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
...
18
19
[
20
]
21
22
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356533 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #380 on:
10/01/2014 20:33:44 »
There is no measurable pressure either, to a vacuum.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Ethos_
Naked Science Forum King!
1332
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 18 times
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #381 on:
10/01/2014 20:57:29 »
A field is only observer dependent when the observer chooses to influence it by physical means. No hocus pocus mystery unintended quantum consciousness influence.
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #382 on:
10/01/2014 23:37:34 »
Depends, although I would define all fields as observer dependent Ethos. Two ways to define it that I know of, the one where we assume the 'eyes of a God' which is theoretical, not measuring. The other is by measurements and there they must be observer dependent. Create equivalent observer dependencies (all other equivalences included:) and you should get to a repeatable experiment. You have mass and motion defining your observations.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #383 on:
11/01/2014 14:22:39 »
A vacuum, does it exist? It has to, don't you agree?
From where does it exist?
From a 'inside' it does.
We have no other way of measuring it, than from this 'inside'. Geometry keeps giving us a definition of a inside versus a outside, doesn't it? And 'dimensions' are actually very similar in that they creates a container, containing four 'singular' dimensions, that somehow coagulates into a SpaceTime.
Forget that distinction for a while, exchange it for 'degrees of freedom' instead, and what experiments tells you.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #384 on:
11/01/2014 14:24:41 »
Treat it as a 'point like' universe, each point defining relations relative all other points. We finding dimensions in our inability to ever pass outside those points relations and interactions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #385 on:
11/01/2014 14:27:04 »
It fits relativity. And it will work for strings and loops too as I expect. And you really becomes the 'center' of whatever universe you observe. Feels good, doesn't it
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #386 on:
11/01/2014 14:31:13 »
But it gives another definition to a 'outside'. It does not specify it as one geometry relative another. The difference is subtle, but you have no 'anchor', more than yourself and what you measure relative yourself. There is no objective 'center' anymore, to anything. And that's one reason why I think one have to assume a frame of reference as being a 'observer'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #387 on:
11/01/2014 14:34:14 »
If you want a 'center' to such a universe you need to scale it down. And it doesn't matter where you do it, you will reach that same 'center' from anywhere in the universe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #388 on:
11/01/2014 14:42:28 »
You could call that 'objective' possibly? But I don't see how you would give it a SpaceTime position?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #389 on:
11/01/2014 14:45:21 »
How about this then?
Reality is defined by outcomes. No outcomes, no reality.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #390 on:
11/01/2014 14:46:28 »
So how can I ignore a arrow?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #391 on:
11/01/2014 14:50:17 »
Doesn't matter for this if we define super position and wave functions. You still measure outcomes, not wavefunctions, neither can you measure a superposition. You can draw a theoretical conclusion from circumstantial evidence, making you think of it this way. But using relations with you as a center, you, your experiment and your experimental outcome is one thing, not many superimposed upon this reality.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #392 on:
11/01/2014 14:56:42 »
And it allows a two slit experiment giving you a duality of light. As a particle or as a wave, depending on what relations you and your experiment set up. What it should not allow, is to prove both simultaneously, meaning at a same SpaceTime position (same 'instant'), in one experiment. And what defines that is a real local arrow, equivalent to c'.
«
Last Edit: 11/01/2014 14:58:54 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #393 on:
11/01/2014 15:04:53 »
Think of it, you need something 'stringing up' those outcomes, because they are stringed up from your local observations. Forget simultaneity for this one, it doesn't discuss it. Your particles, creating you, interact, don't they? How else will you read this?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #394 on:
11/01/2014 15:06:17 »
Simultaneity presumes a container universe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #395 on:
11/01/2014 15:11:16 »
It becomes a meaningless definition from a strict locality. There WYSIWYG.
And accepting locality defining my definitions of a dimensionality, we need to look elsewhere for why we find dimensions. It does not make the concept meaningless though, dimensions exist and becomes our 'inside' in my thoughts too, but as a local relation to constants, properties and principles interacting, giving us outcomes from where we define 'c', and a arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #396 on:
11/01/2014 15:15:14 »
So, what is 'reality'?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #397 on:
11/01/2014 15:19:39 »
A reality is a logic, explaining outcomes?
With outcomes explaining us
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #398 on:
11/01/2014 17:40:09 »
The problem with strings, and all 'moving' things, is that you need a clock (and ruler) for it. You can naturally define it from our normal definition which assumes a macroscopic observer using a local clock. From such a definition you always have a arrow to find a motion in. From a observer definition, using 'c' as equivalent to a arrow you still should meet a scale in where that motion blurs out though, and that is what we do. Strict locally though, no distance can exist and neither can a arrow. The alternative would be to assume that there are no stop to a distance, and a arrow. Split it as far as you like, there will always be a part left, to split further.
HUP do not agree on that one, relativity doesn't either.
How you define a string as having a distance or geometric form seems subtly wrong to me, although it presumably work from a observer definition, using that local clock and ruler. And naturally, the same goes for something vibrating. Indeterminism is not vibrations.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #399 on:
11/01/2014 17:46:28 »
If string theory insist on strings vibrating we must find that 'frames of reference' either is 'smaller' than strings, or that it is in a relation to a macroscopic observer using a local clock and ruler you define it, using a clock ticking better than Plank scale.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
18
19
[
20
]
21
22
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...