Essay on Motion and Time Dilation

[nbj622]

*What do you guys think? How can I improve this essay? Thanks.

 

In physical space, motion can be observed when matter moves between positions in space. It is trivial to measure and it is ultimately ruled by two forces of nature: electromagnetism and gravitation.

 

 

The concept of motion is at the center of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and motion has been found to produce a universal phenomenon called Time Dilation. Time dilation is the effect of slowing time by moving relatively quickly thru space.

 

It is widely accepted that Time Dilation plays a minuscule role in our daily lives, because as human beings, we move too slowly to generate enough time dilation; so we don't bother measuring the effects of the dilation of time between ourselves.

 

But what if Time Dilation does in fact pervade human society - however in some abstract form that is caused by a entirely different type of motion?

 

 

I propose another type of motion in the Universe exists that is governed by abstract versions of the physical forces. This form of motion is absolutely abstract and it measures the motion of intelligent communication between living beings.

 

 

communication = motion

 

Consider two people sitting still motionless, but speaking and coordinating information between themselves. In a physical sense, there is no motion being generated (other than the motion of particles between their mouths and ears). However, in an abstract sense, there is a transfer (motion) of information, and if information can be thought of as a structure in some abstract space, it might be describeable as a type of moving object (called a symbol). These structures of information move across this space using abstract laws of motion.

 

Im hypothesizing that there is an abstract space containing structures of information, that are ruled by the same principles of physics regarding time, space, and vectors of motion. The main difference between the physical and abstract spaces however, is that the laws of physics must be reinterpreted between the two.

 

So there are two forms of motion:

 

(1) Physical

(2) Abstract

 

These are some of the conversion of concepts:

 

(1) Gravitation = (2) Concentration

(1) Electromagnetism = (2) Interaction

(1) Time Dilation = (2) Abstract Time Dilation

 

Concentration, Interaction, and Abstract Time Dilation are the physics within some abstract space (of the mind) that co-exists with the physical space. They are reinterpretations of the physical forces that operate on abstract structures of information.

There are several more physics concepts that can be converted between the spaces, which is beyond the scope of this essay, however what I'm basically getting at, is that structures of information, modelled within an abstract space, can be regarded as obeying the [abstract forms] of gravity, and electromagnetism, while generating Time Dilation.

 

You are probably asking, what is the abstract form of Time Dilation? Well, time dilation 'slows time'. So abstract time dilation does the same thing. Time Dilated organizations will appear to age slower, and so will structures of information. From there, I deduce that the time dilation of abstract information is the entire foundation for our notion of competition. You see, intelligent beings 'compete' to survive, by exchanging information. The exchange of information creates abstract Time Dilation, and organizations that harness Time Dilation will slow their aging process. They create time dilation by exchanging (moving) more information than surrounding systems. In abstraction, this means, that they are able to stay ahead of other minds. They will live longer and they will appear be 'successful'. They will out-compete the rest. Abstract time dilation becomes incredibly important within the networked age of the 21st century, as a result of the enormous amount of information being moved between nodes.

 

At then end of the day, the reinterpretation of physics into an abstract space can explain death and extinction. When any organizations fails to produce enough motion across an abstract space (as a function of communication between relationships), they will age faster, and be pushed towards their death faster - because faster clocks equal earlier death. For example, when a species like the Dodo [a form of network] goes extinct vis-a-vis our civilization, it's because our civilization has produced a massive, Time Dilated bubble. From this bubble, outside organizations, such as the Dodo, that fail to generate enough motion to keep up with the speed of our information networks, appear to go extinct. Note: to prevent extinction, the outside organization (network) must be integrated within the faster moving organization.

[md65536]

I think that by the end it's gone off into nonsense, and I think it does this perhaps because you've misapplied some general concepts to specific examples, and then generalizing from that to draw conclusions with no justification.

 

Information does not need intelligence. Information transferred between intelligent entities obeys the same laws of physics as information transferred between anything else. I don't think abstraction is needed for intelligence, because it can be modelled with only what's concrete or real. Physics already deals with information (such as that carried by light, or measured as entropy) and the transfer or movement of information, without needing new physics for intelligent communication.

 

I think it could be improved by removing outlandish claims, and going for depth rather than breadth. For example, starting perhaps with the paragraph "Consider two people...", rather than just jumping to new ideas, isolate exactly what information is being transferred (in the simplest form), and how existing theory describes that information transfer, and what is lacking in that description---or how a new description offers an improvement. By simplest I mean eg. "a light signal, or photon" rather than say "speech + movement of air molecules + vibration of eardrum + nerve signals etc".

Edited March 30, 2013 by md65536

[nbj622]

Information does not need intelligence.

 

Your statement makes no sense... Information IS intelligence. A photon is a particle that we use to derive information. A photon is not information - it is embued with information.

 

For instance, a page out of a book is a structure of intelligent information (that is composed of particles other than photons btw!). It can be represented with photons that can be converted into bits... 1010101011010. That is a basic structure of intelligent information. And yes it can be physically modeled as light, but it can also be abstractly modeled as the numbers 1 and 0 which are direct consequences of intelligence.

 

Physics already deals with information (such as that carried by light, or measured as entropy)

 

Umm... If modern physics is so well adept at modeling information, why are its rules not being applied in the act of teaching - which is the principle study of information? (not physics) The concept of information in physics, and the concept of information in this essay are not on the same level.

 

By simplest I mean eg. "a light signal, or photon" rather than say "speech + movement of air molecules + vibration of eardrum + nerve signals etc"

 

Oh I got it, you want everything in reference to light/photons, because I mentioned the word information.

 

I don't think abstraction is needed for intelligence

 

Well that's because you don't know much about intelligence. The mind is an abstract space that requires modelling it through abstraction. The structures of information that it processes, that are called symbols, are guided on the rules of this abstract space.

 

 

This essay is about thinking of the motion of abstract structures. So if you want to think about bytes of information travelling at light speed across cables, you should be able to understand that those structures of bytes are in fact being time dilated - but since they don't exist because they constantly appear and disappear, as a physicist you ignore them. However in this essay, I am saying that they do exist, and the structures are being time dilated in an ABSTRACT space.

 

 

 

 

 

[md65536]

The concept of information in physics, and the concept of information in this essay are not on the same level.

Agreed.

Oh I got it, you want everything in reference to light/photons, because I mentioned the word information.

I suggest photons because it's the simplest form of information transfer that I'm aware of. If for example you instead consider information in the form of moving matter, then you can break it down into subparticles, velocities, temperature (with internal motion), etc. All of these things can carry additional information, which either complicates things, or can be misleading if you skip over it.

So if you want to think about bytes of information travelling at light speed across cables, you should be able to understand that those structures of bytes are in fact being time dilated - but since they don't exist because they constantly appear and disappear, as a physicist you ignore them. However in this essay, I am saying that they do exist, and the structures are being time dilated in an ABSTRACT space.

Are you saying that all information ages, and is affected by time which can be dilated? If so, then what is the change in a photon as it leaves its source, and the same "aged" photon as it approaches its destination?

[nbj622]

Are you saying that all information ages, and is affected by time which can be dilated? If so, then what is the change in a photon as it leaves its source, and the same "aged" photon as it approaches its destination?

 

Its definitely tricky to explain - let's dissect it a bit.

 

Information would appear to travel very fast. Lets look at a few of its perspectives: 1) In the brain itself, it travels quite rapidly between neurons. 2) In space, it travels at various speeds, perhaps the speed of sound when conveyed verbally, or even the speed of light, as when it is conveyed by photons (sight & computer networks).

 

It is also known that photons do not age: a way of describing that would be to say, that they are unaffected by the forceful flow of time.

 

As for people and things: they do appear to age - which would be to say that the force of time pushes up against them and pushes them towards disorder (death).

 

As for time: Imagine it as a stream that pushes onto objects forcing them towards disorder (death). Massive objects (or fast moving objects) are less effected by its force. Massive objects (or fast moving ones) are like rocks that do not get pushed down river as fast as smaller rocks.

 

Now to combine information (as fast moving structures) and conventional things (such as people) into one paradigm: conventional things such as people and other objects, could INCREASE some form of their lifespan, by employing fast moving information, to slow their motion within a stream of time. Harnessing information is like adding some form of mass. By employing information, people can become 'more massive' and become increasingly unaffected by the force of time (and appear to dilate their time, vis-a-vis others that do not employ it).

 

Let me know if/where I can make this clearer. (its quite ad hoc at the moment)

[md65536]

Well it's a bit over my head.

 

What is the force of time? Is it a force like other forces? Or is there a better name than "force"?

 

How is time like a stream? Is that an analogy, or are you saying time has a material existence?

 

"objects, could INCREASE some form of their lifespan, by employing fast moving information" -- Is this a conclusion based on accepted science, or based on your new ideas? Either way, how exactly does that work? "Harnessing information is like adding some form of mass." -- How much information adds how much mass, and how much lifetime does that add?

 

 

Mine's not an authoritative opinion on this, but I think that you're wrong. Perhaps someone else can understand what you mean, but for me you'd have to dum it down a lot. But I don't encourage you to waste your time trying to convince me personally because I doubt I'll get it.

 

Are you more interested in developing your ideas in agreement with mainstream science, or as an alternative to it? If the former, you might have to express it all using established terminology, theory, and math. If the latter you might need experimental evidence.

[md65536]

Well uh, to be less harsh... I think it's well-written and an interesting work of scientific imagination, a start. I think that to refine an idea sometimes requires major transformative changes, like a sculptor changes a block of marble by getting rid of everything that doesn't fit in the final work... The details I think still need to be figured out here.

[nbj622]

What is the force of time? Is it a force like other forces? Or is there a better name than "force"?

Correct. Force is not the right word. I would consider it a flow, like a stream, and one can swim up against it. I am working on a short essay to better explain this - will be posted to speculations very soon. I don't think its a very hard concept to grasp, but physicists tend to be a difficult group

 

Is this a conclusion based on accepted science, or based on your new ideas? Either way, how exactly does that work? "Harnessing information is like adding some form of mass." -- How much information adds how much mass, and how much lifetime does that add?

 

Very good questions. Complex to calculate, but the starting point is in building a theory on relationships - since abstract mass is a measure of the 'configuration of atoms', rather than its simple weight.

 

I wrote another essay in another post that can help explain a bit: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73983-essay-on-complex-arrangement-and-energy/

 

This video may also help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbTNz3fZIKw

 

Are you more interested in developing your ideas in agreement with mainstream science, or as an alternative to it? If the former, you might have to express it all using established terminology, theory, and math. If the latter you might need experimental evidence.

 

My theory is both in agreement with mainstream science while allowing for an alternative perspective since it reveals an abstract space within spacetime.

 

 

Well uh, to be less harsh... I think it's well-written and an interesting work of scientific imagination, a start.

 

Thank you very much! I actually didn't consider your last post to be harsh. I've been on these forums a few times, and I've seen harsh, hah.

 

 

I'm working towards a much bigger picture. You can find out more info about it here: http://www.theory-of-thought.com/book

 

 

If you have more questions/concerns, keep them coming, I need to refine my arguments.