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
...
6
7
[
8
]
9
10
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356426 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #140 on:
16/12/2013 12:29:44 »
And those discussions about what arrow is becomes ill defined to me, considering what people discuss. A arrow is to me your wrist watch, equivalent to 'c'. I do not need to define that 'speed', and argue what is should be. It's a relation, and a equivalence, the same no matter what 'speed' you would like to define from some comparison. Can you see what I am talking about?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #141 on:
16/12/2013 12:36:39 »
Using such a definition everything becomes a equilibrium. There are parameters that change your 'universe', comparing your local clock to other frames of reference, but you are still in a equilibrium with the cosmos around you. Motion, energy and mass. And as it is a local approach to reality, presuming equivalence between all 'singular frames of reference' a Lorentz contraction can be understood as yet another relation changing due to those parameters. What defines your universe are local constants.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #142 on:
16/12/2013 12:39:11 »
And the universe you think of as a 'commonly same container' of us all will cease to exist. What's commonly same in this universe are constants, principles, properties, that we ultimately can refer to as existing locally defined in all points.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #143 on:
16/12/2013 12:48:36 »
But I will use 'c', and I will define 'c' as a constant through all types of motion, the same way I challenge you to show me how your clock experimentally can be proven to change its 'speed/ticks' locally measured.
You can't.
Only comparisons will infer such a notion. And that comparison builds on you, using your local clock
Can you see what that implies? That you have no defined notion of a arrow what so ever, using that type of argument. If you apply your local definition on some other frame of reference. Then others can do the same with you, and hey, they won't agree on your 'time keeping', will they? So, what is a 'time keeping'?
Either it is non existent, in which case there are no 'repeatable experiments', or, it is locally defined, equivalent.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #144 on:
16/12/2013 12:55:57 »
There is a causality to cosmos. We define that causality through 'c'. That's what gives you the opportunity to do a Lorentz transformation, transforming my notion of a SpaceTime to yours.
'c'
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #145 on:
16/12/2013 13:02:39 »
It's a ultimate game. You build it from 'nodes'. You give them common principles, constants, properties. You define limits of communication as 'c'. You, and here's what I don't know how to understand, have to find a way for the nodes to interact. That/those interaction(s) will then define dimensions, and 'degrees of freedom'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #146 on:
16/12/2013 13:05:54 »
Entropy can also be seen as a mean of 'communication' I think. Transformations leading to some minimalistically equivalent state in all points, called 'heat'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #147 on:
16/12/2013 13:12:00 »
But tell me one thing, can 'heat' exist in one singular frame of reference?
Can it?
I don't think so myself, 'heat' and 'temperatures' are interactions. Although, one could assume that there should be properties defining that interaction, existing in all frames of reference.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #148 on:
16/12/2013 13:20:49 »
And all that clever reasoning building on a presumed container model of a universe stops making sense. No use defining a loaf of bread, with 'time slices', 'proving' that all time is co existent. Using my definition we come down to two things, a locally equivalent arrow to 'c', also equivalent for all points or 'nodes'. And then something where a arrow stops making sense, that's what 'co exist' to me, and you can use scales to see it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #149 on:
16/12/2013 15:17:33 »
There is another alternative way to think of it, possibly? The 'commonly same container' we see is defined by Time dilations and Lorentz contractions. Apply the eye of a God on this, a thought up 'outside', and then define what allows communication, not meaning 'c' now, just a 'fabric' of sorts. What keeps it 'together'?
a very weird 'fabric' it must be. But we need something, allowing for lights propagation in a vacuum, communicating over frames of reference. That to us defines the 'dimensions' we find us to exist in.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #150 on:
16/12/2013 15:19:08 »
We call it geometry. But what make it allowed to exist?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #151 on:
16/12/2013 19:52:14 »
What is probability?
How does a electron become a probability? Is a electron itself 'isolated' existing at all?
Does the moon exist when you're not looking?
Relations defines it. Well, as my assumption for this
Think of the universe we observe as a description of probabilities, relations defining those probabilities. The moon don't care if you look, it's you that do that
And that becomes a geometry, relations defining a reality. The real question, and the one I'm truly confused about, is in what way one frame can communicate with another? In my universe that is
A lot of stuff is easy to explain thinking of a universe this way. A particle becoming a wave, becoming a particle, depending on relations, in this case meaning your experiment for measuring. And entanglements? Well, we have a situation in where we have a limit for communication, 'c'. But the entanglement in itself? the idea of a instant 'spooky action at a distance'. Depends on how you look at it, what was it I suggested at a microscopic level? That it was no use trying to define a position, if defining it such as a arrow disappear there? There are no 'positions' to be found. You might also want to consider, a superposition maybe?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #152 on:
16/12/2013 19:56:25 »
A superposition, without a geometry? That's pretty weird.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #153 on:
16/12/2013 19:58:22 »
We look at QM, the really, really, 'small', through our macroscopic definitions. Our local clock, decoherence, ruler, etc etc.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #154 on:
16/12/2013 20:03:41 »
And the 'really small' ignore our geometry. Your frame of reference 'force you' to define it from 'dimensions', doesn't it
You entangle two particles, place them at different positions, measure one, then the other, finding them to have a 'opposite relation', falling out the same way every time you repeat it (ideally this is, entanglements are hard to set up practically as I understand).
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #155 on:
17/12/2013 19:16:30 »
Why not think of it in terms of relations? A entanglement craves a 'setup' before you can get to it. Fulfilling the setup correctly should give you a high probability of it falling out. That should then either mean that most particles aren't entangled, or that we fail to see how they are.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #156 on:
18/12/2013 11:02:04 »
How far can one take a entanglement?
Let's assume that at a 'Big Bang' everything should be entangled. What happens after that? As particles bounce each other? Do they find new 'entanglements'? Whatever they do, do you expect them to keep the original entanglement? A Big Bang was a lot of energy, wasn't it? In a geometric 'point', that somehow became a lot of 'points', assuming a inflation faster than light. How can we assume a 'ftl', without defining it such as there is a origin geometrically?
We can't.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #157 on:
18/12/2013 11:03:48 »
Can you see how our archetypes constantly come into play, creating riddles for us. If there was no 'origin', then there was no 'ftl' either.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #158 on:
18/12/2013 19:15:39 »
So what am I suggesting? Some perpendicular plane to our universe that act on it, giving us a illusion of propagation? I don't think so, using such a analogue ftl exist, even if not in the plane we exist and observe. And this one also goes back to how a point communicate with another, if I now got it right, that way creating our dimensions. I have good reasons to prefer a universe defined locally, but defining 'dimensions' from such an idea is trickier. Either one assume a geometry free from locality, but that's not true. If you trust relativity, Lorentz contractions must exist, and they are observer dependent. If they are you can't sponsor a geometry isolated from the observers. Or you have to find a way to describe a geometry from whatever change its description. That would then, as I see it, be all types of motion, mass, and that undefinable quality 'energy'. What's good with defining it from a observer is that you don't need to argue what is more 'real', what you measure at rest with earth relative what you would measure moving relativistically. But 'dimensions' won't be the same after such a change, neither will what makes them. The universe in such a description don't care of your mass, if we just use relativistic motion for now. One gram or one tonne, it doesn't matter for the frame of reference moving relativistically. If it measures it should see the same contraction, loosely defined. And as all measurements it does tells it is true, then, from 'localitys' point of view, it is true.
=
To see where I'm going with this comparison just translate mass into 'energy'. Doesn't matter what 'energy' you have, or spend. To get to a relativistic motion, (well, we know it does, mass, relativistic and restmass, do have a role but we're ignoring that fact for now) one gram 'energy' or one tonne, the contraction of your universe should be the same (loosely defined). So a good question here is to ask yourself how this ever can be true?
«
Last Edit: 18/12/2013 19:45:43 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65386
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #159 on:
22/12/2013 03:20:18 »
For me it comes back to a observer dependent geometry, defined by 'c'. Assume
that we're living in a projection, it's not a new idea. Do I then need 'dimensions' from it to start with? Holography needs it, but that we can prove to be a illusion. What does a universe need? You need some sort of 'space' for those points to interact in, creating a universe, but if the points themselves create the connections, giving us the dimensions we define? Do those 'points' need to be separated?
=
It's also a question of 'energy'. Assume that we have a equilibrium, assume that the only thing that happens is transformations, of a constant unchanging magnitude of 'energy' existing as a universe. Isn't that a 'free lunch'? Nothing gets lost, it just transforms.
==
Then look at a inflation, and a 'accelerating' expansion of a vacuum. Is that a transformation too? Where from? Either you define a 'outside' of some type for this, or you define it from a 'inside'. If you do the last you need to take 'something', to deliver something new. As it all should be about a equilibrium of 'energy', transforming from one state to another.
==
Or it's a projection, in which case our definitions probably hold true anyway. The 'equilibrium of energy' transforming. But I don't think it to define a 'inside' anymore, if that would be the case, although it still will be/seem so to us, measuring.
«
Last Edit: 22/12/2013 03:36:13 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
6
7
[
8
]
9
10
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...