Are all physical objects interconnected?

[geordief]

Are all objects connected so that ,for example clock,when viewed as a physical object is actually  part of a physical network and cannot (except for practical reasons) be viewed in isolation?

When ,for instance a  neutron is measured as spatially contracted ,might this also  imply that the physical clock is also  correspondingly so ?

Does this physical interconnection of objects show up only at the quantum level where extremely small   "particles" which previously  seemed  to be isolated bodies turn out to be waves and all the waves add/superimpose as if they were part of one network.

Perhaps I have made a few bad missteps here.Are there any obvious misunderstandings or might it be at least a decent first appreciation of the scenario?

 

I placed this in speculations as I feel I may have misunderstood the mainstream present understanding although I hope that I am not too far off.

Edited February 10, 2018 by geordief

[swansont]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Are all objects connected so that ,for example clock,when viewed as a physical object is actually  part of a physical network and cannot (except for practical reasons) be viewed in isolation?

No, they are not. And they cannot be. Interactions between objects separated by some distance is limited by the speed of light. Any events happing within a time t cannot be caused by the other object if L > ct

And owing to the expansion of the universe there are regions with which we cannot interact with at all.

 

[geordief]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, they are not. And they cannot be. Interactions between objects separated by some distance is limited by the speed of light. Any events happing within a time t cannot be caused by the other object if L > ct

And owing to the expansion of the universe there are regions with which we cannot interact with at all.

 

Are objects(or can they be)   manifestations of fields  and are not fields connected in the way I have wondered about? 

 

Do observable fields extend into unobservable regions? (thinking of the expansion you mentioned)

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Are objects(or can they be)   manifestations of fields  and are not fields connected in the way I have wondered about? 

Changes in a field will propagate at a speed that does not exceed c.

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do observable fields extend into unobservable regions? (thinking of the expansion you mentioned)

They will obey the limitations of relativity.

[geordief]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

Changes in a field will propagate at a speed that does not exceed c.

 

Do these changes always propagate in the form of waves?

 

Is it correct (or a reasonable interpretation) to view all objects as manifestations of changes in fields? (unless that sentence is  just word salad) 

 

 

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do these changes always propagate in the form of waves?

Yes, but keep in mind a wave is not a physical thing, it's a description. You can always represent a continuous function as a wave with various Fourier components.

 

54 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is it correct (or a reasonable interpretation) to view all objects as manifestations of changes in fields? (unless that sentence is  just word salad)

Correct, at the fundamental level. But rarely useful if you are looking at any scale larger than that.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Yes, but keep in mind a wave is not a physical thing, it's a description. You can always represent a continuous function as a wave with various Fourier components.

 

But a field is not a description (whether or not it is called "physical" or not)?

 

Does the wave "describe" an aspect of the field  and are all fields dynamic by their very nature?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, geordief said:

 

But a field is not a description (whether or not it is called "physical" or not)?

 

Does the wave "describe" an aspect of the field  and are all fields dynamic by their very nature?

A field is an abstraction; it's part of a mathematical model. A wave is a description of one behavior of that model.

[geordief]

On 2/10/2018 at 1:06 PM, swansont said:

No, they are not. And they cannot be. Interactions between objects separated by some distance is limited by the speed of light. Any events happing within a time t cannot be caused by the other object if L > ct

And owing to the expansion of the universe there are regions with which we cannot interact with at all.

 

If we go back ** in time ,though can we say that all objects occurring subsequent to any  particular event are connected subject to the restriction that these connections  are mediated  by  processes  which are subject to a maximum speed of transmission?

 

So objects that are not connected owing to the restrictions you gave could still be connected to other objects  with earlier histories  a bit like we are all related to the first forms of life that arose  but not directly to ,say Ken Dodd. 

 

If objects are not interconnected in that way does that allow for the possibility  that objects can be entirely isolated from their environment? (which seems absurd to me)

 

**Obviously not "go back"  literally ,I just mean to situate the observer  at the point of the initial series of events and that this point could be anywhere including as far back in the history of the Universe as wanted

Edited February 12, 2018 by geordief

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, geordief said:

If we go back ** in time ,though can we say that all objects occurring subsequent to any  particular event are connected subject to the restriction that these connections  are mediated  by  processes  which are subject to a maximum speed of transmission?

 

Obviously not "go back"  literally ,I just mean to situate the observer  at the point of the initial series of events and that this point could be anywhere including as far back in the history of the Universe as wanted. 

 

So objects that are not connected owing to the restrictions you gave could still be connected to other objects  with earlier histories  a bit like we are all related to the first forms of life that arose  but not directly to ,say Ken Dodd. 

If you go back far enough, sure. But interactions have a way of altering or destroying that connection (decoherence).

16 minutes ago, geordief said:

If objects are not interconnected in that way does that allow for the possibility  that objects can be entirely isolated from their environment? (which seems absurd to me)

Probably not, but I don't think this is necessarily related to interconnectedness.

[geordief]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you go back far enough, sure. But interactions have a way of altering or destroying that connection (decoherence).

 

(first time I have come across the decoherence concept ) Can this loss (I see  now you said " altering or destroying" )  of connectedness within a small system  be seen  as a sharing of connectedness with a wider system  (or two or more systems exhibiting their interconnectedness) ?

 

Is it common (and useful)  to understand objects as components of a system  and can systems themselves be treated as (dynamic)  objects?

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, geordief said:

(first time I have come across the decoherence concept ) Can this loss (I see  now you said " altering or destroying" )  of connectedness within a small system  be seen  as a sharing of connectedness with a wider system  (or two or more systems exhibiting their interconnectedness) ?

 

Is it common (and useful)  to understand objects as components of a system  and can systems themselves be treated as (dynamic)  objects?

You are going to have to provide a more precise definition of connectedness.

You can have two particles who have some known relationship between spin states, as the result of an interaction that has occurred. Are these particles "connected" even though they are no longer interacting?

[geordief]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are going to have to provide a more precise definition of connectedness.

You can have two particles who have some known relationship between spin states, as the result of an interaction that has occurred. Are these particles "connected" even though they are no longer interacting?

Does it help to view the two particles as part of a wider system? Can their connectedness (if they are connected )  only be seen in this wider context?

 

If two particles interact (="share information"?) does this exchange propagate across the system they are part of  and alter the composition of the system?

 

Does the system define the connectedness between the two particles?

 

(completely out of my depth so my reply  may be a case of "not waving  but drowning"   )

[swansont]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Does it help to view the two particles as part of a wider system? Can their connectedness (if they are connected )  only be seen in this wider context?

 

If two particles interact (="share information"?) does this exchange propagate across the system they are part of  and alter the composition of the system?

 

Does the system define the connectedness between the two particles?

 

(completely out of my depth so my reply  may be a case of "not waving  but drowning"   )

As I tred to explain before, you need to clearly define what you mean by connectedness.

Currently interacting?

Interacted in the past in such a way that some state information is common to both?

[geordief]

I am clearly a pop science victim.(sarcasm not intended)

In fact I may have traced back my half baked idea to a Professor Brian Cox program some 5 years ago.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-night-with-the-stars-brian-cox-on-telly.561511/page-5

My posts start at #81  and the thread  developed from then

It does seem to show a kind of "action at a distance" if only to a negligible degree (according to one or two of the participants and ,I think disputed by others)

Anyway it was and still is above my head.

I still cannot work out what is  or was the quantum mechanism supposedly at play

Perhaps some connection to the Pauli exclusion Principle..

 

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

On 10/02/2018 at 1:06 PM, swansont said:

No, they are not. And they cannot be. Interactions between objects separated by some distance is limited by the speed of light. Any events happing within a time t cannot be caused by the other object if L > ct

And owing to the expansion of the universe there are regions with which we cannot interact with at all.

 

Is the lack of information just due to the fact that the red-shifted wavelength is too long for us to currently detect and, consequently, as technology improves our Hubble horizon will increase in size?

Edited February 12, 2018 by StringJunky

[Strange]

More just because light hasn’t had time to reach us from that distance - and, with expansion, never will because the source is receding faster than light can move forwards. 

[swansont]

19 hours ago, geordief said:

I am clearly a pop science victim.(sarcasm not intended)

In fact I may have traced back my half baked idea to a Professor Brian Cox program some 5 years ago.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-night-with-the-stars-brian-cox-on-telly.561511/page-5

My posts start at #81  and the thread  developed from then

It does seem to show a kind of "action at a distance" if only to a negligible degree (according to one or two of the participants and ,I think disputed by others)

Anyway it was and still is above my head.

I still cannot work out what is  or was the quantum mechanism supposedly at play

Perhaps some connection to the Pauli exclusion Principle..

I had something to say about prof Cox's claim. We <ahem> disagree.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/11081

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is the lack of information just due to the fact that the red-shifted wavelength is too long for us to currently detect and, consequently, as technology improves our Hubble horizon will increase in size?

The Hubble horizon is not a technological barrier. The redshift exceeds c, so it's not a matter of being difficult to detect and thus being affected by new technology. The Hubble sphere will increase in size as H gets smaller, though. But the event horizon is a hard limit. Light from beyond that will never reach us.

" the event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmological_horizons

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The Hubble horizon is not a technological barrier. The redshift exceeds c, so it's not a matter of being difficult to detect and thus being affected by new technology. The Hubble sphere will increase in size as H gets smaller, though. But the event horizon is a hard limit. Light from beyond that will never reach is.

" the event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmological_horizons

Right. Cheers. 

[geordief]

On 2/13/2018 at 10:52 AM, swansont said:

I had something to say about prof Cox's claim. We <ahem> disagree.

 

Interesting.I have been going through those old posts, blogs ,pdf books and articles (am a very slow mover).

 

Has Brian Cox's new book  (or any since 2012) gone over that ground or addressed that point again?

Obviously above my head but still interesting.

 

 

 

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, geordief said:

Interesting.I have been going through those old posts, blogs ,pdf books and articles (am a very slow mover).

 

Has Brian Cox's new book  (or any since 2012) gone over that ground or addressed that point again?

Obviously above my head but still interesting.

It was a claim in the 2012 book, and he doubled down in the video and subsequent articles. Once you've got a book to promote, it's unlikely you'd backtrack.

[Silvestru]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

It was a claim in the 2012 book, and he doubled down in the video and subsequent articles. Once you've got a book to promote, it's unlikely you'd backtrack.

Wow Swansont, you are the real deal.(after reading the whole blog and comments.) Would be glad if he would officially admit to being wrong one day.

Looking forward to read more of your old blogs. You should start doing it again.