Relativity and chaos
Posted 05 May 2008 - 01:09 PM
Posted 05 May 2008 - 03:48 PM
The point I was making is if either Murphy or Chaos was in affect in the moving relativistic reference, with a statistical reliability, the time dilation affect should make it appear like it is happening less often, relative to fixed reference. What it sort of suggests is this random occurrence seems to follow rational principles at least when it comes to relativity.
If either Murphy or Chaos are more independent than that, then maybe Einstein's postulate of the laws of physics are the same in all references needs to be looked at closer.
Posted 05 May 2008 - 05:12 PM
Only when you use statistics in the time domain would time dilation make a difference.
In other words, if you and I are sitting on two different spacecraft and you zoom by me at 0.9c and flip a coin in the instance in which you traverse some arbitrary point in space, we would both still calculate the same odds of it landing on heads or tails. The difference would be the amount of time we both observed for the coin to fall, but for both of us, the end result would remain the same.
Conversely, if we sat a beacon in space and let it blink every second, at the end of my (stationary reference frame) minute, I would have counted exactly 60 blinks, whereas your number (0.9c reference frame) would vary considerably from mine.
Here's a better example perhaps. Let's say you took a lottery machine on board your space craft. As you were traveling along at your relativistic speed, you set the balls floating around and suctioned out six random numbers. For the sake of the experiment, let's say that I was able to witness the drawing from my stationary reference frame. When you came back to compare results, I might greet you with, "What took you so long?". You would shrug and show me your results. They would match, only the time it took to come to them would appear to vary.
- modest likes this
Posted 05 May 2008 - 07:04 PM
I am not trying to be theological but this creates a scientific way to address the philosophical dilemma of the perfect God making a defective world. At C all is perfect. But slowing down from there enters finite reference and the realm of increasing chaos per time. This was just for fun in terms of solving this philosophical dilemma with science. Use it for conversation.
Posted 09 May 2008 - 03:07 PM
Posted 10 May 2008 - 10:55 AM
My gut tells me that relativistic mass may be a virtual affect that is added to the particle. Being virtual it may be subject to the laws of chaos. It could also follow logical principles but may not yet understood such that chaos is a good first approximation.
I often picture the people in the relativity rocket seeing the air in the rocket twinkle and the people sort of virtual glowing as the virtual mass is trying to balance within the rocket. This is getting science fiction but my reasoning is the relativistic mass is defined by the entire rocket, but there is also open space within the living quarters, with some virtual balancing occurring. Being virtual there is nothing to say it can't shift about.
Posted 12 May 2008 - 05:00 AM
Neither am I an expert on chaos, but I can tell you one thing: Murphy's law is a joke. It's a long-standing joke, started by a group of lab physicists, which spread around with great success, but still fundamentally a joke.
I am not an expert with chaos. It seems to have a connection to Murphy's law.
The principle of relativity has nothing to do with statistics, and wasn't Einstein's claim either; it has a longer history than that. In any case, one may write plenty of things in a way that isn't Lorentz-covariant, this doesn't refute SR. If otoh one defines a statistic which is covariant, it can be applied to define quantities which are covariant. It's a plain matter of doing things properly.
Posted 10 June 2008 - 11:53 AM
Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction | IMHO
Chaos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Based on the information in these links, I'd say the question is whether the laws of physics governing the behavior of complex systems would apply in all frames of reference. Which I think they do.
Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:13 PM
Posted 10 June 2008 - 02:09 PM
chaos i believe is not a measurable energy, or in any actual form of measurable substance. it is, in, theory, just a zone of unpridictable nothingness, where the laws of physics doesn't apply, anything can happen. there is no up, there is no down, there is not any direction. the space between dimensions ,or is it realities?, is the "void" or "chaos" in speaking.
Well, yes, that sounds pretty close to one modern definition.
The word Chaos actually comes to us from ancient greek mythology.
CHAOS : The deity from Greek Mythology
CHAOS: Goddess of Emptiness and Confusion.
She is the gaping shapeless void who gave birth to the universe. GAIA and EROS came from CHAOS, as did NYX.
However in modern times, the word Chaos has come to have different meanings.
Here are some modern definitions:
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.
4. Mathematics: A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
Chaos Theory is a theory in mathematics (see definition #4).
So I was using the mathetical definition, and saying that "A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on it's initial conditions" would still be "A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on it's initial conditions", in all frames of reference.
Posted 10 June 2008 - 05:10 PM
Chaotic systems are systems that look random but aren't. They are actually deterministic systems (predictable if you have enough information) governed by physical laws, that are very difficult to predict accurately (a commonly used example is weather forecasting)."
That 'predictable if you have enough information' cautions us to conclude that chaos may actually exist only in the eye of the beholder - as might've been mentioned earlier in this thread.
- Overdog likes this
Posted 11 June 2008 - 12:43 PM
Does it not have Something to do with Wave Function Probability ....
Is this Chaos ......
I wouldnt Imagine Light Standing Alone in a constent steam wouldnt display much chaos but with potential interaction there comes added variables to rationalise.
If a system Dosnt move when in Zero Time ... No Change = No Chaos.
Its the potential interaction and possible Changes that make Chaos potentially.
Chaos is just like an irrational number like PI .. that cant be resolved with rational number Abstractly.
.. ... A paradox occurs with the Abstract thought if ... You create a system that displays pure random .... Absolute chaos .... some chaotic systems harbour points of similarity in predictable steps ....
Remove all possibility of Similarity so you could not grasp anything with in the system : IE WHAT IS THE MOST CHAOTIC SEQUENCE WITH 0123456789
0246813579 <- The obvious rearranged sequence here is all even first and then odd 'hardly chaotic' .. So if you synthetically rearanged the sequence again to be as Chaotic as possibe it wouldnt be Chaos anymore it would become ordered chaos .. TOO CHAOTIC IT BECOMES ORDER (becuase it would become perfect chaos)... Strange Extreme.
Non linear systems i believe harbour the maintanence of Evolutionary Fluidity but thats another story.
At the Speed of light with contraction Chaotic Potential must be Preserved ... Maybe there is no such thing as a non linear chaotic system to god .. he would understand the entire picture where we see confusion.
Posted 11 June 2008 - 01:51 PM
Posted 11 June 2008 - 04:18 PM
Posted 11 June 2008 - 04:59 PM
Light and speed of light create an interesting paradox. At the speed of light, with time totally dilated, there is no time for chaos. There is also no time for finite change. The question is, how can light red shift or do any of the other tricks we can make it do in the lab? It is not behaving like something that is moving at C, yet we know it is.
There is no paradox. The frequency shift we observe is not due to any event that is occuring in the light itself, it is due to the frequency of the light being stretched by the expansion of the space-time the light is travelling through.
Posted 11 June 2008 - 05:07 PM
simple, the fact that light has a speed, i commonly known. so, what happens when you reach that speed? simple, the object in question becomes the width of the the universe and then in turn go ANYWHERE, ANYWHEN.
No, the object in question will never reach the speed of light. As the object aproaches the speed it light it's mass approaches infinity. It would take an infinite amount of force to accelerate the object to the speed of light, that is why it is considered impossible according to relativity.
if anyone could reach that speed s/he would be transfered to another dimension instead of returning to this one,. think of light speed as a "bridge" between demensions since the space between dimentions is pure chaos, achieving the speed of light is impossable. this is my theory.
Is this just speculation, or do you have anything more convincing to offer in support of this theory?