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
...
65
66
[
67
]
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356506 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 #1320 on:
23/10/2014 19:42:25 »
Doesn't matter if you call them 'repeatable', they are still locally made, although now assumably 'equivalently made'. But they create the physics you use.
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 #1321 on:
23/10/2014 19:50:16 »
But we see a universe, where we all exist together, and so we need Einsteins
stress energy tensor.
to define it. Or, we see the demands of causality, which probably is closer to the way I think of 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 #1322 on:
23/10/2014 20:00:56 »
One of the major problems I've had looking at physics is finding out what it builds from. and I don't mean its history here, although I think that is much more important than what one generally might assume. To me it builds on locality, with a presumption of a physical 'container universe', of one sort or another. The 'container' is an old, old, thing, and although its descriptions may have changed it still becomes a presumption to me, one from where you describe the universe.
=
It's not that there isn't a 'container', it's just that that one to me is about relations, causality, constants and possibly 'properties'. Properties are magic
Or maybe not, they are at least 'intrinsic' to whatever you measure.
«
Last Edit: 23/10/2014 20:09:14 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 #1323 on:
23/10/2014 20:11:37 »
Would you call 'energy' a property?
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 #1324 on:
14/11/2014 14:38:39 »
Now this is a pretty weird idea, and I'm not sure. Think of light as a 'field', changing observer dependently, meaning that we need the 'observer' for it to exist, as well as what we define as a arrow (equivalent to 'c'). Assume that what we find to be dimensions all need mass. Mass cannot reach 'c'. Just writing it down because I just might want to remember it.
=
In this case I'm using the definition in where mass is 'rest mass' btw. Also
as I don't want light to 'propagate' so, let's make it static, for this.
«
Last Edit: 14/11/2014 14:43:07 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 #1325 on:
14/11/2014 14:46:37 »
Now, how big would it need to 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 #1326 on:
14/11/2014 14:48:10 »
You're perfectly correct if you're asking yourself from 'where'. Inside?
Outside?
Would this field need a 'outside'?
Or is it created from a '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 #1327 on:
14/11/2014 14:57:53 »
Assuming there to be a 'outside' you will add to the complexity, especially with a inflationary, subsequently expanding universe, that also can be presumed 'infinite'. To go around this you will have to invent further dimensional tricks that allow it to become something similar to a möbius ring.
defining it from solely a inside it has no problems being 'infinite' that I can see? And I don't need dimensional tricks.
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 #1328 on:
14/11/2014 15:01:18 »
With both a 'outside' (aka our Möbius ring) and a inside, it will not be enough with defining what our universe is. Actually it won't be enough even if you define that 'outside' containing it. Because, what contain the 'outside' you now have defined, ad infinitum.
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 #1329 on:
14/11/2014 15:06:45 »
It's all abstractions of course. We build the universe from abstractions. Using such the universe is as small, or 'infinite' you measure it to be. Then again, assuming LorentzFitzgerald contractions to be practically true, even when being infinitely close to 'c', would you expect a 'infinite universe' to have a end?
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 #1330 on:
14/11/2014 15:19:29 »
The question is, how much light do you need? Everything can be translated into 'energy', light too. A light quanta is measurable though, and we presume light, virtual or not, to be the force carriers that define us, as well as the universe we see. So the 'field of light' I'm wondering about, if so, is what you consist of. Without force carriers defining you you disappear.
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 #1331 on:
14/11/2014 15:23:36 »
Defining it as your clock (local arrow) is equivalent to 'c' it then seem to mean that stopping the clock should dissolve a universe. And the clock is you, as well as me.
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 #1332 on:
14/11/2014 15:27:31 »
because, taking away a propagation will still leave us a clock. the assumption of propagation is a global description, a 'container model'. The clock is a local definition, a local constant equivalent to 'c' globally.
=
This one is tricky. 'c' is also a local definition, repeatably so. It's a statement about what 'speed' light will have in a two way (mirror) experiment, no matter to what you define your own 'inertially (uniformly) moving' speed (and the experiments naturally as long as you are at rest with it). It doesn't matter how fast you go relative something else, you will still get 'c'.
But you can only get 'c' through using what I call 'global' parameters', you must use the container (common universe) to get that measurement of a speed. So even though it's local defined by your clock and ruler, it's also 'global', from thinking of the universe as a 'container model' using it that way.
And yes, the 'clock' is a equivalence, splitting 'c' in 'even chunks', building on it. But it's your local clock and you 'vibrate' with it. It's also so that from an assumption of a 'clock' you can, as I do, assume that there still need to be a property of 'time', or 'arrow', existing when magnifying reality into the really small, which then should be quantum mechanically, also becoming a question of if there can be some smallest discrete 'length', 'time', 'mass', etc. Maybe that one isn't necessary? I think it is myself though, for the moment being that is
«
Last Edit: 14/11/2014 18:04:44 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 #1333 on:
14/11/2014 15:35:15 »
Can you see how I think writing " assuming LorentzFitzgerald contractions to be practically true, even when being infinitely close to 'c', would you expect a 'infinite universe' to have a end?"
You contract the universe, but it won't end, not even then. It can't, not as long as rest mass is involved.
Light is different, it's constantly at 'c', no acceleration. We define accelerations, from rest mass. We see a equivalence to it in red and blue shifts, but from our observer dependencies as rest mass.
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 #1334 on:
14/11/2014 15:42:03 »
Assume the universe to be infinite, accept that it consist of force carriers communicating it. How much 'energy' would such a universe consist of? Is that question meaningful?
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 #1335 on:
14/11/2014 15:43:59 »
It's not a meaningful question, even though I could give that idea some symbol.
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 #1336 on:
14/11/2014 15:53:27 »
Same with infinity, not a meaningful question. Doesn't mean it's impossible to build a logic from it, or from defining different infinities. But for me, being inside any of those infinite universes, it won't matter. And assuming there to be no 'outside' to compare this universe from, those definitions definitely loses any meaning.
Still, if you believe in a 'container model' they will mean something to you, I don't.
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 #1337 on:
14/11/2014 17:10:56 »
To give the universe a shape you first need somewhere from you define it, as I see it. Assuming a 'inside' having a specific shape means you have to ask yourself, relative what? You are free to define it naturally, as soon as you created somewhere from you can compare. As for example using a container model. But you're not home free yet, you also need to define what this container is. In my case as I like to define it from local constants etc, turning the container model inside out sort of, the 'common container' we find should be a result of those, localities communicating, although I don't know how it can join? 'c' is communication, as well as a 'clock', as well as 'force carriers', but it doesn't state what makes it all possible.
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 #1338 on:
14/11/2014 20:22:46 »
It becomes a really weird universe, thinking this way. But if you accept 'c', and that one is tested, it already is as weird as it can be I think. Locality is an idea about where you find chain reactions, or 'waves', spreading from a center. And Einstein's relativity uses it too, when we look at how one define what is real for a observer aka 'observer dependencies'. But it's not the exact same, neither is the idea of a 'information universe' in where a entanglement is allowed because it breaks no laws of 'useful information' faster than 'c', although both is linked to the idea of what locality mean, as I read it.
the way I think of it (my homegrown version of locality) is as if the universe consist of one ground state, described by you being able to move anywhere inside it, to find your clock and ruler perfectly synchronized with wherever you are. In a wider context this relates to an idea of discreteness, although I'm not sure how that should express itself. You need some quantity that stays the same, wherever you go, and there constants are a nice choice.
In that manner those that think of LorentzFitzgerald contractions and time dilations as being 'illusionary' becomes correct, as long as we accept and hopefully can define, the limitations of that 'locality'. Superimposed you will fit perfectly everywhere, sort of, no place out of sync
Einstein used being 'at rest' describing it.
But the universe, looked at this way, (and I can't actually see any other way to look at it, without invalidating one of the foundations of physics, namely repeatable experiments) suddenly consist, in QM terms, of something 'discrete', what I then call 'locally equivalent points', or even weirder just one 'point' that then builds the rest. And the last one is very weird, but it comes from me wondering about infinity
and 'insides', using imaginary 'outsides' to describe it. The universe is indeed spaced out
=
Or maybe not, just as time dilations and LorentzFitzgerald contractions to me seem complementary, and just as light has a particlewave duality, and linearity and non-linearity weave in and out of each other, maybe the idea of discreteness relative a flow also is complementary? Depending on how you measure? And there the scale you choose seems very important to me. I'm still not sure what really I think of dimensions, but I'm pretty sure the scale you use are more important than what one usually assume.
«
Last Edit: 14/11/2014 20:49:26 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 #1339 on:
14/11/2014 21:35:18 »
There's a difference between such a definition, versus one in where we instead assume each point different from the other. This one is simple, to me it explains why repeatable experiments must exist, why physics inside the measurable portion of a universe must be the same, and it demands constants to exist.
what it doesn't explain is how those points are joined. No matter if the universe can be seen as infinite, simultaneously having no defined size as measured from some imaginary 'outside'. Inside it, where we live we do find dimensions, we have length, width, height, and 'time'. We find a vacuum, mass (EM included) and 'energy'. We find a envelope consisting of the earliest light reaching us, 'c', also defining a arrow. We find conservation laws.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
65
66
[
67
]
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...