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
[
2
]
3
4
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
358864 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #20 on:
08/09/2013 16:22:46 »
Split all particles, define it at some smallest common nominator as a 'grain of time'. You consist of those particles, I do too. Would that define a 'commonly existing objective' arrow?
If it does, what then define the time dilations we measure?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #21 on:
21/09/2013 20:13:51 »
On the other tentacle, there is proofs for a objective 'time', as a arrow, existing, same for us all. We just need to join a same frame of reference, in all aspects naturally, down to be of the exact same distribution of mass. And then there is the fact that, wherever you compare, it won't matter for your own measurement of your life span. It will be the same relative your local clock. You do not gain any extra years by hiding at some neutronstar, not locally measured. And you can't avoid aging, it's a fact of life.
So a arrow exist, and possibly able to be defined as being of a locally same duration, relative your also local lifespan. That becomes a local proof, not unlike the way we define a repeatable experiment to my eyes. And as physics builds on those?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #22 on:
03/10/2013 08:54:08 »
What if I would assume 'time' to be a homogeneous 'field? How would we then define the way energy, mass and motion distort our measurements of other frames. How would you go about measuring your own frame of reference in such an idea. Microscopically we must meet time dilations, and if a Lorentz contraction is a complementary part of a time dilation?
Is there any way to measure on 'one frame of reference', what you measure with, and in, being part of it? We get our measurements comparing between frames of reference, don't we?
But if I now assume that there is a homogeneous 'field' defining 'grains of time'? Some smallest common nominator for a arrow?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #23 on:
03/10/2013 08:59:05 »
To make that work I think we need more dimensions. Because somehow mass as well as motion, and 'energy', whatever that is, should twist those to give us what we call mass? Or can you do the same with fewer dimensions than what we measure?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #24 on:
03/10/2013 09:08:20 »
Then we might have a 'field', and dimensions as in unmeasurable 'degrees of freedom', twisting it all into what we define as our four dimensional reality, the common universe. With our measurements expressing just a part of it. It's a weird idea, but it's also one making sense to me when it comes to thinking of a field. Because you need to find the homogeneity of that field, in its smallest expression, to have something to stand on as I think. Alternatively you might be able to relate it to a 'projection' of a universe, coming from some simple principle of how a few 'dimensions' create something more, for us existing in it. Or you want to stay inside the dimensions we can measure on, in which case this becomes trickier to define.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #25 on:
03/10/2013 09:14:46 »
If you stay inside four defined 'degrees of freedom' for all things moving, three spatial, one temporal. Then you will find Lorentz contractions and time dilations, measuring between frames of reference. That should mean that my measurements won't be yours, even though we ideally can define something to be in a same frame of reference, or, 'at rest'. But those distortions do not create a homogeneous field to my eyes, defining a commonly same universe for us all.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #26 on:
03/10/2013 09:18:37 »
Against it you have those local proofs for it being possible to share a same arrow. That seems to me as a expression of something homogeneous, that smallest common nominator.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #27 on:
03/10/2013 09:29:43 »
We grow physics from some assumptions, one being how we define something to be 'globally, commonly for us all' true experimentally, by being able to repeat a same experiment, somewhere else getting the 'same answer'. A 'repeatable experiment'. Where is that repeatable experiment in a world where you microscopically find Lorentz contractions and time dilations? Then a repeatable experiment becomes a generalization of a ideal, instead of a 'objective' experimental fact, does it not?
Doesn't the assumption of repeatable experiments build on a idea of there being smallest common nominators 'objectively and globally' existing?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #28 on:
03/10/2013 09:38:10 »
You could imagine a universe consisting of 'excitations', as something becoming 'real' for us inside it. You can also translate a arrow into the ordered way those excitations change coordinate system. Doing so the arrow we perceive stops to exist to me
with the excitations order becoming another type of arrow, hiding behind what we measure.
=
Or, and this one is quite weird, you could assume that what each one of us observe is wholly unique, able to relate to some common smallest nominator that globally gives us a universe, although always locally defined. that one also fits the facts, because whatever you measure, as a distance related to some 'speed', must be true locally, no matter how some other frame of reference, also locally measuring, want to define it. Because that is what a measurement is.
«
Last Edit: 03/10/2013 09:44:16 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #29 on:
03/10/2013 09:56:18 »
In the last type of universe a distance and motion are highly questionable. What exist in such a one is measurements, over frames of reference, that being no guarantee of a 'commonly shared universe' we find us to exist in. and what such a thinking would do 'dimensions' and 'degrees of freedom'? It turns it upside down for me.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #30 on:
03/10/2013 09:59:17 »
What would be a 'field' in such a universe can only be what we locally find to be the exact same, as joining the same frame of reference. And there we have, what? A same arrow? What would you define such a minimized frame to contain?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #31 on:
10/10/2013 00:48:49 »
The field in such a universe must have two principles at least, or? I'm thinking one relating to each 'local point' describing rules for it. Those rules should in my imagination
be equivalent to/for all other points observed. Then you need something joining points to points ('c'). and then I think you need to introduce other parameters that we can observe from 'c' interacting with motion and mass(energy). those last ones may be emergences though
But I do think one would need something explaining why one point can find and measure on another point, giving us a universe. As I said, this one is pretty weird, and also possible to join to an idea of everything being excitations, although not giving those to become a 'arrow of time'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #32 on:
10/10/2013 01:04:16 »
You can, if defining it such as all 'frames of reference' are the same, equivalent, containing the exact same 'principles' or rules in some point like manner. Then you still need what connects them 'c'. then you need mass(energy) and relative (uniform) motion as well as accelerations as the definers of time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But it would be a pretty weird idea using the idea of 'dimensions', as each locally observed universe, if treated as a four dimensional continuum, must differ? What would that give each one of us, at different speeds and mass, measuring? Different universes, or the same?
Myself I would like to have a way of expressing it where time dilations and Lorentz contractions spring forward as 'emergences' coming from a more unified presentation, and to get to such an idea I think one has to look at what are equivalent for all frames of reference. and that should then become what a 'field' is
well hopefully. And using that universe dimensions also becomes a emergence I suspect, as well as 'degrees of freedom'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #33 on:
10/10/2013 01:18:05 »
Think of it as a layer for example, a sheet. in it you introduce excitations, and some rules of how those excitations communicate with each other. Each point unique, and equivalent to any other point. What defines each points uniqueness are the measurements made. Either you can define it as all points measure on all other points constantly, interacting. Or you introduce consciousness under a arrow as the definer of what a measurement is. Myself I prefer the first one, as it seems simpler, and also allows those points a independent 'reality'. If you go by consciousness alone, then the only proof you have is your own mind. For all that you know you might imagine all other consciousnesses, as well as the universe you measure on. So the first one makes more sense to me.
=
A sheet is a very poor representation of what I'm thinking of, because now I defined something, either two dimensional, or one dimensional. But that's not what I'm aiming for. I'm aiming for a 'point like' universe in this one, in where degrees of freedom and dimensions are emergences allowing us the ability to make measurements.
But I still want to keep a common arrow, equivalent to all points, in this universe.
«
Last Edit: 10/10/2013 01:24:38 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #34 on:
10/10/2013 01:38:47 »
What you can say for any, biological or 'dead matter', system of mass is that if it consist of Lorentz contractions and time dilations. Then those either are to 'small' to disturb, or they do not matter at all (no pun intended). If they doesn't matter you need to ask yourself how that can be. In a 'point like' universe they are emergences, in a four dimensional continuum they should have to be too small. In a 'point like universe' it's the principle joining points, 'c', that creates it.
=
Alternatively you could argue that as they are complementary (observer dependent), defining all points as 'constantly measuring' on all other, they take each other out leaving a equilibrium on some non-defined 'ideal plane'. But that will introduce a universe of ideal principles, defining the local representations we have.
«
Last Edit: 10/10/2013 12:20:09 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #35 on:
10/10/2013 11:13:42 »
To see where I differ. Dimensions and degrees of freedom both presumes a common universe, using basic rules, same for all, defined through containment 'inside' this universe. If you instead define it such as what is 'real' should be what defines a universe then this conclusion becomes slightly distorted. What is 'real' in this universe are your measurements. When yours fit mine we might define this as a proof of a same universe, but using time dilation and Lorentz contractions we find that there is a plausible doubt over ours experiments truly being equivalent.
The other point is that the universe you measure on, will be the one you live in and are defined by. The experiments answer and measurements are what will define your outcomes. This doesn't state that there isn't a equivalence existing. It only states that practically it will be very hard to prove that equivalence down to slightest details, presuming complementary time dilations and Lorentz contractions existing. Assuming that experiments are locally defined and measured, presenting you with the closest approximation of your reality, but not exactly equivalent to a other local measurement, will give you a universe in where we do share common principles, with a twist.
In such a thinking the universe we observe is a emergence, defined locally. It needs something joining points creating the illusion, or local reality if one like. and there we have lights speed in a vacuum. That is what joins the information I get from other points to mine. It's not lights speed that is important there, it's the principle involved instead, the idea of information.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #36 on:
10/10/2013 11:24:50 »
You could call lights speed in a vacuum a basic rule for how points communicate, it's a limit defining it. And dimensions, our common four dimensional universe, stops covering this idea, as it to me presumes a container of sorts, us measuring from inside. Instead we find local points, sharing a way to communicate, a universe emerging from the communication as locally defined. It does not state how those points are organized from some global perspective, it will not involve degrees of freedom as defining some common container, and dimensions stop to make sense.
It's the same universe though, just turning it around.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #37 on:
10/10/2013 11:31:50 »
Using 'c' you can link that to your life span. then 'c' is your local clock. It ticks from your birth to your demise, presenting you a even reliable duration of 'ticktocks'. that gives the arrow a strictly local definition. Although we all share it, it once again is important to point out that this does not give us that commonly same universe, we normally associate with us agreeing on some principle. You have to differ between common principles, ideal definitions of equivalence, and the 'reality' you measure on.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #38 on:
10/10/2013 11:39:27 »
I'm slightly allergic to 'projections', as defining the universe becoming one. A projection uses dimensions to me, creating new ones, holding new degrees of freedom (ways to move) arising from the 'illusion/projection' created, to us being inside it. If there isn't dimensions then? What does the 'projection' rest on?
but we have common principles, the local arrow and 'c' merging into one expression, equivalent to all of us.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65965
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #39 on:
10/10/2013 11:47:47 »
That's why the arrow of time is a basic principle, equivalent to 'c', and also a strict local definition, only 'true' locally measured and ideally defined. As you move from a 'ideal' local measurement to measuring over frames of reference you introduce time dilations and Lorentz contractions. And practically, all measurements must be over frames of reference. You can't measure 'locally', you can only define some ideal. As superimposing something (identical), ideally sharing a same 'frame of reference'. But it exists and it is what I would call one 'local point'.
«
Last Edit: 10/10/2013 11:56:16 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
3
4
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...