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
...
60
61
[
62
]
63
64
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356503 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 #1220 on:
06/09/2014 13:21:01 »
that way you can get to a expansion, but to get to that inflation you will need to define it differently. So what might differ a initial inflation from its subsequent expansion? If we want causality to survive 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 #1221 on:
06/09/2014 13:55:00 »
Ones main thesis here should be finding a way to keep constants, and causality, intact I think. Ftl no longer being ftl, more of a illusion as defined from inside. to me it seems as if constants is what builds everything.
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 #1222 on:
06/09/2014 13:57:35 »
Or maybe you can treat a inflation as an expansion? Probably you can. Ah well, it's Saturday and yesterday was as I vaguely remember a Friday, just sayin
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 #1223 on:
22/09/2014 18:00:12 »
Me discussing logics
Here's one description
Hand to mouth.
worthy of thoughts I think.
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 #1224 on:
10/10/2014 22:09:20 »
Have a read "According to Einstein's theory, informally speaking, time runs slower closer to massive bodies. That means that natural clocks in the sun run slower than the same clocks on earth. Of course there are no ordinary clocks in the sun. But there is something much better. Excited atoms emit light in very specific frequencies and our measuring the frequency of that light is akin to our measuring the frequency of ticking of a clock. Any slowing of those atomic clocks would result in a change in the frequency of light emitted from the sun.
Einstein's theory predicts a very small degree of slowing of clocks in the sun. It manifests in the light from the sun being slightly reddened for observers watching from far afield on the earth. The red shift for light from the sun is merely 0.00002%, which proved extremely difficult to detect. The effect was found later in the light from stars far more massive than the sun. The figure shows light climbing out of the stronger gravitational field of the sun towards the earth."
Now this sounds as rather solid argument of clocks ticking 'differently fast' at different locations, doesn't it? Let's see what it presume, that energy isn't consistent with a given mass, but observer dependent? A interesting universe, but it's not mine. Three observers with differing uniform motion will define that sun differently, the frequency too. As all uniform motions are locally, and experimentally equivalent, there is nothing explaining this. Accepting clocks 'ticking differently' though uniform motion you also redefine 'c', from being a constant measured relative your uniform motion, to a variable, although it does not show itself to be so locally. So you have now to take farewell of all constants, as they all partly are a result of your clock and a ruler, as well as of any definition of a repeatable experiment. Then physics too should be gone as we define it today. Does it simplify the universe to think this way?
Against my arguments we can note that if all clocks and rulers are locally equivalent, you now have to place time dilations and Lorentz contractions between frames of reference, it becoming a result of a relation between your 'local reality', and what you measure to be the 'far away reality', aka between frames of reference. That doesn't fit the twin experiment, in where one twin (traveling) in the end is found biologically younger than the other. So, to find out what that is about we either have to invalidate that thought experiment, or find a way to define what happens between frames of reference, 'locality's relation to another frame of reference' as it might be. Then I suspect you have two general ways, a 'container model' representing a seamlessly existing 'commonly shared' four dimensional universe ,with some sort of real but observer dependent 'plasticity' built in, or a version defined through locally equivalent 'points', preferably reducing the 'dimensionality', at least trying for as simple as possible model.
for any definition of energy it shouldn't matter, I think, as the 'energy' should be there, both ways. In the end we have to return to a container definition, of some sort, as that is what we agree us on existing inside.
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 #1225 on:
11/10/2014 09:59:53 »
There's more to my arguments. One is the idea of something intrinsically consistent, the 'propagating photon'. Defined as I want it to be
this 'photon' does not change 'frequency', nor 'energy' or momentum. Doesn't matter what mass it climbs to 'get out'. You don't really want it to be any other way, and neither want I. That's a very good argument I think for questioning any idea of being able to define far away clocks as being what really is happening locally, if instead measuring in same frame of reference. the other point is as always, you just need two observers of it, being in different uniform motion, to find them defining it differently.
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 #1226 on:
11/10/2014 10:11:21 »
But what it all comes back too, is what universe you want to define it versus. A 'container model'? Consisting of four dimensions inseparable where you locally become a 'slide' changing this universe by what mass speeds and accelerations you locally define? A little like some 'local' glass bubble wandering inside glass, finding it distort differently when measuring,
If you want this universe you have to remember that this is true for all frames of reference. All 'glass bubbles' existing inside it. And also that what each of them see is exactly what they get, in other words being as 'real' as can be for each one. It's a very fluid universe that one. If we to it define time dilations and Lorentz/Fitzgerald contractions as also being real, then logically the common universe disappear. Unless, you define time as non existent, and with it also any idea of a consistent measurement. A 'locally made gold standard' defining your repeatable experiment.
=
also, remember that it includes distance, they are complementary to Einsteins universe as I think. not only that clock disappearing, also your ruler lying to you. And if you now still want the universe to make sense, where will you look. Outside
which doesn't even exist experimentally.
«
Last Edit: 11/10/2014 10:17:42 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 #1227 on:
11/10/2014 10:13:38 »
You really think your aging is a matter of will? Or of changing frame of reference to a event horizon? Nah, you grow old everywhere, and finally you die.
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 #1228 on:
11/10/2014 10:24:15 »
So yes, defining this commonly seamless universe my way, also expecting a arrow to exist, it gets as good as undone. It doesn't make sense, so why do we still believe in it? Because when you look you do it locally, you do not exchange 'place' with the far away observer, neither 'exchange' your experiment. And when you do it, you need to presume that what you measure on actually exist inside common 'bounds', whatever they might be.
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 #1229 on:
11/10/2014 10:31:29 »
A experiment build on presumptions. Like finding this seamless universe we exist inside. On the other tentacle we all agree on it existing, causality proving it so too. So, what more choices might we imagine, to define it from?
there I like locality, because you do find locally equivalent clocks in there, and rulers. And you do find repeatable experiments, and constants. they have to be there if all 'points' are equivalent.
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 #1230 on:
11/10/2014 10:35:30 »
The problem with any idea of locality, is how to define it. I would like those 'points' to exist, as some lowest common denominator. That would give us a anchor, and a discreteness to our universe, 'grainy'.
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 #1231 on:
11/10/2014 10:43:51 »
If you want a graininess, there might be different definitions. Decoherence is an idea of where Quantum mechanical rules , as indeterminacy and 'virtuality' get exchanged for a (macroscopic) linearity, more or less. It's you holding that apple, taking a bite, knowing it exist. It's possible that the same sort of idea can be applied, to a graininess, meaning that when we define that grain, it also will be a result of some type of decoherence.
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 #1232 on:
11/10/2014 10:51:34 »
would it matter if there would be some sort of 'flow' under what we define as a 'grain', if so? We want to define how we and the universe come to be, don't we? And there you might find that 'grain', giving you a answer.
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 #1233 on:
11/10/2014 10:53:09 »
It's no different from you defining yourself as being existent, and your friends, and foes
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 #1234 on:
17/10/2014 18:58:03 »
Yeah, life is weird, don't know about you but I know that physics is about life. And I really want to understand life. Sometimes it seems a mystery, but then I realize something I already knew, but in a new way, and life becomes interesting again. It's not muscles, but it's not brains either. Life is more than that.
Life is love.
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 #1235 on:
17/10/2014 20:07:08 »
It's like suicide. It's stigmatized in our society. But as I see it, it scares us. We don't want to see it and we don't want to accept it. Because every suicide tells us that we failed.
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 #1236 on:
17/10/2014 20:09:08 »
And we can't defend ourselves, because those that should listen to us are already dead. That's part of ethics. We don't want to be in that position where we have to defend ourselves.
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 #1237 on:
17/10/2014 20:11:01 »
But we can love, all of us can do it. We love our kids, even those relatives that gets on our nerves at times. Just give it some time.
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 #1238 on:
17/10/2014 20:12:13 »
Can you see what I see?
That the world consist of love?
And ego
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 #1239 on:
17/10/2014 20:15:42 »
So we need to make a place where we listen.
I do not know if we can.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
60
61
[
62
]
63
64
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...