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
...
51
52
[
53
]
54
55
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
354187 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1040 on:
12/07/2014 03:16:33 »
Why I'm using a perfect sphere here is not because its geometry, although it is about its geometry
Shrink it, then shrink it some more, then shrink it again.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1041 on:
12/07/2014 03:20:18 »
Maybe you could call it a symmetry? It has a perfect even matter distribution in a other wise ' perfectly empty vacuum, or universe '
And if you turn it around, then a 'perfect point' should when magnified become as this perfect sphere, to us inside this four dimensional universe, I think that is
==
Not really though, it's a simplification. I'm just using it descriptively, to point out something that I find strange. You accept a expansion? Then maybe you see what I'm getting at? There is no less logic in gravity's direction here than there is in the expansions. And to me it's about how we define dimensions.
I think 'degrees of freedom' is a, so much, better description.
«
Last Edit: 12/07/2014 03:56:33 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1042 on:
12/07/2014 03:28:03 »
Then we have uncertainty, and indeterminism. It keeps coming back, doesn't it?
Read this one, then read it again. I know I did
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/resonances.html
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1043 on:
12/07/2014 04:39:27 »
If you read it then Andreas wrote something really fundamental there.
"Assuming the subject is logical, as physics is supposed to be, the fundamentals are the basic ideas that allow one to reconcile seemingly contradictory end results."
So what would a observer dependent field need to be from logic? It would need to agree on basic observations, even if ones measurements would disagree. As for example the amount of planets. If we stretch this notion somewhat further, also the amount of particles existing. As per a Lorentz transformation.
would you agree to that?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1044 on:
12/07/2014 04:45:40 »
So, assuming this is correct. Then we have us one definition of this 'container', wouldn't you say? Also we would need to presume that all observers would agree to what they see containing the same dimensions, that means four, length, width, height, and a arrow in which to measure those.
So is it a container?
A very strange one if so, it has a consistent logic, but that is a must. I can as easily exchange a container for rules, laws, and principles.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1045 on:
12/07/2014 04:53:12 »
Andreas is so right in what he writes. Physics presumes a logic. Just as we should find a time reversal, logic demands it to me. Or do you know a way to define a process, evolving in time, that becomes impossible to reverse, as in catching it on a screen unable to reverse the movie? Even if you do, what is its probability? If you want this universe to consist of a logic, can you allow it to not be reversible?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1046 on:
12/07/2014 05:11:32 »
Then again, I don't consider it reversible practically. That means that you can't travel back in time, well, as far as I'm concerned. You have to differ between a logics demands of causality (Cause and effect), and that local arrow acting on you. The logic must be there, but the arrow has only one direction. Whereas entropy locally can decrease, although overall must increase, your local arrow constantly will 'tick' at a same rate as 'c', all as I see it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1047 on:
12/07/2014 05:14:42 »
To clarify, when you measure that local entropy decreasing, you do it using your local clock and ruler. So entropy and the arrow is not equivalent. 'c' and the arrow though, is.
=
better get some sleep huh
«
Last Edit: 12/07/2014 05:17:31 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1048 on:
12/07/2014 05:29:25 »
It all comes down to what you think define this universe. I use strict locality to define it from. I don't use a assumption of a 'container universe'. If I did I think I should lose my definition of a arrows equivalence to 'c', as you there find both 'time dilations' and 'Lorentz contractions'. But I know that my definition must be correct, you're a living proof of it, as is me
We both have a birth, and a end, locally defined.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1049 on:
12/07/2014 12:36:40 »
Relativity is a theory of extremes, or maybe a theory of where the limits of our observable universe are? Like 'c', like what
Ehrenfest paradox
discuss. It's implications are philosophical, it's about what life consist of, and the universe, but you won't see it at/in the 'regime' we live, normally defined at least. You need to get close to the 'relativistic envelope' to observe it. To me it's important, maybe not so much to you. I would say relativity is a question of life, why we exist and where we are going.
It invites all of us to wonder.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1050 on:
12/07/2014 12:45:12 »
The first thing you need to define, a basic, is whether you expect there to be a logic, or not? Without a logic, without a time reversibility the universe becomes magical to me. With a time reversibility I find a logic that fits to the arrow we measure locally. A place where causality breaks down must also become place without measurable statistics, as I see no way to guarantee a result there. Probability also builds on a assumption of there being a logic existing, causality holding, and when it comes to very low probabilities, actually need this base to be able to define such.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1051 on:
12/07/2014 12:48:23 »
How else did you think you would be able to define that almost magical probability of all molecules getting collected in a corner of your room? It there was no bell shaped curve defining its probability?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1052 on:
12/07/2014 12:59:54 »
so what about Feynman's '
many paths
' then? Isn't that a example of a state where it becomes extremely difficult discussing a arrow? Sure, that's what I naively think of as a example of a symmetry, and a symmetry break. The symmetry exist, still does, with us and our local arrow, becoming something of a needed counterpart to it.
Without that arrow, would a consciousness exist?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1053 on:
12/07/2014 13:10:18 »
This universe is defined through outcomes. The outcomes follows a logic that should be reversible to fit my thinking. Even though this logic is strictly local (as in a local arrow), to get to a 'seamless container universe' you need it to connect all 'events', as instants of outcomes, in a understandable way for all observers. That's what relativity does (Lorentz transformations). Behind it all though is our presumption of this is the way it must work for us. It has to make sense.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1054 on:
12/07/2014 13:19:27 »
there is actually a possibility of the universe being magical
A 'wizard of sorts' having a laugh on us, creating a symmetry break out of thin air, stringing us up to a logic, as puppets to a show. I don't think it is so, I think of it as a symmetry, and I find no way to see how this wizard should be able to exist, to formulate this symmetry break, without a arrow involved. That mathematical space of 'many paths' should then be its whole existence, as I think.
No, it's a symmetry, and we are needed. We're the symmetry break making it all possible, to me, that is
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1055 on:
12/07/2014 13:25:08 »
the reason is rather simple, which is to my liking. 'many paths' presume exactly what exist, namely us and our universe. Take it away and that mathematical space shouldn't exist either.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1056 on:
12/07/2014 13:33:21 »
It's a basic, and a presumption.
But it got to be there.
If you on the other tentacle love containers, then you also probably want to define something making it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1057 on:
12/07/2014 14:27:30 »
So what is a dimension?
I would define it as a distance. A distance is something you measure under a arrow. Without a arrow a distance won't make sense. We have four dimensions. On the other tentacle, three of them are the same, equivalent distances, the fourth is that arrow which makes them exist. A distance is observer dependent, as we all know from relativity. It belongs to 'you' measuring it, relative your 'proper time' and local ruler.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1058 on:
12/07/2014 14:31:18 »
Together with time, mass, 'speeds' and 'energy', they form our geometry. 'Speeds' as you can break that one into two categories, uniform motions equivalent to no discernible local change and so equivalent to being still, accelerations (which include decelerations) expressing itself as a locally definable inertia, and under special definitions 'gravity'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1059 on:
12/07/2014 14:39:22 »
the Higgs fail miserably with defining what mass is under a uniform motion. If you would imagine it as a viscosity then you also need to explain why rest mass under different uniform motion still will be of the same gravity. As a explanation for inertia it becomes different, there it seem to fit, but that will then split gravity and inertia. You don't get both as far as I know, with a Higgs boson.
There is also that, that a Higgs boson is a try for explanation versus 'forces'. You might say that it is a return to Newtonian outlook of a 'container universe' in where there are force carrying particles, as the Higgs Boson that then regulate inertia, and as some want, also somehow (?) create gravity.
This sort of reasoning is not relativistic, it's a return to a universe that is a container. On the other tentacle, didn't we agree on that it has some properties that we definitely would expect a 'container' of sorts to express? Even Einstein defined the universe as 'one thing', making a 'relativistic sense'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
51
52
[
53
]
54
55
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...