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
...
39
40
[
41
]
42
43
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356901 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #800 on:
27/03/2014 00:09:50 »
to see my ideal definition you just need to make 'c' equivalent to a clock, ticking away as a locally even and constant speed. Then assume that there is a limit to how far we can spit light into even chunks. That limit, or scale, at where light no longer is found to propagate is my definition of a frame of reference.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #801 on:
27/03/2014 00:12:31 »
and that frame of reference is the closest I can get to a 'bit'. It does not state that 'reality' stops there, just that the physics we have should break down, as I presume. and Plack scale is a very nice foundation for it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #802 on:
27/03/2014 00:14:34 »
And there I see it as you have a 'reality' in where light does not 'propagate', co-existing with your macroscopic reality. Neither one lying. All a matter of scales.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #803 on:
27/03/2014 00:21:56 »
So what do I mean? Without a arrow, where is the logic? Heh
I did say "If I would presume a logic unnecessary, I also would invalidate the need for a arrow. Because 'c' gives us a logic."
Yep, but I can still presume a logic without a arrow. That one is possible, but the one in where we assume there to be no logic, and so no need for a arrow, our 'magical universe', shouldn't be possible.
I mean, If it would be, I most definitely will arrive to a monumental headache.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #804 on:
27/03/2014 00:30:28 »
So what do we need for a universe, at all scales?
A arrow?
Not as I think. We may not need 'action and reaction' but we do need a logic, that makes it explainable. Changes is what define us macroscopically, but considering my view, we're also 'time less'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #805 on:
27/03/2014 00:31:42 »
Well, I'm sure I've told I'm weird
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #806 on:
27/03/2014 00:42:57 »
It's like you have a canvas on which a 'SpaceTime' builds itself, or get filled, with 'information'. The information uses constants as 'c', adding properties and principles, to join that information into a useful linearly describable universe. But I think we do need to presume principles for it, as chaos mathematics for example, entropy? It's a universe using information, not dimensions, and it goes from simplicity to complexity. The 'degrees of freedom' I think of those days seems more than spatial to me
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #807 on:
27/03/2014 00:51:58 »
You can also think of it as a symmetry between the measurable and the not-measurable. The not-measurable is 'one frame of reference' in where you are forced to superimpose the observer on the observed. We can't do that, we always have a local clock. The symmetry is the 'universe' to me
and we're the ones confirming its existence. Well, you might prefer some less mystical description, but to me the last question becomes 'what's the use of it'?
The universe observes itself.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #808 on:
27/03/2014 00:53:33 »
And if you accept the idea of information being what the universe consists of, organizing itself into ever more complex patterns, you better accept ethics.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #809 on:
27/03/2014 00:54:44 »
Because what we ultimately becomes in such a universe is, as I think, a question of our ethics.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #810 on:
27/03/2014 01:17:26 »
But that arrow then, where does it come from? Well, I see it as coming from 'c'. And 'c' is the distance measured in time that light 'propagates' in a vacuum. Around 300 000 km per second. And all agreeable on for us all, locally measured. To propagate it must cross those frames of reference I'm discussing as 'local bits'. So we need frames of reference communicating, and behind that a principle. 'c' is what makes it happen but the principle, looked at from just one frame of reference, needs to exist there too. So 'time' is a local property, in my universe that is
with a arrow becoming a result of frames of reference interacting.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #811 on:
27/03/2014 01:23:41 »
To assume it otherwise would to me crave a magical universe, one without logic. Frames of reference exist measurably, although they becomes a ideal definition as you scrutinize their 'location'. We measure between them, and we see the results of our measurements, validating the concept. So your local clock and ruler is what defines those repeatable experiments physics builds on.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
petm1
Full Member
52
Activity:
0%
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #812 on:
27/03/2014 02:00:15 »
As an observer I exist as a one second frame of reference. This co-moving frame is centered in time with my body's center of mass. This co-moving frame also appears to have motion even when I stand still because my consciousness is co-moving with the photons while my mass is co-moving with the earth. If emission only happens in the present then I as a receiver, observer, only see the past. Our minds trick us into thinking we see emission with a pseudo-emission point within our eyes but make no mistake we all sense the past not the present.
Logged
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #813 on:
27/03/2014 10:25:44 »
A kind of poetry Petm
not sure what the mind would be moving with, but 'c' seems as a limit, and it's correct that information carriers must obey it as useful information. and yes, you can only see the 'past', when thinking. Every instant you make conscious have already passed. On the other tentacle, without a present existing, how would we get to a past?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #814 on:
27/03/2014 10:35:25 »
That's a damn good question actually, if you think of it from a point of view in where a arrow becomes a result of frames of reference interacting. That's what your brain consist of, frames of reference communicating, just as all other objects you can find. Those that are defined as 'dimension less' is slightly different as I find it hard to define a frame to them. Need to think about that one
=
Nah, they're definable too, if we define dimensions from connections. In that universe we will use scales for defining a limit, not dimensions. We don't need them there, they're a artifact and archetype, an idea created from the things we touch. It's because that would be a universe of information, and you can't split useful information. A stone is a piece of useful information too. And without dimensions upholding our 'reality' we're living in a dream, of sorts
Hard to take, that one
First we made 'time' into a illusion, then we looked at distances aka Lorentz contractions, and made those into a illusion. Now we're going one step further and questioning dimensions.
But it is still a universe following a logic, with clear limits as described from a inside.
«
Last Edit: 27/03/2014 10:48:36 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #815 on:
27/03/2014 16:38:08 »
the point of it is that we're always just as close to that 'surface' where there is no arrow, no 'c', and where light doesn't propagate. It's a co-existence, and there must be a dependence to create our SpaceTime.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #816 on:
27/03/2014 16:40:00 »
And as a arrow disappear there, dimensions does to. You can't define what's at such a scale from your clock and ruler, because you're using the wrong tools.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #817 on:
27/03/2014 16:44:53 »
And to get back to the past, present, and the future. Frames of reference, using them as what creates ones local arrow, can it contain a present? I'm not sure, I don't think it can actually.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #818 on:
27/03/2014 16:46:59 »
Ideally we can define a present naturally. Just as we can define 'one frame of reference' as needed to exist, for us to get to ones local clock and ruler. But practically?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #819 on:
27/03/2014 16:49:59 »
Thinking of a consciousness as a 'dimension less' focus, then that focus can be said to always be in the 'present'. Thinking of it as information needing frames of reference to create a arrow, that becomes a lie.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
39
40
[
41
]
42
43
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...