On The Move
Registered: Jan 2005
I think you left out one of the categories; the system which does the defining, aka isolation as a considerable set. Such acts of isolation create 1) the considered-relevant set, 2) the set/system doing the 'encapsulating' and 3) the rest of the universe, irrelevant for the purposes of that specific definition.
You refer to defining 'self' as 'not other', but wouldn't 'no other' be more approriate? The difference is one of symmetry: definition isn't singular (this), nor polar (this = not that).
It's a focus (this-no-else, or inside-vs-outside, concave-vs-convex, together-vs-leaving).
Focussing is not well-reperesnted by number lines. -4 is qualitatively identical to 4; they are the same proportion.
'In' is qualitatively different than 'out.' Going 'in' means 'towards a focus.' 'Out' is 'any other arrangement,' whether it follows from a past foucssing event, or not.
Only a focus allows for frequency analysis, the primary function of sensory equipment, as well.
That was one of my original clues. The light coming off any object is an explosion, going every which way. We don't see the light coming off an object. We see maybe 1 octave of 8, and only that small amount that happens to bounce into your pupil, where your lens does a frequency-analysis to re-interpret the angles those photons arrived at, and just how fast they rotate / happen.
(Which we experience as a colored image, of course). Two eyes provide a measure of distance (angle, again, before interpretation, reinforced by the angle of focus in your eye).
The image 'in the rock' is, in actuality, written in the angular pattern of retinoid-response in your eye, by the operation of multi-frequencied exploding photons, whose speeds and angles have been created by interaction with the angularly-arranged 'rock' you see. And faces are a very common pattern for humans to recognize. In fact, large parts of our brains are designed as 'attractors' for 'face recognition,' so that image of 'a face' may be nowhere but there in your imagination.
You're not talking about that face on mars, are you? :-)
I agree, unity is plural, and that does constitute, I believe, a fundamental limitation on our ability to know things. Constituting only one half of such 'unties' is what makes a point-of-view unique, ironically; it cannot be defined, based on our self-referential defintion of 'define,' because no communicable experience occurs without it.
'Conjugate attributes' in QM constitute the same relationship, I think.
Of course, there is that oh-so-human 'empty category' function of mind (the email pal would say 'our ability to define', I bet) where we recognize a pattern of experience, then prepare to have an experience in the future which 'fits' that pattern.
So we can imagine an 'outside' for the universe. Strangely enough, our definition of 'define' can be inverted; 'outside of Universe' also means 'inside us.' As your thoughts weigh nothing, no conservation law applies; they exist separate, in some ways, from the rules governing Universe.
Are 'you' the tiny body you experience in this universe, or is the universe a tiny information-set, which 'you' experience in your head? What if it's both at once? Since 'you' are the phantom captain playing gatekeeper of the interface then clearly, 'you' are part of the functioning of that third category, as you've already pointed out!
Points-of-view are irreducible, if I'm not mistaken, and that expresses the NKS way of saying 'the minimal set required to define,' it seems.
Fuller's insight was that a minimum set for any concept is four distinct experiences; 1) a 100% novel experience, 2) a familiar experience (re-cognized) 3) recognition, with the feeling of recognition being familiar, followed by formation of the empty catregory, which, if filled, constitutes 4) confirmation.
The category 'you' never gets 'filled', by definition, because it exists to be continually filling throughout your life. It'll be 'filled' once you've died, and it stops filling, AKA filing.
You mention that definitions are false, but useful. Does that mean they aren't useful, contrary to your belief, or does that mean you seek a defintion of 'true' stronger than 'useful'?
The nice thing about definition in three categories is that such a method of definition also applies to itself, a self-accomodating feature of the model, something required for any representation of a self-accomodating Universe.
I've heard there are people working on this idea, but I've yet to learn any details. I've heard, as well, rumors that mass is actually *two* dimensions of time, and there is some basis to it.
First, begin with a simplifying assumption; c is not the *maximum* speed - it is the *only* speed. Photon-mediated particle physics assumes as much.
Particles, in that case, must be bound-photon states. Feynman Diagrams assume as much. Matter self-dis-equilibrates (stable cyclic modes), radiation explodes.
The reason E=MC^2 is because when those photons get released, their wave-front grows at the rate of c to the second power - the surface of a sphere, growing at c. This is the speed that all spheres grow...even the self-equilibrating 'spheres'.
IOW, 'how much it weighs' results from 'how many waves are caught.' More waves = higher frequency = more energy.
What I picture is a knot - a rotating self-interfereing, hence self-recreating, collection of wavelengths. Photons already do this in two directions (E and B fields, causing each other in turn) in order to propogate in a third.
Which 'field' operates to make it (color, nuclear, EM, etc) determines which kind of 'particle' it appears as. Annhilate it or decay it, and some of the waves/mass escapes as a spherically-shaped explosion of photons.
Leaving aside (for the moment) the particulars of the geometry of such knottings, we can still picture a method of generating inertia. For the purposes of illustration, we can talk about a ring of photons - akin to deBroglie's model for the electron-waves around the atom.
When we move that wave-ring - that is, when we try to change it's velocity, relative to us - it resists, displays inertia, requires some force to accelerate, and requires an energy transfer before it will do so. (Leaving aside GR for now...)
We have to pump some energy into it, from our frame of reference, in order to change it's velocity. Where does that effort 'go'?
I suspect you already know the answer; *one* side of that wave-ring, travelling at c, must increase it's frequency, from our point of view, and the other must decrease it by a wave-conserving amount, since the wave-itself can never propogate at any other speed. It changes it rotational speed, as a result of it's translational speed.
Equivilanetly, some number of waves must transfer, from one side of that ring to the other, as part of the necessary processes for moving it as an ensemble.
As always, we are talking about within the frame of reference where that object's velocity is measured.
The faster you move it, the more that imbalance occurs, and hence, the reason it takes so much more energy near c. Since that ring cannot ever break, no amount of energy can make an item built of knotted photons move as fast as c, for that would imply a half-ring, or equivalently, one side moving at '2c,' the other, at 'zero,' neither of which is allowed in an 'all c' universe.
Isomorphically, the 'time differential' represented by that transfer is *inherent* within the frame of the particle so moved.
That is, lorentz only applies in the direction of motion - how many 'parts' of a wave-packet are on one or the other side cannot change under lorentz or any other co-ordinate transform...or can it?
Clearly, the idea gets quite complicated when you include all three spatial dimensions, plus all four fields - and I'm still not clear which ones should be included. Our non-simultaneous Universe certainly has some order, but 'event sequence' doesn't appear to be one of them.
Nevertheless, in principle, if you make the comparison between the rest-masses, and the wave-lengths of the particles involved, via a rotational-inertia method, you should be able to figure out the geometry of the 'rotation' of the QM 'wave-particle' by deduction.
If particle physics operates according to the same geometry everything else appears to follow, it will always be a whole-number ratio of 4pi - 720 degrees; the total spherical solid angle. A torus displays 8pi, for example, since it has both an 'exterior-pointing' set and an 'interior-pointing' set.
Turns out, pi, like h, are irrationals - they are idealized amounts, invented as a limiting case, but not actually displayed in any proportion found in Universe.
If you dispense with the idealizations (spherical, not spheres - linear, not lines - unresolved, not points), you can avoid both.
And somewhere along the line, we just might figure out what '1/137' really means...though the fact that it's unitless certainly does provide powerful incentive to consider it fundamental, as in your use of charge for a fundamental.
We might even take 1/137 as a test for any dimensional set.
Does that sound like a framework with promise, or has it already been done, or what?
With respect to your search for 'dimensions' or 'least-set categories', I always wonder; what's the appeal? Philosophers, expert and newbie, have always done the same thing. So do I, don't get me wrong, but where's the motivation really coming from?
'Charge,' I think, is not fundamental - that is, electric charge isn't. Gravity, EM, Weak & Strong are all fundamentally the same experience; certain systems 'do that' (create force from arrangement), and that ceratinly appears fundamental.
What *is* special is how dynamic E-fields make B-fields, and vice-versa (light propogation), but only one of them has a static-field making particle. What's up with that? Where's the magnetic version of the electron? Is the e- charge caused by some kind of rotating magnet 'inside' the electron? Are the W+ and W- particles opposite ends of a microscopic-width wormhole made of magnetic loops?
Any one of those force-fields, in any one selected locale, can be represented by a vector. Hence, the 'state' of the Universe can be represented by such a 4-number description applied to any spot to any degree of accuracy you wish...except it's actually 12, because each vector has a length (time, actually, since they are forces) and a direction (2 angles, in spherical trig). Ug. This is the root notion of 'crystalizing' the vacuum; defining particles as 'polarizations' of the various fields, instead.
If you assume c is the only speed, you still have eight dimensions. Hence the 'eight-fold-way' of categorizing them.
Electrons, themselves a polarization, when moving, create another...again, it comes back to angles, include time, and you got your frequencies. Quantum Field Theory takes that approach; every 'thing' is a frequency and an angle. A 'bound state' or, since it's probabilistic, might as well call it a 'bounce-wait' - they aren't 'really there' until they 'bounce' - they exist, kinda, but only while waiting to bounce!
The photon-mediation model takes the 'polarizability of the vacuum' seriously, and concludes that forces are caused by momentum-carrying virtual-paticle-pair creation.
As two electrons get closer together, more and more of their 'virtual photon pairs' interact, and it results in the force each electron feels from the other. One electron throws a 'ball', causing a recoil, the other catches it, also causing a recoil. If you imagine a quickly-rotating torus, you might visualize how 'negative momentum' is transferred, AKA, 'pull.'
The torus carries x momentum in the direction it travels, but can carry -20x, if it's rotating in an 'involuting' manner, quickly enough.
When a jet speeds off, it's engine cause huge momentum-transfer which leaves behind miles of such rotating donuts of air in order to do so.
You can conceptualize *every* photon as a virtual-photon. That is to say, *until* a photon gets absorbed by another electron, it doesn't 'really' exist, because it's energy is still 'on account' via heisenberg. In flight, it's looking to get paid off. When it does, the effect of the 'pay off' happens where - and when - it started
When a photon hits your eye, it transfers a little bit of momentum from whatever electron made the photon into a retinoid molecule that registers light, which finally pays off the momentum 'borrowed' from that 'polarizable substrate' we call 'space' in order to emit it in the first place.
This is true even if you 'catch' photons from other galaxies. Some electron, billions of years ago, made a 'fake' photon, in order to recoil at right angles to our direction. Finally, billions of years later, that 'fake' photon found a place to 'pick up' the right amount of momentum to 'pay off' that transaction; your eye.
The fact that time is all skeehawed doesn't matter; from the photon's frame, zero time passes. They are instantaneous, in their own frame, so distance doesn't matter either for that momentum-transfer, or the range of borrowing.
Another way to consider virtual particles is to remember Bell's theorem; it was proven experimentally by the use of paired-particle experiments, which just means particles which have 100% correlated phases. What we know is that once entangled, particles remain entangled, and those phase relationships mean mutual effects. Polarizing one in *this* direction means (causes) polarization of the other in the *opposite* direction, in response, and instantly.
Not just FTL, but always instantly. This, I suspect, constitutes the 'information network' Process Physics seeks, and it applies to electrons and those virtual photons which mediate charge interactions.
Lone electrons make those photons, but far away from other charges, they don't interact as often, so the result, from the point of view of the electron emitting them is 'not much momentum transfer, AKA force.'
As they toss those virtuals out, they do so in a spherical arrangement. Hence the 1/r^2 aspect to almost all of them; how often the mediators meet is caused by the cross-section each emitter 'sees' of the other.
Even 'color charge' has that aspect, with the caveat that larger-mass particle-pairs can't reach as far as rest-massless photons - the horizon you mentioned, in fact, doesn't exist for a particle which has no mass.
So, you might start by assuming a unified field for the 'big three', plus gravity means 2 vectors for each spot...any one spot can express such a photon, and they are always the same size (c).
Of course, the 'reality' of those forces only ever manifest as 'frequencies' - a rotation which transmits either energy or momentum - a nice encapsulation of both time and distance, illustrating a problem in every measurement of either time or distance which usually just gets swept under the rug.
If either could be measured absolutely, we wouldn't have ambiguities like 'how do we know Universe doesn't double in size?' or 'how fast does time flow?' We're right back to the unity principle; it always takes (at least) two.
In fact, I'm inclined, seeking 'universally fundamental' dimensions, to begin with such conjugate attributes. Learning a position or momentum masks knowledge of the other. Likewise energy or time.
I suspect that the 'fundamental' dimensions are the ones causing that class of conjugate relationship. 'Charge' isn't one of them, if so, because it's not a dynamic attribute; you can learn the charge on the electron, and doing so doesn't screw up any other measurement (does it?).
The quesiton then, is whether electrons (or W-) are a static result of a dynamic event, or do static events actually exist?
HOWEVER, there is also a fantastic element which must be included somehow; precession. It constitutes 'threeness' like no other geometric can, and it provides an option for rotation-into-translation. That's pretty much all it does, really.
E fields make B fields...at 90 degrees the other way.
A photon vibrates in *this* plane, and takes off, at c, in the perpendicular direction.
That 'turning' is an absolutely ubiquotous aspect of Universe, yet it just gets sort of 'included' via vector products, much as 'matter' gets included via dirac functions.
But in a Universe of 'twoness,' I have to wonder about Dirac Functions (oneness reprented by infinity^0) and precessional vectors (threeness repesented by nineness)
There has got to be a better way for modelling rotation as a vector field always pointing in the direction of the *poles* of rotation. And what about rotations like involution, twisting, orbiting, etc? Are all rotations actually forms of orbits?
It's my suspicion that precession ultimately explains inertia. When you move a wave-packet-knot *this* way, it has to speed up *that* way, simultaneously slow down 'the other* way, and those motions take effort to do so, creating a resistance - the phenomenon of inertia. That, I suspect, is a fundamental dimension, and part of what 1/137 means.
Now, assuming you haven't noticed a bunch of oversights in my presentation, and assuming it's not just a funky re-description of an old model, where would you start, to apply the math for evaluating it?
Spherical harmonics are bad enough, but if the goal is to discover the geometry of the 'rotations' we currently use to model physics, should we really start by assuming the simplest rotation?
My overarching fear is that I've got a great intution...about string theory, which has 1) been done and 2) yet to produce testable predictions.
Assuming that scenario, there is some possibility that process physics can reconceptualize String Theory in a way that allows for testable predictions. Or is that what they've done, and I just didn't recognize it formally?
The syntropy loss model is something even nuttier - as those wave-numbers get compressed-and-stretched (depending on which side of the wave-ring you look), the number of allowable states decrease.
The proportion between the two 'sides' are larger - it needs rarer and rarer prime numbers (hence, longer calculation!), the larger it goes, so only larger 'disequilibriums' are allowable, hence, less of them can happen.
I haven't really thought through that one much, but it might have a real easy thermodynamic solution, starting from 'allowable states.'
Showing that 'mass = number' would be the final proof that Pythagoras explains Heraclitus. :-)
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged