A Question Concerning Material Structure and the Speed of Light

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Math is literally the language of the Universe.

How exactly is it the language of the universe?
I always thought of Math as just another type of language created by humans. Yes, it's quite a useful tool to measure the universe with, but only within a humanistic conceptual construct. We use our own language to confirm our own observations and construct a concept with meaning. Math is not a universal language, if that's what you're trying to say. Math only elucidates the patterns found in nature, and merely aids in our conception and manipulation of it.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Do you see anything wrong in this video?

It is actually displaying the Experiment wrong. And this is what happeneds when People dont understand what they are doing.

Do you see what is wrong? I bet you wont. And i dont think anyone else will either. Even though i have given a Clue.





Is this (image bellow) how People think it would be like if the Experiment was done according to the video?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Relationships between quantities and forces in the universe are susceptible to mathematical analysis. From this we derive universal laws that are mathematical relationships. The universe consistently obeys these laws, which is how it is possible for us to understand how it works. As we say, 'the universe has a metrical frame'.

It did not have to be like this. Matter and energy could just as easily behave in random, unpredictable ways. In fact, at a quantum level, they do. But even this quantum randomness obeys statistical — i.e. mathematical — laws, and at nonquantum scales the behaviour of matter and energy becomes mathematically predictable.

If miracles regularly occurred, if things did or didn't happen according to some divine caprice, it would be different. But they don't. The behaviour of the universe can be understood and predicted through mathematics. That is what we mean when we say that 'mathematics is the language of universe'.

a reply to: Astyanax

It did not have to be like this. Matter and energy could just as easily behave in random, unpredictable ways. In fact, at a quantum level, they do. But even this quantum randomness obeys statistical — i.e. mathematical — laws, and at nonquantum scales the behaviour of matter and energy becomes mathematically predictable.

You really dont know what you are talking about do you Clown

- Its random! No InFact it is Mathematical?

- No its Random! No it is Statistical i.e. Mathematical-laws?

a reply to: Astyanax

It did not have to be like this. Matter and energy could just as easily behave in random, unpredictable ways.

Could have. But they don't. Not in our Universe anyhow. A good job they don't, I say!
Random vectors and fields I would not like at all.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Do you see anything wrong in this video?

It is actually displaying the Experiment wrong. And this is what happeneds when People dont understand what they are doing.

Do you see what is wrong? I bet you wont. And i dont think anyone else will either. Even though i have given a Clue.

Is this (image bellow) how People think it would be like if the Experiment was done according to the video?

O.k. I'll give it another shot at explaining this.

Firstly the experiment shown is not supposed to be anything other than a visual representation of a thought experiment and it doesn't go into a great deal of detail and it misses the key to the principle of time dilation.

You can however see the issues at hand... from the perspective of the person standing on the asteroid light appears to have traveled further than the people on the spaceship measured it traveling.

How can this be?

The answer is Time Dilation.

The faster you travel the slower time passes for you. So..... From the perspective of the person standing on the asteroid when he measures the speed of the light it shows to be exactly 186k mps....

However From the perspective of the people on the spaceship they measure the exact same time interval for the shorter distance and get 186k mps....

The key is that time has slowed down for the people on the spaceship...

Do you get it?

Korg.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Astyanax

It did not have to be like this. Matter and energy could just as easily behave in random, unpredictable ways.

Could have. But they don't. Not in our Universe anyhow. A good job they don't, I say!
Random vectors and fields I would not like at all.

lol you wouldn't like my field of research then.. Quantum Mechanics relies on Chaos and so does the entire universe.

Though from chaos comes order and coherence, which is pure cosmic Irony do you not think?

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity
I understand that. Sorta. Kinda.

I'm just glad that it all works out so that my wing produces enough lift to keep me from plummeting.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You can however see the issues at hand... from the perspective of the person standing on the asteroid light appears to have traveled further than the people on the spaceship measured it traveling.

This is what they are trying to explain. But in fact it is not what the person standing on the asteroid would observe. When observing this.

The person would observe that the light would not Reach the reciever at all.

The ships would not be able to communicate at all unless they reduced their speed, or their postition relative to eachother when sending the light beam.

It is easier to understand this if you view all Three Objects moving at light speed. If all Three Objects move at light speed. Light would have to travel X amount of distance longer than the reciever at an angle. That means the reciever would have passed to point where the beam is aimed.

When a light beam is aimed at an angle compared to the angle the reciever is traveling. Light will loose speed in the direction the resciever is traveling.

Since the theory dont add up. They would have to do it again. And re do their equations. And time dilation would be whole different story.

a reply to: Astyanax

I understand all of that.

What I'm trying to avoid is the idea that we've somehow decided how the universe works because we think it obeys our laws of mathematics. It doesn't obey our laws. We only use math as a tool to describe the patterns and behaviors we observe to better our understanding (as you said). I guess I fail to see how that makes math the language of the universe. It seems to suggest that the universe is mathematical in some way. Is it measurable? Sure in a lot of ways it is. Is it predicable? Again, yes. But a civilization billions of our lightyears away will have a completely different way of interpreting the universe that may very well have no meaning to us. So whose language supersedes?

When we use a light year, it is based off our own locally derived and arbitrarily defined units of measure. There is no universal measure for distance. Time, distance, and speed, are by and large human concepts which we use to measure the universe with. We then come up with things like an age of 13.8 billion years old. But that's not the age, only in our own humanistic perspective is it that old. These concepts have no meaning in a relativistic universe, but somehow we defined the universe with them. We don't say that math is the language of a football field simply because we can measure it and get the same result every time.

Relativity should apply to universal understanding as well.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

And let's not even get into the Lorentz Contraction.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

What I'm trying to avoid is the idea that we've somehow decided how the universe works because we think it obeys our laws of mathematics.

The problem is easily avoided by acknowledging that they are not our laws. They fall out of the initial condtions that gave rise to the universe. We have merely found the way to understand them, which we call mathematics.

This is the miracle; this is the occasion for awe and wonder. Before this truth I, for one, am content to kneel and worship. The metrical frame of the universe is something we take for granted, but what if it were otherwise?

It takes a leap of faith, but only a small one, to surmise that, absent such a frame, we would not exist to observe the universe and interpret its laws. Surely that is easily argued, though empirical proof will always be lacking. This is because the implications, as I know you are aware, cut both ways: it had to be like this for us to be here, but if it could be otherwise, how would we know?

A civilization billions of our lightyears away will have a completely different way of interpreting the universe that may very well have no meaning to us. So whose language supersedes?

However advanced they are, their mathematical concepts and operations will be translatable into ours, and vice versa. That is because both would be systems for describing the same universal relationships, or — as we call them — the laws of physics. Both would be descriptions of, and operations upon, the same metrical frame.

When we use a light year, it is based off our own locally derived and arbitrarily defined units of measure. There is no universal measure for distance.

So what? We have light-years and light-days and light-seconds. We have, also, miles, leagues, kilometres, parsecs, stadia, parasangs, furlongs, chains, metres, hands, feet, inches and a host of other units of longitudinal measure, all of which are readily translatable into one another. When we meet the aliens and find they measure distance in — shall we say —joolongs or collywobbles, we will quickly work out that one joolong = 9.7 parasangs, or that there are 2.133 collywobles to the statutory mile.

How will we do this? Why, we will measure both against one of two universal yardsticks, the distance travelled by light in a given time or the Planck length. Both of which are invariant however they are observed, whether by the inhabitants of Gliese 180c or by ourselves.

We will, that is to say, do it using the awe-inspiring mathematical consistency of the universe.

Relativity should apply to universal understanding as well.

We are arguing tautologies, you know. The objections you put forward in your post are based on the assumption that the laws of nature are a human construct. Therefore, you can't use them to prove that they are a human construct. You have to use other arguments, one based on premises that would be equally true whether maths is universal, or a human invention. That's the way it works.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Feynman said it best:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: GetHyped

And this from a man with an empirical bent so strong that he regularly used his superior intellectual and mathematical abilities to crack safes, sharp card games and tumble girls.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Korg Trinity

And let's not even get into the Lorentz Contraction.

i think the issue most people have with relativity is visualization time as one dimension of a four dimensional construct, the concept of both length contraction and time dilation become far easier to understand if they could visualize it.

Not to mention calabi yau space lol

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Not to mention calabi yau space

Yeah, thank goodness you don't need those to understand relativity theory. Riemann geometry is bad enough.

a reply to: Astyanax

The problem is easily avoided by acknowledging that they are not our laws. They fall out of the initial condtions that gave rise to the universe. We have merely found the way to understand them, which we call mathematics.

Mathematics is a conceptual abstraction that helps us achieve some relative understanding of these so called laws. But the universe may very well operate in ways that are beyond our mathematical comprehension. A more sensible view of mathematics, I think, is that it is a very effective, but artificial and invented language we use to model nature. It is, however, only an interpretation of reality observed from a very remote part of the universe.

I think it's important to note that the universe is not only understood mathematically, but also chemically, and perhaps biologically. There are other "languages", and ways to interpret this thing.

It takes a leap of faith, but only a small one, to surmise that, absent such a frame, we would not exist to observe the universe and interpret its laws. Surely that is easily argued, though empirical proof will always be lacking. This is because the implications, as I know you are aware, cut both ways: it had to be like this for us to be here, but if it could be otherwise, how would we know?

I agree, and had to give you a star for this. It is quite unreal how it all came to be, or that it did at all - matter interacting and reflecting in this manner.

However advanced they are, their mathematical concepts and operations will be translatable into ours, and vice versa. That is because both would be systems for describing the same universal relationships, or — as we call them — the laws of physics. Both would be descriptions of, and operations upon, the same metrical frame.

This is the leap of faith, isn't it? Would it be fair to say that you might presume to know more about the universe than we actually do? Naturally you are aware of the big chunk of universe we can't comprehend - the oft mentioned "other 96%."

Not to mention that an advanced civilization may be well beyond our forms of sensory perception and communication. Their understanding of the universe may not at all be translatable into math, or any other language for that matter. It might be like us trying to share our understanding of architecture with a cathedral termite.

How will we do this? Why, we will measure both against one of two universal yardsticks, the distance travelled by light in a given time or the Planck length. Both of which are invariant however they are observed, whether by the inhabitants of Gliese 180c or by ourselves.

We will, that is to say, do it using the awe-inspiring mathematical consistency of the universe.

I admire your certainty of the matter. But mathematical models are only approximations to physical reality, and thus subject to change and evolution. Not to mention these models can tend towards to bizarre notions of multiple universes with several unobservable dimensions and particles and such... All a bit untestable, no?

The objections you put forward in your post are based on the assumption that the laws of nature are a human construct. Therefore, you can't use them to prove that they are a human construct. You have to use other arguments, one based on premises that would be equally true whether maths is universal, or a human invention. That's the way it works.

No, I think you have mistaken my position. Allow me to clarify. Quite simply, to call mathematics the language of the universe is to invoke a version of the anthropic principle in my opinion. Math is the human construct here, not the laws themselves, obviously.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Sorry, nothing there that I see any need to reply to.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Mathematics is a conceptual abstraction that helps us achieve some relative understanding of these so called laws. But the universe may very well operate in ways that are beyond our mathematical comprehension.

No. Math is the absolute foundation language. There is nothing in the universe that could not be understood by using math.

Think of it this way.... following the big bang there were values set in place for everything in the universe that we see today. If you had a computer with sufficient power and you knew the exact position and energy states of all the matter / anti matter at the big bang you could not only calculate out to simulate perfectly the universe you see today... but would be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy and even look back further than the big bang itself.

Math is not an abstract human concept, it is fundamental to reality.

It might also be worth mentioning that should we be lucky enough to find intelligent life out there, Math would be the way we would communicate, precisely because 1+1 = 2 where ever you are in the universe.

This is why I love Math so much, because to understand it is to understand reality.

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Nice post and I do appreciate your view on things.

Without a doubt nature is incredibly orderly. The structure and relations we speak of and the wonderful regularity and orderliness (even in deterministic chaos) are what's fundamental to nature.

If you were to say to me that mathematics represents the structure, relations and orderliness. Then I would consider this to be exactly what I think, and reasonable.

The structure, relations and orderliness are what is primary and fundamental. The mathematical representation of that orderliness is secondary, no matter how exquisite and "unreasonably effective".

The structures, relations and orderliness of nature existed before numbers or differential equations were invented. There is reality, and then there are representations of reality. To some extent we have a semantic dilemma. Is mathematics the representation of the orderliness or is it the orderliness itself? I lean toward the former, but I can understand how others would prefer the latter. However, if one so chooses the latter, then mathematics must exist completely independent of our existence, and I find that more than a little strange. I find it easier to believe that nature and its orderliness can exist happily without us, but that mathematics does not.

The bottom line is that the entire question is philosophy and cannot be empirically tested or finally resolved, to my knowledge.

Math is not an abstract human concept, it is fundamental to reality.

It might also be worth mentioning that should we be lucky enough to find intelligent life out there, Math would be the way we would communicate, precisely because 1+1 = 2 where ever you are in the universe.

1+1 = 2 is true, but is still just a concept.
I could argue, perhaps against widely held popular belief, that 1 + 1 = 1.
It really depends on what the underlying meaning is.