Einstein on the train

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 2719
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:59 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:47 am
I used something 'real' here: characters that YOU can count on your screen.
...
There is a limited number of characters on my screen. You created an abstract finite count from it, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite count, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite infinite count.

There's no reason to believe that the end result still relates in any way to the concrete universe, doing so is just backwards thinking.

And why would an infinite infinite expand? You are just postponing the problem anyway.
Last edited by Atla on Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:47 am
I used something 'real' here: characters that YOU can count on your screen. If these aren't real, neither is anything we observe.

For a different example? (...)
Your argument collapses down to "What is measurement?". And when philosophers tend to ask such questions they attempt this silly Cartesian trick of "mind independence". And so they really ask "What is measurement independent from the mind?"

As I keep pointing out "What is X?" is an ontological error.
What does measurement DO ? That's a better question.

Measurement disambiguates.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:04 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:59 am
There's no reason to believe that the end result still relates in any way to the concrete universe, doing so is just backwards thinking.
You can make the exact same arguments against the concepts of energy and matter. You could make it against all the SI units.

What's your point?

We already know that all measurement is relative to human experience and that we don't have a good ontological foundation for anything.
Your favorite rectification fallacy. A problem without a solution.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1638
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:09 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:59 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:47 am
I used something 'real' here: characters that YOU can count on your screen.
...
There is a limited number of characters on my screen. You created an abstract finite count from it, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite count, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite infinite count.

There's no reason to believe that the end result still relates in any way to the concrete universe, doing so is just backwards thinking.

And why would an infinite infinite expand? You are just postponing the problem anyway.
I found this site on 'audio paradox' which may be of relevant interest: Audio Paradox.

This shows how something real is apparently infinite when connecting the sound loops infinitely. Test out the audio samples. The author puts only one sample of each. So play the sample, then press play again. You should be unable to detect the beginnings from the ends.

These are 'infinite increases in sound in any infinite number of loops'. AND it is done 'finitely' as well! This demonstrates all options: infinities, infinities of infinities, and finites, among any infinity of finite loops you want to play.

Atla
Posts: 2719
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:24 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:09 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:59 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:47 am
I used something 'real' here: characters that YOU can count on your screen.
...
There is a limited number of characters on my screen. You created an abstract finite count from it, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite count, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite infinite count.

There's no reason to believe that the end result still relates in any way to the concrete universe, doing so is just backwards thinking.

And why would an infinite infinite expand? You are just postponing the problem anyway.
I found this site on 'audio paradox' which may be of relevant interest: Audio Paradox.

This shows how something real is apparently infinite when connecting the sound loops infinitely. Test out the audio samples. The author puts only one sample of each. So play the sample, then press play again. You should be unable to detect the beginnings from the ends.

These are 'infinite increases in sound in any infinite number of loops'. AND it is done 'finitely' as well! This demonstrates all options: infinities, infinities of infinities, and finites, among any infinity of finite loops you want to play.
Hey that's a nice audio trick, I like it, anyway it only fools my mind for like 3-4 replays and then the pitch keeps falling back. It's all finite though, not relevant to an expanding infinite universe being illogical.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1638
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:04 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:24 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:09 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:59 am

There is a limited number of characters on my screen. You created an abstract finite count from it, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite count, and then you moved on to an abstract infinite infinite count.

There's no reason to believe that the end result still relates in any way to the concrete universe, doing so is just backwards thinking.

And why would an infinite infinite expand? You are just postponing the problem anyway.
I found this site on 'audio paradox' which may be of relevant interest: Audio Paradox.

This shows how something real is apparently infinite when connecting the sound loops infinitely. Test out the audio samples. The author puts only one sample of each. So play the sample, then press play again. You should be unable to detect the beginnings from the ends.

These are 'infinite increases in sound in any infinite number of loops'. AND it is done 'finitely' as well! This demonstrates all options: infinities, infinities of infinities, and finites, among any infinity of finite loops you want to play.
Hey that's a nice audio trick, I like it, anyway it only fools my mind for like 3-4 replays and then the pitch keeps falling back. It's all finite though, not relevant to an expanding infinite universe being illogical.
On that last sample, it tried to show an ever increasing rhythm which I felt is not as good. I originally heard the first such audio paradoxes from Wikipedia. Here is the Wikipedia link to the ever increasing rhythm which is better: Risset Accelerando

These were only meant to show THAT the concepts are 'possible' in reality, not merely of abstract math. I also should have pointed out in the last post that the characters I used as 'real' for a count has to also include the ACT of counting as 'real' in time. That is the infinity of infinities. That you can have one unique infinite history of reality may be trusted by you as a default. But you should be able to question whether that particular history is also itself 'uniquely' sufficient to dismiss ALL possible infinity of different histories.

In respect to your thinking on this (that coincides with Age's), I share an agreement of the problem but that this CAN occur when we have any types of interpretation of reality that treats time and space IN SYNC with each other. If we have a REAL train track that loops around a perfectly spherical planet, the lines of the two rails appear to converge to a point in the distance. If I tried to trace the track to seek some 'end' of it, I cannot find one in any amount of time. We can image allowing for a marker to place down as some means to determine if we made one loop, but cannot do this if the circumference is itself infinite. In this way, space is itself can be infinite but we can question whether the convergence we deem as 14 Billion years in time to that singularity is actually just an illusion or not. As such, we cannot say whether space/time is actually finite, infinite, NOR one infinite of an infinite infinites. That is we can't rule out expansion as a default position without doubting even ANY infinity. Expansion is thus equally as conjecturally as weak or strong as any static infinity. And of course, if the 'distance' in time is finite, our perception is still limited to some finite apparent convergence in time regardless. Thus we cannot even determine if space is FINITELY limited if our space is sufficiently big enough.

(side note @ logik given shared conversations: notice the similarity to the precondition of the limit problems as stating the condition of a system that is 'sufficient' to include all arithmetic? Here the sufficient comparison in reality is IF the finite distance is great enough, the apparent completeness of the apparent convergence of the lines that represent something 'complete' is needed. Otherwise, in some finite limits, we CAN determine whether the illusion of tracks converging is or is not true.)
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 4464
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:10 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:03 am
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:48 pm
The big bang theory IS a hypothesis. I NEVER said the big bang is an assumption. I said the big bang WAS THE BEGINNING is an ASSUMPTION. Frankly, if you can NOT tell the difference, then that explains WHY you can NOT understand.
Do you not think that this exchange shows that I do?
No, not really. What that shows me is you just saying some thing now to appear as though you are open. Your words from now on will establish if you really can the tell the difference. Your words will reveal if you truly are open or not.
uwot wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:02 am
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:19 am
That bang COULD well be just one of many bangs that happen within an infinite and eternal Universe.
Yup. That is indeed a possibility.
Last edited by Age on Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

uwot
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Basta!

Post by uwot » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:29 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:22 am
Wow, you were holding your temper in well for a long time!
It's a gift.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:22 am
I'm anticipating he might respond with, "How did you determine that I'm a 'boy'? Why don't you ask me instead of assuming?" :lol:
Well, the way he/she/it keeps referring to others as "you humans", I wouldn't be surprised if Age claimed to be a mushroom.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:22 am
We might be too harsh on him/her though. Obviously Age is investing in communicating and the problems of understanding reality as a whole are hard questions. I'm trying to be fair in understanding where (s)he is coming from.
Point taken, but there are only so many times you can be told you are wrong because you are 'close-minded' or making 'assumptions' when you have jumped through hoops to show neither is so.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:22 am
May I ask if the illustration I provided at least makes you think of what his/her position of disagreement may lie with (external to potential religious theories (s)he may be speaking about, of course)?
I gather you mean something like this: https://dailygalaxy.com/2016/02/an-alte ... d-feature/ Who knows? It seems entirely possible and I'm all for challenging orthodoxy. My own issues with the big bang are 'inflation' - seems a bit ad hoc, and the implication that while 'space' is expanding, the 'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.' to cite Erwin Schrodinger, are not. My own hypothesis has something of the steady state about it, in that I think it is conceivable that fundamental particles are, if you like, whirlpools and eddies in this expanding 'space', as outlined in chapters 4 and 6.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:22 am
I'm uncertain (s)he understood the representational example. But maybe you might have some alternative model expressing this to his/her understanding better? I'm hoping my last post may be one, but the problem is not limited to his/her understanding alone.
No indeed, but anyone who claims the universe is easy, or obvious, clearly hasn't bothered to look at it.

Age
Posts: 4464
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:42 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:33 am
And can an infinite universe expand infinitely?

This is a purely geometrical question, but our minds are now focussed on what's happening in reality.

I think the crux is the "event horizon". If Einstein was right, and the speed of light is the maximum attainable speed, then the matter in the expanding universe we observe and know,
Is the Universe, you observe and know, expanding?

If yes, then what evidence do you have to support this observation and knowing?
-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:33 am
must stop expanding once its speed of displacement attains the speed of light.

If, however, Einstein was not all that right, and I have no way to prove this, nor a wish or motivation to prove this, and in fact things (matter) can obtain speeds larger or faster than the speed of light, then we can't make any claims as to what happens on the other side of the event horizon.

surreptitious57
Posts: 4029
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:50 pm

Age wrote:
The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
What evidence is there that the Universe did not have a beginning ?
What evidence is there that the Universe is not expanding ?
What two fundamental things have always co existed ?
What two things are quarks and electrons made from ?

Atla
Posts: 2719
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:04 pm
On that last sample, it tried to show an ever increasing rhythm which I felt is not as good. I originally heard the first such audio paradoxes from Wikipedia. Here is the Wikipedia link to the ever increasing rhythm which is better: Risset Accelerando

These were only meant to show THAT the concepts are 'possible' in reality, not merely of abstract math. I also should have pointed out in the last post that the characters I used as 'real' for a count has to also include the ACT of counting as 'real' in time. That is the infinity of infinities. That you can have one unique infinite history of reality may be trusted by you as a default. But you should be able to question whether that particular history is also itself 'uniquely' sufficient to dismiss ALL possible infinity of different histories.

In respect to your thinking on this (that coincides with Age's), I share an agreement of the problem but that this CAN occur when we have any types of interpretation of reality that treats time and space IN SYNC with each other. If we have a REAL train track that loops around a perfectly spherical planet, the lines of the two rails appear to converge to a point in the distance. If I tried to trace the track to seek some 'end' of it, I cannot find one in any amount of time. We can image allowing for a marker to place down as some means to determine if we made one loop, but cannot do this if the circumference is itself infinite. In this way, space is itself can be infinite but we can question whether the convergence we deem as 14 Billion years in time to that singularity is actually just an illusion or not. As such, we cannot say whether space/time is actually finite, infinite, NOR one infinite of an infinite infinites. That is we can't rule out expansion as a default position without doubting even ANY infinity. Expansion is thus equally as conjecturally as weak or strong as any static infinity. And of course, if the 'distance' in time is finite, our perception is still limited to some finite apparent convergence in time regardless. Thus we cannot even determine if space is FINITELY limited if our space is sufficiently big enough.

(side note @ logik given shared conversations: notice the similarity to the precondition of the limit problems as stating the condition of a system that is 'sufficient' to include all arithmetic? Here the sufficient comparison in reality is IF the finite distance is great enough, the apparent completeness of the apparent convergence of the lines that represent something 'complete' is needed. Otherwise, in some finite limits, we CAN determine whether the illusion of tracks converging is or is not true.)
Not sure what you are commenting on, I only said that an expanding infinity is logically impossible. Because an infinite universe can't get any bigger, it's already infinite. In fact any change in "size" or any change at all is logically impossible.

I don't entirely rule out anything however, because maybe the world is a-logical / insane / works by magic / whatever.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:07 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:01 pm
An infinite universe can't get any bigger, it's already infinite.
What you are describing is a BOUNDED, not an infinite universe.

infinity + 1 > infinity

finity + 1 = error

uwot
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:19 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:07 pm
What you are describing is a BOUNDED, not an infinite universe.
Hilbert's Hotel, anyone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert ... rand_Hotel

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:44 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:19 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:07 pm
What you are describing is a BOUNDED, not an infinite universe.
Hilbert's Hotel, anyone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert ... rand_Hotel
I've said it (more than once now) you can use logic/mathematics to prove anything ;)
Hilbert's paradox is a veridical paradox: it leads to a counter-intuitive result that is provably true.
Which is why the notion of "provability" needs contact with the ground. That is what the "decidability" criterion does.

Who or what decides? Some physical machine. Human.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1638
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Basta!

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:39 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:29 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:22 am
May I ask if the illustration I provided at least makes you think of what his/her position of disagreement may lie with (external to potential religious theories (s)he may be speaking about, of course)?
I gather you mean something like this: https://dailygalaxy.com/2016/02/an-alte ... d-feature/ Who knows? It seems entirely possible and I'm all for challenging orthodoxy. My own issues with the big bang are 'inflation' - seems a bit ad hoc, and the implication that while 'space' is expanding, the 'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.' to cite Erwin Schrodinger, are not. My own hypothesis has something of the steady state about it, in that I think it is conceivable that fundamental particles are, if you like, whirlpools and eddies in this expanding 'space', as outlined in chapters 4 and 6.
I was thinking more about perspective equality. So if you use the raisins-in-dough example to express the universal expansion, you can 'hold constant' the whole dough with the raisins constant (like zooming out as it expands) and this perspective makes the raisins seem to shrink. That is holding the dough constant, the raisins shrink logically equals holding the raisins constant, the dough gets larger. When one sees the altered perspective, it helps make us understand the reason why others perceive the problem differently.

The Steady State interpretation by many is/was due to treating matter everywhere as being created from nothing when only space itself was deemed a 'nothing' in light of the original understandings of the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment. It was thought to raise more questions than just treating matter as 'fixed' in quantity but with space (being nothing) to be permitted to 'expand' (because nothing + nothing = 2 nothing = nothing). That's why using the perspective of fixing the whole universe seems useful to demonstrate why even the Big Bang interpretation is equally odd: it is indifferent to treating matter as ALL the universe originally (no space) but then 'shrinks' into the space it occupies.

I'm sure Brian Greene, I think, somewhere presented this too but I'd can't recall where at the moment. It was similar to how he explained entropy in a forward direction as also equivalent in either direction in time but that the odds of statistically seeing things from many points to converge to an ordered state is just rare of all possible worlds by perspective. [I'll try to look for these and get back to you.]

I treat the density as equal everywhere. Your treatment seems to do the same. Given your perspective uses Einstein's General Relativity and knowing he had to break from his assumption in Special Relativity of assuming space as immaterial, you share a lot of agreement to my own. Note too that contrary to some who say that Einstein adapted to the Big Bang, he too thought that a Steady State model still should work. He even wrote a paper on it that was somewhat buried or lost in history. [See https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0132]

I think from the context of his own thinking, your own expression is how Einstein would have also thought of this 'in part' as well. That you used it within the framework of assuming the Big Bang with the conflicting QM (Copenhagen interpretation, that is) is why I thought your effort is so good. It respects the theories as understood while still bringing the two conflicting perspectives together in a uniform way.

My own alternative treats matter as 'open-ended' strings (spirals, more specifically). I begin by reversing General Relativity's perspective that space is curved by matter TO BECOME "curved lines ARE matter" instead. That is, the 'effect' of matter is itself what matter is. Then the question of where the matter comes from is itself space as you imagined. If space expands, the density of matter in it only relates to how things move in it. Normally things move in straight lines. But if, from EACH point in space, something is prevented from moving in straight lines, it must find an alternative dimension that can allow this. For me, this is an addition of a 'spin' dimension. Normal things still require moving in straight lines UNLESS prevented from it. Because each point cannot NOT move, then the 'energy' of each point being equal (because of equal density of energy), this loss of option to move straight must be conserved. That conservation can hold when spin is allowed to occur as its own dimension. The coordinates new axis treats each point as axes that are 'spiral'....and thus become 'matter'.

My guess is that space originates as ONLY linear UNTIL some 'contradiction' of very rare head-on collisions that cannot be expressly resolved in the normal linear way. That these spirals move out from a central point of conflict, may also explain things like how and why the spiral galaxies on a large scale have unexpected velocity at the outer extremes of their arms. The center of the galaxies may be equally giving off energy out through the center arms of the spirals as gravity is also pulling in at areas in between, cancelling the effect of gravity of stars further out.

All matter and energy that we can conceive more directly has to be due to the curved paths of space. Gravity could then be interpreted as a 'shadow-effect' of the overall pressure of the surrounding activity of space that is mostly 'linear'. Besides light, there can be 'rays' that are perfect lines (waves that are of infinite frequency or zero wavelengths).

Either way, your own description fits as a more cohesive expression of science that new people would at least appreciate that doesn't dismiss the present paradigm, something that my own theory would/does require a lot of undoing to reconstruct things from scratch.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests