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
...
36
37
[
38
]
39
40
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356579 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #740 on:
19/03/2014 14:47:14 »
Ever wondered how a inflation can be ftl? That depends on your definitions, we only have a 'inside' from where we can measure. Doing so ftl becomes very strange if we look at it from action and reaction, the idea of 'information carriers' propagating in a space. Exchange it for a SpaceTime in where 'information carriers' also becomes our dimensions, not meaning that what's outside of this definition isn't here, instead define those as unmeasurable and we might get an idea of how SpaceTime both can become a 'instant symmetry break' as well as having a inflation 'faster than the speed of light in a vacuum'. If SpaceTime is a 'regime', then that regime we can measure is just one part of it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #741 on:
19/03/2014 15:07:32 »
And another thing, this indeterminism we see at a quantum level, does it disappear at a macroscopic level? Also a question of how you define it. If we assume action and reaction for it, as 'information carriers' interacting from a quantum level up to our macroscopic 'reality', then there is no 'split' between the quantum mechanical behavior and the macroscopic. We're still 'indeterministic'
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #742 on:
19/03/2014 15:13:24 »
Can you see why scaling is weird, seen through my eyes? Ones ideas of distances becomes strange from a view in where the distance always is the same, equivalent, when it comes to scaling. A 'dimension' of its own, well sort of
equivalent in 'distance' everywhere.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #743 on:
19/03/2014 15:29:28 »
Think of it as QM surface of sorts, on which a SpaceTime becomes projected. And us as something created together with this SpaceTime, measuring it the only way we can, 'inside' as defined by its 'information carriers'. That does not define a outside, because it does not give 'dimensions' a objective existence, except as measured from that inside.
=
As locally measured, from that inside, is more correct. And why we then find a Lorentz contraction and a complementary time dilation is also a result information carriers, obeying 'c'. It's important to understand where the limits come from, and for me that is 'c'. If there is a limit that is inexplainable by itself, then 'c' got to be it.
«
Last Edit: 19/03/2014 15:38:15 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #744 on:
19/03/2014 15:44:15 »
Probably it ('c' and SpaceTime) is more explainable from an idea of symmetries? But a symmetry between what is measurable and what is not also seem to become a circular argument, as a cat chasing its own tail. Each side explaining the other. You might say that this kind of explanation has no beginning, and no end. A new sort of thinking to us, as we're used to measure in time, using a local arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #745 on:
19/03/2014 15:51:32 »
But to get to a consistency for that SpaceTime projection we need to assume a 'equivalence' of 'QM surface'. Laws, properties, rules, constants all being equivalent in that origin. We do not need to assume that what we find to be a distance must have its exact counterpart in that minuscule milieu though. That's also why I sometime think of it as a cone, with its point resting on this absolute QM surface, defining SpaceTime properties and laws. After all, distance is a local definition even macroscopically.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #746 on:
19/03/2014 16:38:36 »
Alternatively one could assume it to be a balance, dynamically changing. But that should then also crave a arrow existing on both 'sides', as I think. Can't see how to make it work otherwise? What I mean is that if a arrow disappear, locally defined, at some QM scale then there is no 'linear time' to discuss from a symmetry. Only as measured inside SpaceTime. And the problem is also that a assumption of our arrow being a macroscopic phenomena is very hard to proof, as all experiments we can do will use a local arrow (the experimenters), no matter what scale we measure on.
What I'm trying to get to is that locally defined there is no 'size' to that scale where QM exist. We define size from distance, we define distance from our ruler, as measured in time. Without a arrow a distance becomes a meaningless definition.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #747 on:
19/03/2014 16:53:53 »
If you think of it you must find just as me that the arrow is no illusion. But also that it is a local definition. The next step is then to ask yourself if there is a proof for all 'local arrows' being of a same origin. And that we have in joining frames of reference, superimposing them. There one arrow will be the exact same as the other. So yes, all arrows are locally equivalent. And the step after is to ask yourself, equivalent to what? and there you will find 'c'. This is assuming that 'c' will be consistent in a acceleration too, which is the view I have. But I don't need to have it, as long as I can prove a 'balance' between aging, the arrow, and acceleration, relative aging, the arrow, and uniform motion. So you're free to define it any which way, but the most consistent is to give 'c' the status of a local constant through all motion, and your local arrow a equivalence to 'c'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #748 on:
19/03/2014 17:03:25 »
But that then defines a relationship that seems unchanging, doesn't it? 'c' and your local arrow (aging) being equivalent? Where then does a twin experiment come from? Why do the twins find a different biological age? Would then 'c' have to change as I move?
Not locally defined.
And that is the only way I can see to define it, practically and experimentally. Puts an awful lot of emphasis on local definitions, don't you agree? As compared to the older 'global definitions' we're used too. As one universe of one unchanging time ticking away, containing us all. Here it all becomes a local reality.
But where this local reality is shared, as in 'repeatable experiments', we now can find a new definition of what 'global' should mean.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #749 on:
19/03/2014 17:13:18 »
So yes, we're definitively 'indeterministic'
Think of it, the 'global definition' is actually existing in a collective mind space, although the repeatable experiments we do to prove that 'global reality' does not, all made locally. But, it is also so that your measurements of the universe you exist in have a fit to my definition, as when using Lorentz transformations. But assuming time dilation and Lorentz contractions at uniform motion too, there is no 'frame of reference' more true than another. What gives us a minimalistic common nominator is actually the idea of superimposing 'frames of reference', finding them to become 'one same frame'. And, as I think of it then, when using scaling.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #750 on:
19/03/2014 17:23:20 »
So, what do we need to get to 'meaningful information'?
'c'
equivalent to
A arrow.
You're free to exchange those two any way you like, they are each others mirrors.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #751 on:
19/03/2014 17:33:41 »
You need that arrow, but does it have to be 'c'?
Well, assume a equivalence locally between 'c' and your local arrow. But then also assume that there was no possibility of superimposing one frame of reference on another, finding them becoming equivalent. Now translate this into Lorentz transformations becoming impossible too. Then apply this on a Earth. That Earth can't exist, there would be no informations carriers keeping to any logic anymore. 'c' wouldn't be there, neither would it be possible to agree on a local arrow. And 'repeatable experiments' would lose all foundations.
In short, we've now created a magical universe.
=
heh, rereading myself I got confused
Hope it makes more sense this time.
«
Last Edit: 19/03/2014 17:53:10 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #752 on:
19/03/2014 17:38:23 »
The universe has a logic, it is local. But it is also subtly 'global' in that repeatable experiments do exist, and that we can agree on them. They are the foundation of physics. But the 'global definition' of a SpaceTime is in fact existing in our minds, not as a objective reality. What is my reality, is what I measure.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #753 on:
19/03/2014 17:44:43 »
We can break down 'does it need to be 'c' ' into, yes, at least it need to be something equivalent to other definitions of what they call 'c', able to superimpose. It also need to present us with a even 'speed', to make it into a SpaceTime. What we then define that speed as is up to each one of us, although we have agreed on common definitions.
«
Last Edit: 19/03/2014 18:10:03 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #754 on:
19/03/2014 21:02:58 »
Then there is another thing. A universe built from connections, or if you like, Dimensions built from connections aka interactions, should be background independent. Same as there should be no 'outside' to it. You need a objective definition of 'dimensions' to reach to a 'outside'. Loops seem to define it similarly, as if the loops themselves create the universe we measure on. The difference between the older idea of time being a illusion here being that I take the local arrow very seriously, and give it a equivalence to all other locally measured arrows, connecting it to 'c'
«
Last Edit: 19/03/2014 21:05:34 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #755 on:
20/03/2014 23:24:44 »
One way to describe it would be to say that this universe works on two planes. One is the local, your local reality. There we find what makes repeatable experiments exist, the way every point in this universe, locally defined, present you with a arrow and 'c'. 'c' is the information carriers between the particles making you up, and the information carriers enabling what I call meaningful or useful information between all sorts of particles. The other 'plane' (find no better word for it) is the one allowing one frame of reference to communicate with another, aka interactions. So instead of four dimensions, or adding to it depending on view, we find those two expressions coexisting, creating a universe. The local, and then something allowing local expressions to interact. That's what makes the dimensions we find, as I think. Freeing yourself from the idea of four 'objectively (globally agreeable on) existing' dimensions, allows you to look at scaling differently. It also allows for the idea that a local speed increase indeed can shrink a universe, not only shorten the time it takes you from A to B, but shrink it, locally measured.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #756 on:
20/03/2014 23:33:40 »
Because, and here I'm getting into very deep waters
It's not 'energy', it's information. If it was a question of energy I see no way your local speed increase should be able to shrink a universe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #757 on:
21/03/2014 16:43:11 »
Yeah I know, I use a lot of strange words. I'm not really interested in your wealth, that's a human joke. And I have dreams
I'm sure you have it too. If you didn't you wouldn't bother to read this. Life is strange. And I'm finding that I like poetry too
Not sure what is wrong with me. I mean, we're sheep's, right? Leaded by the Shepard into oblivion. The Shepard is the guy next to you, with a big mouth filled with certainty, telling you how 'it works'. F** him.
=
Ok I know. My English sux. Lead, not 'Leaded'
On the other tentacle, maybe it's middle English, belonging to the ages when we were free.
«
Last Edit: 21/03/2014 16:52:40 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #758 on:
21/03/2014 16:48:11 »
There is more to life than money. There's justice, not a popular subject. There's love, also a weird idea. And there's trust. Today people seem to find a joy in abusing trust, and it's easy. We can all do it, nothing especially hard about fu*'ng someone up. I can do it, and so can you. Those that don't are the heroes of this age, in my eyes at last.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65442
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #759 on:
21/03/2014 16:55:22 »
Can you see what a injustice we're doing each other? Wanting to become more and more. the joke of the bible, 'populate the world'. And such a lot of us that never use their minds, unless it gives you that boost. It's a insult to them, and to us.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
36
37
[
38
]
39
40
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...