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
...
47
48
[
49
]
50
51
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
354188 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 #960 on:
27/06/2014 12:43:04 »
Yep, physics is easier.
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 #961 on:
01/07/2014 08:09:22 »
This one is interesting to me. Not that, as I understands, that this is the only incompatibility between QM and GR?
A Conflict Between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
It's about my ideas in a way, as I define the arrow to be a local constant, equivalent to 'c'.
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 #962 on:
01/07/2014 08:20:34 »
What would a field be from my ideas on 'locality'?
I think it should be the 'gizmo' that connects frames of reference
If you can tell me how one local frame connects to another, creating both this geometry as well as fermions and bosons. (not just lifting up 'photons', virtual or not, and 'c', which actually tells me very little) Then I single handedly will force the Nobel Committee to award you, and I'm a Swede
So I have to know them, don't I?
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 #963 on:
01/07/2014 08:31:55 »
you have to turn your head to see it my way. I define a constant but exclusively local. On the other tentacle, prove me a 'universal constant' that isn't experimentally defined locally? I will state that a lot of the confusion rests on our preconceptions of this 'universe' we define, this 'container'. Looked at from any 'container' idea, containing us as well as everything else, time becomes a mystery. But defined from locality it's a constant. So you have to go the other way, from locality towards what unites, and that then will become a very weird problem, both for defining dimensions and for defining this universe we so seamlessly exist in.
time is not a problem.
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 #964 on:
01/07/2014 08:39:49 »
And 'excitations in a field' gets a new meaning as there is no ordinary field existing in my view. It's not about a container model at all. Although, to us it 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 #965 on:
01/07/2014 08:48:25 »
And the same then should be for a Lorentz contraction. I view them as complementary to time dilations, observer dependent. You get two for the price of one, so to speak
And they are not a problem either, if you leave this 'common container universe' you define yourself to exist in. They should then be a result of whatever principle that connects frames of reference relative 'speeds' and 'mass' ('energy')
Neither do I need to place this 'energy' geometrically, as it is 'potential' between whatever you define to 'move' relative what. If I would want to define the kinetic energy created in two objects colliding, then it is the sum of their relative motion (and mass naturally), versus each other, but not intrinsic to any of them experimentally. I don't need to define 'where' this 'energy' is stored. To me it becomes a result of rules, properties and principles, for how frames of reference connects instead.
And it doesn't really matter if you define something to accelerate or not, unless you expect 'gravity' to be 'pure energy'? Well, I don't think it does, for now
at least. But we can look at it from relative motion to keep it simple.
and there you will have no way to experimentally prove a intrinsic energy stored due to different uniform motion, unless in a interaction as a collision. When you see light blue-shift or red-shift, then that is a interaction too, even a expansion should be one.
«
Last Edit: 01/07/2014 09:00:02 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 #966 on:
01/07/2014 09:05:27 »
The point is that locally the 'mass energy' of Earth won't change with a higher uniform motion. In a collision we will see a higher kinetic energy expressed but locally there will be no experimental evidence for it. Now, thinking of this fact from a container model you then have to define this 'energy' to somewhere, don't you?
I don't need to.
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 #967 on:
01/07/2014 09:09:26 »
That's also why I'm questioning what a vacuum 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 #968 on:
01/07/2014 09:16:06 »
A wave theory wants a vacuum to consist of bosons (waves) and energy states (Mexican hat for example). And so it questions 'nothing'. It becomes a question if a 'nothing' can exist? In my view a nothing can exist, it's what we call a perfect vacuum. And I think (well hopefully so:) it has to be a result of frames of reference creating a geometry.
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 #969 on:
01/07/2014 11:56:39 »
Einstein wrote about us being 'inside' a universe. That is how we observe. The 'eye of a God' doesn't exist for us as far as I know, even though we sometimes use it theoretically, trying to describe a universe. But it's also so that we all assume this universe to be something in its own right, it's really hard not to do that btw, defined by dimensions and some possible size, from unlimited to ? What really defines the size is how far we can look out, that means the age of the farthest light reaching us now.
If we use the idea of a inflation/expansion having no center then it doesn't matter where you place yourself, You won't meet a end of this universe, in a way you're taking the 'center of the universe' with you as you move to see further in some direction. 13.7 billion light years of possible sight, wherever you place yourself.
«
Last Edit: 01/07/2014 11:58:10 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 #970 on:
01/07/2014 12:01:41 »
Those 13.7 billion lightyears is the time it has existed since the Big Bang, approximately. So even if the universe is 'unlimited' in one way, it still have a beginning astronomically, time wise.
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 #971 on:
01/07/2014 12:04:27 »
So, no matter what QM might contrast as a ideal time keeping, versus relativity. It builds on a misunderstanding of what a proper time is, according to me then
Einsteins proper time, the one measured by your wristwatch, is my definition of a local constant.
And it's 'universal'
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 #972 on:
01/07/2014 12:10:20 »
Can you see how my idea of what should be called 'universal' differ? From ones normal conception of what universal means? The things/constants universal are simply those locally equivalent wherever you go. It's not a field of evenness, it's not the geometry that needs to present it, it's when we can agree on experiments giving us a equivalent result, that will gives us 'universal constants', and allow this universe its logic.
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 #973 on:
01/07/2014 12:14:18 »
If you use this logic it becomes easier to see how we can have a constant arrow, locally defined, that is valid throughout a universe, yet enabling time dilations and Lorentz contractions when comparing your clock (time) and ruler against some other.
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 #974 on:
01/07/2014 12:19:41 »
And time dilations is not isolated to accelerations. I've tried to make them so as it would make for a simpler definition, but I can't. It is as involved in uniform motions as it is in accelerations, and it's just like that 'potential energy' I discussed before. Either you want to localize it geometrically, as belonging to 'something/somewhere', or you can see it as a result of frames of reference communicating. That's what I do.
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 #975 on:
01/07/2014 12:24:30 »
But, it's very local this universe. And if you believe in discreteness, then you will try to find some smallest common nominator defining a 'grain' of time. And if you do as Einstein, you can get to both a 'flow' and discreteness, although that one is a hard idea to digest.
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 #976 on:
01/07/2014 12:28:00 »
Or maybe a grain of 'existence'
So QM is perfectly correct to use a ideal clock. Without it there would be no universe, at least not one like this. It has a local logic, that then somehow add up to the seamlessness we see when we look out at the stars at night, that unlimited line of sight, 13.7 billion lightyears back in time.
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 #977 on:
01/07/2014 13:28:32 »
The wave universe has to be wrong. Anything trying to define a universe ignoring the duality is wrong. Your measurements setup will define the outcome as I see it. And it's a real duality.
Although
Looking at it from shrinking my measurements, aka QM, to some ideal 'discrete bit', well, that's the 'photon' isn't it? And a wave is something undulating, to do so you need frames of reference. But that is the universe we see also, unlimited. So, it's a duality.
Thought Experiments in Einstein's work. By John Norton
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 #978 on:
03/07/2014 03:02:51 »
What about a confinement for the Big Bang? If I would assume that the Big Bang somehow related to a proton, then you find that only a very tiny bit of it consist of rest mass, the rest is then 'energy' confined inside it, creating the equivalence to a mass. Can a confinement then represent a dimension? Pretty weird one.
It's this question about what dimensions are that's nagging at me again
Either you need them to preexist, to confine this 'energy' that then presumably transform into real particles of rest mass, nota bene without the concept of heat and temperature involved in this first creation, as there is no matter existing initially. You need a assemblage of particles to interact with that 'energy' before you can define that way as I see it, and even then it is doubtful, although possibly possible
That as it demands me to come up with how this 'pure energy' then can interact at that initial state? The only thing I can come up with by this time, is this idea of 'confinements', as in a proton.
And if we then use the description from how there is no center to this universe (inflation-expansion) you get to a multifaceted situation in where this initial state coexist 'everywhere' initially, as it seems to me? Or a assumed confinement of this energy has noting to do with dimensions? Or, the descriptions for dimensions are misleading, and confinements might be a better idea, although it doesn't answer how it can exist?
=
there's this alternative way to think of too, using locality. Then I might assume that confinements are the bits and ends of this universe
And what then gives us dimensions are those confinements starting to communicate (under a locally equivalent arrow)?
That should make the vacuum into 'something'. Esthetically I don't find it that alluring, I much prefer to consider a vacuum a nothing. Hopefully I will argue my way out of this one somehow.
«
Last Edit: 03/07/2014 03:09:56 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 #979 on:
03/07/2014 03:23:23 »
Now, I'm not happy with 'virtual particles', also sometimes seemingly assumed to 'move' close to light speed, as I saw someone explain it for a protons mass to exist. If I think of a atom with electrons then they do not 'move' in any ordinary sense, they 'exist', and will give you (register) a momentum, or a position, but after your experiment has finalized. Thinking of that 'energy' confined inside a proton this way you should be able to get to a mass anyhow, without involving moving virtual particles.
If enough rest mass materialize, statistically and constantly, then you also should find it more massive, shouldn't you? Then again, is there no cost for this? What is that confinement?
«
Last Edit: 03/07/2014 03:25:04 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
47
48
[
49
]
50
51
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...