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
...
5
6
[
7
]
8
9
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
355656 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #120 on:
10/12/2013 14:32:05 »
In fact, that is the way it must be, to get to a repeatable experiment. We need some properties (laws) to be the same, no matter where we measure from. And those 'properties' allowing us to find those laws, must then to a high degree be considered 'equivalent'. Otherwise we can't have a universe as we define it today.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #121 on:
10/12/2013 14:34:23 »
From a 'global' point of view I can describe a multi verse, as it is observer dependent. From a 'local' point of view, we share the exact same constants, principles, properties, etc etc.
=
That should be read as a your 'multi verse' existing, as defined by your measurements, when compared to some other observers measurements, ignoring Lorentz transformations. You can't introduce a Lorentz transformation without moving the universe from measurements, into conceptual 'space'. Realistically, your measurements define your environment, and what will happen, to you that is
then we also have the possibility of fitting your measurement to mine versus a Lorentz transformation.
The last is what defines our universe's causality. If there was no causality, a Lorentz transformation should not exist.
«
Last Edit: 10/12/2013 14:42:20 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #122 on:
10/12/2013 14:46:48 »
Causality is unavoidable, I think? As long as we have the same local properties definable in all 'points/observers'. Or can you construct a universe in where we all locally share the same principles, 'constants/properties', equivalently. To then come to a (global description of a) universe without a causality of some kind existing?
«
Last Edit: 10/12/2013 14:48:19 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #123 on:
14/12/2013 17:46:09 »
I'm not especially excited over the idea that 'all time' co-exists. You can theorize that it does, Using those locally defined 'time slices' and then imagine that you 'instantly' could see the whole SpaceTime loaf, depending on motion, direction and mass (energy). It's just not true, causality won't allow it. It seems as some really smart people have allowed themselves to be seduced by its novelty. It's like the idea of the moon only existing, as you observe it, Einstein doubted that one with very good reason, the moon will be there.
And I don't need entropy for defining this. I just need a locally measured 'c', and assuming a equivalent 'clock'.
'c' is not relative. It's only relative when you think in terms of a 'container universe'. Locally measured you can prove that your local time never change, locally you can join any frame of reference, finding its 'time' to be yours too, and no experiment you can imagine locally will prove this wrong.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #124 on:
14/12/2013 17:53:29 »
That doesn't state that there isn't a possibility of something containing a whole SpaceTime. Scaling SpaceTime down to Planck scale, gravity disappear. Isn't that a accepted fact? And so does 'c', and if I'm right so should a local arrow. But you measuring will have a clock ticking beside you, so in your measurement a arrow must be involved. It's very hard to imagine a way to test 'singular frames of reference' in themselves. We always test locally, over frames of reference.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #125 on:
14/12/2013 18:02:07 »
What I mean is that there is a difference between stating that 'all time must coexist' as you can get to different 'time slices' theoretically, and what a SpaceTime really is. Ours must be regulated by 'c', that's the speed of communication, everywhere we measure, to make sense to me. That communication defines your reality. But it's not impossible to consider the 'common universe' a illusion, if you find a way to stop 'c' locally measured. But then you will meet another place, using another way of 'communicating' as neither causality, nor 'c' as a mean of communication, should exist.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #126 on:
14/12/2013 18:34:42 »
You can get to a universe imagining it having no dimensions at all. You can also find something not using a propagation, instead finding a rhythm, defined by 'c'. What's real would then be constants, equivalently so in each frame of reference, aka 'point'. The rhythm is defined by 'c', and those constants, giving us causality. Defining it locally also mean that whatever dimensions and degrees of freedom we measure are 'local constructs' defining your relation to a universe. That doesn't make dimensions non existing, or degrees of freedom. It's just another way of defining it. In this universe observations define degrees of freedom, and dimensions. In it we have 'c', but we don't have a explanation of why we can communicate between frames of reference, although we know how. 'c'.
«
Last Edit: 14/12/2013 18:36:14 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #127 on:
15/12/2013 00:25:29 »
So what do this mystical revelation mean
Nothing special.
Just that I think scales are more important than what I see normally. And as I've always have said, it's not so much about proving a 'new theory' as it is about applying a different point of view. Using that view some things that I wonder about becomes simpler, others doesn't. The clock and 'c' is true, prove it wrong and I will be pleased. That will give me something new to think about.
=
as usual, my spelling sux...
«
Last Edit: 15/12/2013 02:15:20 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #128 on:
15/12/2013 00:29:14 »
And yes, it's indeed taking Einstein seriously, more seriously than what we normally do. We like to split relativity from the very small. I don't, I just use a local description, that keeps it as simple as I can get it. My universe needs to make sense, and I'm prepared to ignore most archetypes for getting there.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #129 on:
15/12/2013 10:37:59 »
When I think of the very small I do it in terms of frames of reference. Assume that a clock stops there, assume that 'gravity' disappear, assume that 'c' is gone, as some definition/limit of communication. How will you differ one point from another in a positional system? To me they become inseparable, doesn't make sense to say that this point belong to there, and this to there. They are one and the same.
=
That gives one a question, can you presume a geometry? Or is geometry a result of matter, relativity and 'forces'? We're in a fishbowl, with limits.
==
And that bring us back to how we do a measurement. We can't do it purely locally, measuring 'inside' one frame of reference. We can loosely define me as being at rest with earth and so you can argue that I can do a measurement inside one frame of reference, but gravitationally that can't be true, and ones position must also have a impact on the measurement, comparing it with another observers 'identical' experiment, also 'at rest' with earth.
To me it's the difference between a macroscopic and microscopic definition, and also why I think it should be possible to define one singular frame of reference to Planck scale. Maybe there is a geometry existing microscopically too, but all points in that 'frame of reference' should be microscopically identical as I think. I don't know if it would matter, if there is, or not, actually.
«
Last Edit: 15/12/2013 10:51:54 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #130 on:
15/12/2013 10:56:34 »
There is a tentative idea I have of it though. And that one uses something similar to the idea of decoherence. I assume that a geometry is a result of interactions, 'c' defining its communication. We have the idea of 'symmetry breaks'. Assuming that a geometry is a result of limits imposed on a regime, defining it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #131 on:
15/12/2013 10:59:29 »
That will give you one equivalently same point, or no point at all
as you need a positional system to define a 'point', microscopically, becoming many points for us inside, allowing us coordinate systems.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #132 on:
15/12/2013 11:04:09 »
In that way everything we measure is a illusion, theoretically
But to me it's not, and neither can it be to any other observer existing inside it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #133 on:
15/12/2013 11:07:44 »
And then a Big Bang must be what defined that 'first' symmetry break, presenting us a arrow. But it should also mean that when scaling down, we look at what always is there, the regime we come to be from. It's not 'gone', it 'coexist' with us.
==
We speak of distances, don't we?
Well, the distance to that origin is the same from all positional points, 'coordinate systems', you can think of. The exact same distance, into a 'center' if you like, from any position chosen.
«
Last Edit: 15/12/2013 11:11:15 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #134 on:
15/12/2013 11:21:14 »
A 'symmetry break' is such a perfect description of it. Whoever first thought that word up found a real beauty
It's simply a break in a symmetry, SpaceTime.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #135 on:
15/12/2013 11:32:39 »
So what is entropy?
It belongs to a arrow.
And what is consciousness?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #136 on:
15/12/2013 11:38:03 »
We think we 'invent' a quantum computer, don't we
Well, if we're a symmetry break, why not say that this 'invented' us, consciousness, entropy, and all, like some white mouse
) Douglas Adam had it right.
=
Applying frames of reference on such a reasoning, I must state that it, from its own frame of reference, the origin of our symmetry break better should be considered to 'invent', as there is no arrow to define for me there. It never started, and it never finished it either. All such definitions belong to us, inside a arrow of time, our 'fish bowl'.
«
Last Edit: 15/12/2013 11:44:58 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #137 on:
16/12/2013 12:13:30 »
Let us assume that Planck constants aren't constants at all, instead being some agreed on definition relative some ill defined earlier definitions. Would that destroy the equivalent way I treat 'c' and a arrow? I don't think so, what my reasoning rests on is the assumption that at some point it will become meaningless to define a 'propagation' of light. I'm discussing where physics breaks down actually. That's also where I will place a singular 'frame of reference'. A frame will become apparent when it gets a definition through interaction, and so will a arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #138 on:
16/12/2013 12:18:00 »
You can free this definition from the one where we define 'c' as defined constant speed too. Although that would give us a very flexible definition of where such a 'break down' of physics take place, as it still is observer dependent, it would still point to locality being what defines it. And locality from my point of view isn't solely about interactions, locality can also be seen as one singular frame of reference, equivalent to all other frames, consisting of the exact same properties, principles etc.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65315
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #139 on:
16/12/2013 12:24:02 »
Easiest to understand is to think of a arrow, locally defined. You're 'constantly uniformly accelerating', being at rest, with Earth. Does you clock still work? You go into a rocket to be shot at a relativistic speed into the universe, will your local clock stop?
Nope.
Doesn't matter if we define it as uniform motion or accelerating decelerating. That wrist watch must exist, or you will have to define a entanglement of sorts instead, somehow?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
5
6
[
7
]
8
9
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...