'm not sure I do. What we can say is that any description we use built on previous experiences probably are wrong when describing 'SpaceTime. It's a very large step between looking at SpaceTime from the viewpoint of celestial mechanics versus as compared to relativity, and to drag over concepts that works so well on our earthly scale to explain the universe?
« Last Edit: 09/02/2011 21:06:39 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #241 on: 11/02/2011 03:54:57 »
This is some questions I have. First, why do I keep on about 'relations'? Look at the universe, you have space, all empty. No matter what we expect on the quantum level there isn't a 'thing' in empty space macroscopically. It's a dark lonely emptiness with some small islands of matter. Do particles exist on their own in space? Not readily, and not alone, as I know it? And I'm not talking bosons here, but particles of restmass. Now look at it from the viewpoint of 'relations'. Then those islands sparkle with relations, they are the most concentrated places of relations existing. How do matter 'grow', and, why can it 'grow'? How can we consist of a 'insurmountable' amount of energy, each one of us, and still be able to function, transform other types of matter into ourselves and use it?

It has to be another way of looking at it. And doing it as relations seems to work for me. Think of the question we had recently here, what will happen if we could 'time travel' to the 'past'. Would we land where we started, or in space as the earth and the universe are moving in time. I said that it all should adapt, all dimensions together, as it should be one undivided 'SpaceTime'. The implications of that are staggering to me suddenly. Because I also think of the universe as a place that have this rule of 'least energy expended'.

Can you see what that way of looking at it implies? That the whole universe would adapt to your 'time travel'. Now, if that way of looking is right then a Lorentz contraction suddenly have a much larger possibility of being 'real', instead of just some geometric illusion. Because when we see it we are in fact 'time traveling', even if in the other direction temporary, in time that is.

So can we test that idea? I think Einsteins ideas already have done that. And he seems to be right too. You have a unique arrow of time, in that arrow, no matter what you do, times arrow will be the same. But the 'universe at large' will adapt to certain properties, invariant mass and motion. And that is not really what I expected if it is correct? What happened with the idea of 'least energy expended' here, if so? Well, when you 'time travel' do you really influence all other objects around you. Not if you stand where they are, so the rule may still work?

So what is wrong here? There is a dichotomy in that I might assume that when you use motion or invariant mass for your time travel you do change the universe at large and the fact that when meeting up with your twin you will find that he felt no such 'influences' acting upon him just because you traveled near light. So if I'm correct in my thinking and also assume that you really change the universe, aka, 'Lorentz contraction' and 'time dilation' both are 'real. Where does it place the 'interactions'?
« Last Edit: 11/02/2011 04:19:16 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #242 on: 11/02/2011 20:53:33 »
Quote
Axioms do not need proofs

Surely, axioms become axioms only because their proof has already been established, at least to the satisfaction of those who accept their axiomatic status.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #243 on: 12/02/2011 03:37:10 »
Yeah, a axiom is like one and one makes two.

Weird stuff like that :) But it is also a axiom that all uniform motion shows an absence of gravity, and inertia of course. Assigning a gravity to uniform motion would need a new definition, of either uniform motion, or gravity and inertia. That it follows a 'geodesic' induced by gravity, does not state that you can feel that gravity working on you in a 'black box' scenario. And that's also what make all uniform motion 'equivalent' to my eyes, and so all 'uniform motions/speeds' following that geodesic.

But yes, gravity must be there, even though unmeasurable in that uniform motion as we can observe light 'bending' around invariant mass, like the sun. But then we're discussing 'frames of reference' again. In the black box there is no way I know of proving it, ignoring tidal forces now, like frame dragging.
==

Reasoning along those lines you will find it natural to define it as being 'at rest' relative gravity. And if you find that natural you will need to look at where our definitions of gravity 'breaks down'. That should be a Black Hole as I see it, all light/time cones pointing one way. and if that is the 'state' where you will find matter disappear then, maybe, you might want to define that as the ultimate state of rest :). Quite questionable as you as easily then can assume all 'speeds' following a geodesic as being 'at rest', but it's still the state in where we expect matter to ??
« Last Edit: 12/02/2011 03:52:04 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #244 on: 12/02/2011 15:01:29 »
Quote
Axioms do not need proofs

Surely, axioms become axioms only because their proof has already been established, at least to the satisfaction of those who accept their axiomatic status.
My definition of gravity is imperfect. But you have no definition of this at all. And at all you can only jump over sequence. [:P]

*

Offline hakaya

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #245 on: 15/02/2011 09:11:44 »
Time is in three parts in the future that never arrived and are available only in my dreams, man, 'which currently exists only to separate the small second and the last to go on forever in the memory man', but not always. return unless an error and we do tend to repeat.