[yor_on]

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.

[briligg]

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?

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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

[briligg]

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.

[yor_on]

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.
 

[briligg]

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.

[yor_on]

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

[simplified]

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). []

[yor_on]

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?

[yor_on]

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?

[simplified]

Difference of oppression of motion turns into energy. []

[yor_on]

You better explain that one in ah, 'plain English' Sim. I'm not sure how you think there?

[yor_on]

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.

[simplified]

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. []

[yor_on]

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'.

[simplified]

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. []

[yor_on]

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.)

[simplified]

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.

[yor_on]

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?