The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
45
46
[
47
]
48
49
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
357397 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #920 on:
07/05/2014 17:51:07 »
What I'm wondering about here is whether what makes us think, and gives us that free will we so like to flaunt, is not the outcomes. We may be closer to QM than we think, eh, so to speak
«
Last Edit: 07/05/2014 17:53:46 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #921 on:
07/05/2014 18:01:33 »
It becomes a weird and 'fragmented' universe, locally described. What defines it is those local values, constants as 'c', and our equivalent 'local clocks', shared by us all. What connects should be frames of reference interacting with each other.
And there is the mystery. How do frames of reference connect, microscopically defined? How would you describe it without waves? Without propagation? And possibly, from an 'instant' of an event, as that photon annihilating.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #922 on:
07/05/2014 18:06:12 »
What we use macroscopically to describe it fails there. The first thing I think I would need for describing it is a discreteness at some scale, 'grains'. Even then, assuming those grains to consist of equivalent constants and rules etc, how can I make them act as different particles, and how do I make those particles define a space to exist in
Crazy, isn't it?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #923 on:
21/05/2014 17:09:43 »
Anyone seen this?
""It's breathtaking to think that things we thought are not connected, can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy, particles and light. Would we be able in the future to convert energy into time and vice versa?""
It's a comment to converting light into particles?
Energy is not 'time'. Locally defined your time will not care about the 'energy' it consists in. Locally measured your clock always give you a same time keeping. The only time, if I now may, that this isn't true is when you compare your local clock and ruler to someone else's, finding a time dilation and complementary Lorentz contraction.
and you don't need a infinite energy for this fact, you just need another frame of reference to compare yours to.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #924 on:
21/05/2014 17:16:03 »
The same old problem keeps coming back doesn't it? Even by highly educated physicists and mathematicians. The idea of 'this commonly shared container universe' in where we exist. Looked at from such a proposition the idea may make sense, but it's not about experiments when you think this way, it's about your beliefs.
If you use experiments, then they are local definitions.
When we share our experiments with each other, finding them agreeing, we get to a repeatable experiment. But nowhere does this state that the universe is our 'container' in any practical sense. It's communication that defines the universe we think us exist in, not the experiments.
«
Last Edit: 21/05/2014 17:18:23 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #925 on:
21/05/2014 17:27:00 »
You really need to understand this. It's what makes you die, no matter where you are, or how fast you go. If you miss out on this simple truth, then you will get lost in your forrest of facts, adapting to beliefs.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #926 on:
21/05/2014 17:33:46 »
Time is a constant, and all constants are locally defined, but not 'globally'. Globally described this universe you think yourself to exist in is fragmented by uncountable time dilations and Lorentz contractions, all 'locally' defined by each and every 'observer'. Can you see what I'm stating here?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #927 on:
21/05/2014 17:37:16 »
Ones physics, and mathematics, can only be as good as ones presumptions allows them to be. Locally there are no ambiguities, they do come into play, assuming this 'container' though.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #928 on:
22/05/2014 11:02:36 »
In a way it's like there 'somewhere' only exist one homogeneous 'point', that's locality, and constants. To that you then need to add communication over frames of reference, to get to distances and dimensions. The ideal equivalence of all frames of reference (locally defined constants) gives us the repeatable experiments on which we build physics. There is not one logic to it, it's more. You have those 'constants' giving you one logic, then you have communication over frames of reference creating a universe. Both are needed.
'c' is a constant, equivalent to your local time keeping, aka all ours 'local clock'. That clock is not a speed, neither is it ticking locally defined. As I see it the ticking , just as this constant 'speed' we find light to have both are results of communicating over frames of reference.
It their simplest terms they are a same (local) constant. And as we all share that same constant, with a absolute equivalence, how do we 'split' it? Same question as always, isn't it
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #929 on:
22/05/2014 11:07:08 »
A very simple proof of locality, is remembering that as soon as you and me both share a same frame of reference we will be indistinguishable from each other, you can think of it in terms of superimposing to make it more digestible. and this proof is applicable all over the universe, doesn't matter where you do the experiment.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #930 on:
28/05/2014 12:02:42 »
Just a question.
Does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tell us something about what 'time' is?
"a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philsophers.) Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them."
The observation is a function of time, isn't it? Everything we can observe is in a past tense, practically speaking. You can either define a 'momentum' or a 'place/position' to a particle, but not both simultaneously. From a past tense though, is there no possibility of defining both? And isn't it this kind of thinking that lead to 'weak experiments'?
We have a momentum but no position or a position but no momentum. In a world where we expect both to exist together, as part of each other macroscopically.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #931 on:
28/05/2014 12:34:53 »
The question here seems to become become one of what you think is more real. Depending on your assumptions you can define both (position and momentum), accepting that there is no way to measure that can be said to exist in a present (now), or you define it such as the principle will hold. I don't think it is semantics to point out that there is no observation that actually exist 'now'. They must always be in a past tense, when observed.
A now, can it exist?
«
Last Edit: 28/05/2014 12:37:12 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #932 on:
28/05/2014 12:42:22 »
It's like we're always a instant behind that 'now', isn't it? It becomes theoretical. The world I observe is past that now, and there is no way a outcome can be described as happening as I observe it, unless you want to define the observation to a consciousness perceiving it. All the same we have interactions all around us, as well as inside us, constantly happening following a defined direction we call time. and as they happen, shouldn't there be a now for when they actualize? No matter if I observe it or not?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #933 on:
28/05/2014 12:46:17 »
Does 'now' exist, or does it not? Is the past a function of my observation, or does it have a independent existence. The last one is more of a Newtonian universe to my thinking, one in which we can be certain of things 'existing', doing their thing with or without us.
«
Last Edit: 28/05/2014 13:05:34 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #934 on:
28/05/2014 13:10:45 »
Think of it in terms of a field then. Does the particle we measure on then integrate in that field. Can you really give it a individual existence outside that field? And how will you define this particles limits? You know it is 'there', although always in a past tense. But if it is a expression of a field?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #935 on:
28/05/2014 13:13:15 »
You may want to think of it as observer dependent too. But we need to presume that behind the observer dependencies there is a origin, from where we can make this observer dependent observation. Without such a presumption you are free to assume that everything is a construct by your mind.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #936 on:
28/05/2014 13:17:43 »
In a larger sense, where would the limits for a field be? Assume the universe we measure on to be one consistent field, does it create the inside? Or does it exist in a inside?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #937 on:
28/05/2014 13:23:28 »
I think, although this is just my assumption, that Einstein would have preferred the first. It creates the inside. The field creates all that we measure on, including its dimensions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #938 on:
28/05/2014 13:30:05 »
A field becomes like a plane in some way. That plane is about our constants. From a local perspective the fields origin must be constants, locally equivalently shared, everywhere in a measurable universe. That's what I think is a necessary assumption from where to start. Because it gives me a consistent logic.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #939 on:
29/05/2014 16:52:37 »
We're a special kind of people I think. We've looked at what people think important, but I don't think we agree? I don't.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
45
46
[
47
]
48
49
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...