Objectivism Online Forum

# What if every identifiable entity moves at the same speed?

Rate this topic

## Recommended Posts

I have had this model for a long time, but it has been a while since I have discussed it.

Is it possible that every thing is moving at the same speed (including photons)?

In other words, what if speed (the magnitude of velocity) cannot vary, is not a fundamental control variable in modeling physical systems?

In fact, it is imaginable: what if an entity moves at constant unit speed, but changes direction with some frequency? Then, since speed is constant and frequency of directional is given, the distance traveled between direction changes is equal to the inverse of the frequency. Call this the step length, then what I am claiming is that product of step length and step frequency is constant. This is obvious for photons, except that a photon only has one direction available to it, so its steps are laid out along a ray; what I am suggesting is that the same step length/frequency relationship applies even for objects which appear to be motionless on average, a la de Broglie except that, unlike photons, more complex objects have multiple directions accessible at each step. The macroscopic concept "velocity" is then the average spatial drift accomplished by a sequence of steps of fixed frequency and concomitant length.

The simplest complex case involves two available directions of motion, and the inertia of an entity in such case can be represented as a pair of natural numbers, with their sum equal to the step frequency, and with each element giving the number of steps in the corresponding direction.

Interestingly, there are multiple paths associated with a given inertia state. For example, there are 6 ways to take 2 steps in each direction and end up back where you start after one cycle of motion. The number of paths associated with an inertial state is a measure of the uncertainty of the actual path taken, and the logarithm of the number of paths is what I call the inertial entropy. Changes in inertial state require effort if the new state has lower inertial entropy, but can happen spontaneously if the inertial entropy is increased by the change.

For example, (3,1) has less inertial entropy than (2,2), and a system in the state (3,1) has a lower available state consistent with its frequency; since you can't escape existence, over time (3,1) must "decay" to (2,2) ... and this decay happens in quantum fashion with cumulative probability as the duration of the (3,1) state increases.

Inertial entropy changes also accompany frequency changes, i.e., when a photon is absorbed and system energy increases, the inertial entropy will be altered. So absorption or emission of energy by a system involves changes in both energy and entropy; but it is the entropy change that drives things.

For example, given two entities, one with inertia (3,1) and the other with inertia (1,3), the number of joint paths is 16. If, instead, the entities had states of (1,2) and (2,3), respectively, then, even though the total frequency is the same, the number of paths is 30, or almost twice as much. If there is a means for the system to reconfigure and liberate entropy, it will ... but it may take a while, as the time to decay increases as the entropy liberated decreases.

I understand this will likely seem speculative and uncomfortable to anyone reading it for the first time; and it would take a volume to deal precisely with the ins and outs; but the gist of the idea is sound and does not contradict any known science -- and it provides enormous conceptual leverage, with the potential to bring relativistic quantum mechanical ideas into common parlance whilst obviating most of the computational complexity involved in traditional formulations.

Thoughts and/or questions? I know there is a lot more work to do to make this clear to anyone who hasn't seen it before, and I will be as patient as you are, if you choose to explore this with me.

Cheers.

- David

Edited by icosahedron
##### Share on other sites

That might answer why we put speedometers in autombiles.

##### Share on other sites

In case of an automobile, the step length if very tiny because the frequency-equivalent of the total energy is huge.

The question is, how come a car doesn't appear to move at constant speed? Because what we measure, macroscopically, is the magnitude of the average velocity of the car, not it's instantaneous speed. The car can be seen as a self-regenerative pattern of motion, like a bee buzzing around. When the car is accelerated, the drift motion is increased by, effectively, polarization of the self-regenerative pattern of motion that is the car. Up to you whether you see the pattern of motion as a tracery, or a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't quantum flashing, although I think the quantum flashing is conceptually purer -- the traditional notion of trajectory is an interpolation of actual observation, which latter is of course discrete insofar as our mental focus is only discretely tunable).

It takes work to accelerate the car because polarization of its motion reduces the number paths available to execute the motion.

Since the car occupies volume, the minimum number of rays to represent its translational motion is 4, towards the corners of a tetrahedron (note that the tetrahedron can take any shape without loss of generality; the symmetric case corresponds to flat space, but asymmetric coordinates could be used to model curved space).

An inertial state of the car is then a 4-tuple of natural numbers, with their sum equal to the car's frequency. Imagine the car's frequency is 4*N, and its inertia is balanced, i.e., its macroscopic velocity is zero -- e.g., when idling. It's inertia can be represented as (N,N,N,N).

Now imagine the car accelerates into the state (N+3,N-1,N-1,N-1), i.e., you accelerate towards a corner of the coordinate tetrahedron.

When idle, the number of accessible paths consistent with the car's inertia is:

(4*N)!

------

4*N!

Once accelerated to (N+3,N-1,N-1,N-1), the car's inertial path count is:

(4*N)!

-----------------

(N+3)! * 3*(N+1)!

At this point, the speed shown on the speedometer would be 4/N times the speed of light -- for the car, with N inordinately large, this is a trivial acceleration.

The ratio of the path counts measures how much work is required to perform the acceleration (albeit one may want to take logarithm of the ratio to make the measure additive); the work is necessary to overcome the reduction in the uncertainty of which path the car will actually take.

The ratio is:

(N+3)! * 3*(N+1)!

-----------------

4*N!

which reduces to:

(N+3)*(N+2)*(N+1)

-----------------

N*N*N

The ratio is larger than 1, so it takes work to reduce the uncertainty and perform the acceleration as expected.

Does that make sense to you, dream_weaver? Or is this not worth the time to analyze?

- David

Edited by icosahedron
##### Share on other sites

Is there any evidence-based reason to believe that the speed of fundamental particles is a universal constant?

##### Share on other sites

Yes, everything is a freaking vector / should be treated like one. Or a two-dimensional quantum field ray or whatever the hell it is you like going on about.

Look, I said it in another thread and I will say it again ( well I implied it at least) : This approach to math is worse than futile, it is ridiculous. And not worth analyzing because you see math is the science of MEASUREMENT, which means you have to start with reality. I seriously doubt that this is where this vector of nonsenses origin point is.

##### Share on other sites

Is there any evidence-based reason to believe that the speed of fundamental particles is a universal constant?

Sure, photons move at the speed of light. Of course, you meant ALL the fundamental particles ... and I am claiming ALL entities of any stripe.

The trick is to realize that instantaneous speed, if applied to different directions in varying proportions, leads to net displacement in space as well as time. For photons, all the speed is involved in only one direction, so the net displacement the same as the length of the path; but if more than one direction is invested in, then the net displacement is necessarily less than a photon would accomplish in the same amount of time.

As long as your frequency of observation is much lower than the frequency of that which you observe, it will appear solid and moving in a trajectory. At the other extreme, it will appear to hop around with no definite trajectory, only an average blur. The apparent extent and solidity of the object is due to the relative slowness of our sense relative to the frequency of the observed object -- we identify the blur as the object, properly ... but in doing so we miss the micro-motion.

- David

##### Share on other sites

Look, I said it in another thread and I will say it again ( well I implied it at least) : This approach to math is worse than futile, it is ridiculous. And not worth analyzing because you see math is the science of MEASUREMENT, which means you have to start with reality. I seriously doubt that this is where this vector of nonsenses origin point is.

I start with reality. In reality, every entity is interacting with its surroundings, causing every entity to change progressively, which we observe as relative motion of parts of the entity. The overarching entity, which contains all others, is Existence -- and Existence is not unitarily conceptualizable, because that would mean, in addition to pinning down the given, knowing the mind of every individual.

How do entities change? By interacting with other entities. Our measurements of the changes are discrete, and we can't assume we know what is going on between measurements, or else we'd have to answer to Heisenberg. That is reality based.

Speed means speed of displacement, but says nothing about the direction of displacement. That is reality based.

Now I notice that I can devise a system in which speed is irrelevant, only direction and frequency matter. And I don't have to think interpolatively, in terms of trajectories, which idea is known to be flawed when descending to micro level. This is inductive, but in no way contradicts my reality basis.

Finally, I realize that the resulting framework is more useful, integrates more facts, than prior ones -- but does not contradict them. Thus I justify my induction.

Is that real enough for you?

Or would you like to hit me with a theory vs. practice suit?

- David

##### Share on other sites

So if I take two electrons starting at point A, shoot them in the same direction, and later observe that one of them reached point B in half the time of the other, how did it get there sooner? Because its frequency was higher and step length was shorter? So with each step, the faster electron travels toward point B less distance than the slower electron, but it does this more often?

Couldn't the traditional notion of "speed" simply be considered the magnitude of the average velocity over one oscillation?

How would you go about calculating this "universal constant of speed"?

Edited by brian0918
##### Share on other sites

Yeap, my mistake. You start with reality and then twist it beyond all recognition. Honestly, this is worse than some of the nonsense in Quantum Physics.

I am a math major, I am glad that I am not taught math like this, else I would run from the lecture room in horror and never touch math again.

But no, speed does not "mean' speed of displacement. If this was meant to define speed in some way, it was a major failure.

##### Share on other sites

For photons, all the speed is involved in only one direction, so the net displacement the same as the length of the path; but if more than one direction is invested in, then the net displacement is necessarily less than a photon would accomplish in the same amount of time.

If all the speed is in the same direction, how do frequency/wavelength of light remain defined? How can light have varying frequencies if "all the speed" is only in the direction the beam of light is traveling?

##### Share on other sites

So if I take two electrons starting at point A, shoot them in the same direction, and later observe that one of them reached point B in half the time of the other, how did it get there sooner? Because its frequency was higher and step length was shorter? So with each step, the faster electron travels toward point B less distance than the slower electron, but it does this more often?

Couldn't the traditional notion of "speed" simply be considered the magnitude of the average velocity over one oscillation?

How would you go about calculating this "universal constant of speed"?

The electron that got there sooner was shot out with more polarized inertia, i.e., a less uncertain state of motion, with a higher fraction of its steps directed towards the endpoint. So it drifts more each cycle of motion. On average, its displacement is greater in equal time.

Consider motion constrained to a circular ring. In this case, the moving entity can be moving very fast, yet the net displacement on average is zero. Moving at any given speed says nothing about the direction of motion. And yes, the traditional notion of speed exactly maps to the magnitude of the average velocity over one cycle of motion.

As for the universal constant of speed, I'd look for an entity that only moved in one direction for a macroscopic period of time, and measure its displacement as a function of time. In other words, I'd measure it as the speed of a photon in a vacuum.

But then, I wouldn't really care what the speed was if I had no control of it; if it's the same for everything, it is irrelevant, conceptually. What is relevant is the observable displacement per unit time, i.e., the magnitude of the average velocity in the macro context.

Rather than thinking of it a speed, per se, think of it as the fact that the product of step length and frequency is constant. Don't even need to consider trajectories, a purely discrete formalism applies.

Since our minds cannot re-focus continuously, our reality results from a process of discrete sampling of the given. There is no basis (and never was!) for postulating that the given is continuous, rather than an agglomeration of discrete interactions. Continuous approximations are very useful, but sight should not be lost that they are approximations, and our minds do not work continuously, in terms of the ability to sample reality.

Speed in my system, at the micro level, is not a control variable. Frequency and direction of motion is all I need, conceptually (and all I have access to, perceptually).

- David

Edited by icosahedron
##### Share on other sites

But no, speed does not "mean' speed of displacement.

It doesn't? Really? Would you mind explaining this? What else could speed mean than differential rate of linear displacement?

Interesting.

- David

##### Share on other sites

If all the speed is in the same direction, how do frequency/wavelength of light remain defined? How can light have varying frequencies if "all the speed" is only in the direction the beam of light is traveling?

The problem is that speed is not an observable, it is inferred by comparing displacements to the time they take.

Forget about speed: if it is constant, then it is irrelevant.

The control variables are frequency and direction of motion.

For a photon, the direction of motion doesn't change, and frequency determines the number of cycles per unit time.

- David

Edited by icosahedron
##### Share on other sites

So, if I understand you correctly, no macroscopic object (to which classical mechanics applies) is a "real" entity, since the elementary particles of which they are composed are the only "real" entities, and classical objects can be at rest in some inertial frame. So is a car not a "real" entity? Or can I not identify it?

I'm just trying to get some kind of philosophical question out of here, rather than just speculative physics that has nothing to do with the purpose of this board.

##### Share on other sites

And yes, the traditional notion of speed exactly maps to the magnitude of the average velocity over one cycle of motion.

...

I wouldn't really care what the speed was if I had no control of it; if it's the same for everything, it is irrelevant, conceptually. Rather than thinking of it a speed, per se, think of it as the fact that the product of step length and frequency is constant. Don't even need to consider trajectories, a purely discrete formalism applies.

So if your notion of "speed" is entirely useless for science, while the traditional notion of "speed" can be defined in terms of your notion of "speed", and can be of use to science, then why bother with your notion of "speed" at all? Does rewriting the equations to use your notion of "speed" make any calculations simpler? Does visualizing with your concept of "speed" make any concepts easier to grasp? Does this notion lead to any scientific advancement?

For example, the concept of an electron hole makes many calculations simpler - does your concept of "speed" do the same?

If none of the above, then what is the purpose of this concept? Concepts are created out of necessity, but what is the necessity of yours?

Edited by brian0918
##### Share on other sites

So if your notion of "speed" is entirely useless for science, while the traditional notion of "speed" can be defined in terms of your notion of "speed", and can be of use to science, then why bother with your notion of "speed" at all? Does rewriting the equations to use your notion of "speed" make visualizing anything easier, or make certain calculations simpler, or lead to any scientific advancement?

For example, the concept of an "electron hole" makes many calculations simpler - does your concept of "speed" do the same?

If I thought it useless for science, I wouldn't bother wasting time on it. I guess I haven't earned the credit in your eyes for you to accord me this respect yet. Fair enough.

It is useful for science if it clarifies or advances understanding of the data. At very least, a wholly discrete approach should be tried, because our minds do not sample reality continuously. Compactness is a nice feature in mathematical analysis, but perceptual reality cannot be shown to be compact by any demonstration, because the demonstration itself must be discretely accomplished and described. Assuming analytic compactness as a feature of reality is speculative at best, and just asking for computational trouble (such as singularities).

If you want a discrete picture that does not contradict known macro and micro theories (and please don't forget to feed Heisenberg!), then you'll end up in my neighborhood.

- David

##### Share on other sites

I wonder, when did the compact perspective on reality take hold? Certainly, not before Newton ... so, what did Aristotle think was going on when a body moved?

To me, space is the space between things, i.e., that which must be traversed to bring things together. Since there are only a finite number of things, with finitely many states and interactions, how can there be continuous, never mind compact, motion?

- David

- David

##### Share on other sites

What is distance, physically?

Isn't it the time it takes a photon emitted at point A to be absorbed at point B?

What is rest mass, physically?

Isn't it the resistance to acceleration of a body at rest?

And what is translational momentum, physically (and hence velocity, the ratio of mass and momentum)?

Isn't it the cumulative resistance to being decelerated to a state of rest?

Now, if acceleration (in the absence of energy exchange, e.g., that due to gravity) is reduced to re-allocating the step frequency among the available directions of expression, as my system does, then the two ideas, rest mass and translational momentum, can be combined into a more general concept, of which rest mass and translational momentum become logical derivatives.

Thus I have my concept I (properly, IMHO) call inertia: inertia is the allocation of frequency across the available directions. If the allocation is even, then you have a rest mass. If the allocation has only one non-zero component, then you have a zero rest-mass particle such as a photon.

Representing the volumetric inertia as a 4-tuple of natural numbers, it can be decomposed into two addends, one of which is symmetric, and the other reduced to having at least one component equal to zero.

For example, (5,3,2,4) can be written as: (2,2,2,2) + (3,1,0,2)

The symmetric addend represents the portion of the motion which cycles back to its starting point, and the sum of its components is proportional to the relativistic mass.

The reduced addend represents the conventional velocity.

Thus, in this case, the conventional momentum is 8*(3,1,0,2).

And here is why both mass and momentum are not relativistically invariant in the usual formulation: because, if acceleration causes reallocation of the components of the inertial 4-tuple, then it alters both the symmetric and reduced addends.

Contrast that with their sum, the inertia (5,3,2,4). This is relativistically invariant, and can be used to generalize the notion of force, from causing a change in momentum (which it still does) to causing a change in inertia, which is an integral of mass and velocity distinctly different, and to my mind more holistically.

Check it out for yourself, and if you aren't willing to take the time to do that, I understand you might be under time pressure, but it doesn't give you the right to sweep my arguments aside with traditional mathematical bromides.

Cheers.

- David

Edited by icosahedron
##### Share on other sites

"To me, space is the space between things, i.e., that which must be traversed to bring things together. Since there are only a finite number of things, with finitely many states and interactions, how can there be continuous, never mind compact, motion? "

So space is not simply a geometrical concept then? Well this would explain many of your confusions I guess.

##### Share on other sites

I wonder, when did the compact perspective on reality take hold?

This word, "compact" ... you keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

##### Share on other sites

Volumetric space is a concept very close to the perceptual level, don't you think? Much closer than Euclidean space ...

- David

##### Share on other sites

A space is compact if, whenever a collection of open sets covers the space, then so does (at least) one of the available, finite sub-collections. Such spaces are very nice, analytically, and serves to generalize the notion of a bounded, open subset of the real line to higher order topological spaces.

Is that the notion of compact you had in mind? Compact spaces are continuous at any level of focus, and modern analytic methods rely on the fact that spaces are compact to derive all sorts of useful results.

In particular, modern physics uses the machinery of partial differential equations in its root formulations of physical law. Have you ever tried to think about PDE's outside the context of a compact space? Good luck.

- David

Edited by icosahedron
##### Share on other sites

A space is compact if, whenever a collection of open sets covers the space, then so does (at least) one of the available, finite sub-collections. Such spaces are very nice, analytically, and serves to generalize the notion of a bounded, open subset of the real line to higher order topological spaces.

Closed, bounded subset, you mean.

Is that the notion of compact you had in mind? Compact spaces are continuous at any level of focus, and modern analytic methods rely on the fact that spaces are compact to derive all sorts of useful proofs.

It is certainly not true that compact spaces are "continuous", since finite spaces are compact (indeed, compact sets can be regarded as generalizations of finite sets) and many other wild sets like the Cantor set are compact, too.

It seems that you're talking about such discrete spaces, so this word doesn't distinguish the two models of space that you're talking about. I would stick with something like "continuous" or "continuum" rather than compact.

In particular, modern physics uses the machinery of partial differential equations in its root formulations of physical law. Have you ever tried to think about PDE's outside the context of a compact space?

I have indeed thought about PDEs in the context of finite spaces-- anyone who has ever numerically approximated solutions to PDEs has.

##### Share on other sites

Nate T, thanks for the correction. I'll substitute continuous for compact in my future writing when I mean continuous (which you were astute enough to discern; my points pertain to the continuous assumption). It's been too many years since I cracked an analysis text.

I guess it's simpler anyhow to show that continuous spaces do not correspond to the discretion of measurement, especially if, as you claim, my space is compact. You're probably right, but I will have to verify for myself. Now where is that confounded analysis text?

As far as PDE's, I too have used computers to "solve" them numerically. Interestingly, computer proofs used to have a big stigma attached to them, which demonstrates the inversion of fact versus invention in mathematics.

Of course, a computer cannot represent irrationals, as it operates with finite sequences of bits. Which only emboldens me ...

Thanks,

- David

##### Share on other sites

I guess it's simpler anyhow to show that continuous spaces do not correspond to the discretion of measurement, especially if, as you claim, my space is compact. You're probably right, but I will have to verify for myself. Now where is that confounded analysis text?

As far as PDE's, I too have used computers to "solve" them numerically. Interestingly, computer proofs used to have a big stigma attached to them, which demonstrates the inversion of fact versus invention in mathematics.

Of course, a computer cannot represent irrationals, as it operates with finite sequences of bits. Which only emboldens me ...

Thanks,

- David

This ties in to what I was saying in the other thread (and it does have a philosophical point about measurement, too!)

It's not just a "deficit" of computers-- we (computers and humans) have nothing but rational numbers to measure with directly, and most measurements (except counting) come with an error attached. If you haven't read IToE yet, there's a nice discussion of this in the appendix called "Exact Measurement and Continuity" that you might like.

Anyway, one reason that analysis on a continuum is necessary is that without some kind of theoretical assurance of well-posedness, you can't really be sure that your numerics are giving you good answers, or if they are, you can't say given some step size how close they're getting to the real solution. So there is a distinction between numerically solving a problem with a computer and proving that such a numerical solution approximates the true solution well-- and the former, while possibly being some evidence for a solution, isn't a proof.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.