# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 200971 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1025 on: 12/07/2014 01:29:07 »
Assume that space expands in every point, gravity acting as buoys (with matter) keeping the solar system together. How does that fit with the notion of old light? It's simple, thinking of it for a while, but still got me momentarily confused. When we look out on the universe we don't see what 'is', we're seeing what 'has been'. So what you see is related to the distance of the source. But a inflation and expansion actually supports my definition of time, locally equivalent to 'c'. Because you have it happening (evolving) in each point, locally defined at a 'same time', everywhere.

so distance gives us our possibility to look 'backward in time'. And so it, to me that is :) also makes it plausible that as there is no center, you equivalently should be able to state that everywhere is a center. You are the center of what you observe, and you will see the same wherever you go. So, leaving for the suburbs of our visible universe you should find the exact same vista as you do here. A 'infinite' universe, all around you.

the second one relates to what I wrote about conservation of energy, and with it all conservation laws I presume? With a assumed entropy, how can there be no cost to it? Something must be lost if you assume a direction. We call it useful energy transforming into non useful energy as I understand. But generally thinking I can't see any process with a defined behavior in time, that hasn't some sort of cost associated with it?

So, what is the cost here? Assume that time is connected to processes, interactions. Does all interactions stop as entropy dissolve, equals out, a universe? What about the uncertainty principle? Does that disappear?

If there are no outcomes?
=

Need to learn how to spell, and not to mix Swedish words with English, at some time :)
Not today though.

« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 03:09:18 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1026 on: 12/07/2014 01:36:23 »
Looked at this way, it's all local. All your definitions are local. And locally is what gives you your constants. And those constants creates a universe interacting in time. But I still don't see what connects frames of reference? It would be preferable with a simpler universe, like a box :) in where we can place ourselves, but that isn't what expansion and inflation states.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1027 on: 12/07/2014 01:41:23 »
Can you see why I don't like the idea of a vacuum as 'energy' here? I don't think it fit.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1028 on: 12/07/2014 01:48:26 »
Ideas trying to define a equilibrium are also ideas involving a 'container universe' to me. Although the container here is very vague it still exist in such descriptions, but to me inflation and expansion must question it. It becomes very tricky understanding how a equilibrium can exist in a expanding universe, unless you either assume a 'outside' of some sort interacting in some unknown way with our universe, alternatively assume that a expansion somehow 'lends' from this very vaguely described container model of a universe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1029 on: 12/07/2014 01:51:12 »
so what can we come up with? Assuming that the conservation laws are correct?
A holographic universe? A universe of information? What do we have left if we throw away all ideas of a container?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1030 on: 12/07/2014 01:55:42 »
I don't really know. I know that I consider this a symmetry break, and also as a projection. But I do not assume a outside. If there is one it I think will have to be defined as co-existing with us in each point, or avoiding that, just call it 'everywhere'. A symmetry break because we have a direction, we find all sorts of directions :) and a projection because the only definitions making sense to me are local, including constants. That makes what connects frames of reference the most intriguing, and confusing, thing I can think of.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1031 on: 12/07/2014 02:11:49 »
What you do when you throw away the container is also to question what dimensions should be seen as. Because any dimension builds on the assumption of us being to define at least some sort of 'area/extension' for it, doesn't it? String theory defines a one dimensional string this way "A string is a one-dimensional object, meaning that if you want to travel along a string, you can only go forwards or backwards in the direction of the string, there is no sideways or up and down on a string."

Well, as soon as I can move on it I will presume it to extend in some direction, if not area then at least a 'space' to move in. And you need it to extend to get all those different models, of strings, loops, and branes. Or that description may be wrong, I'm not sure how a string, or loop, theorist imagine it.

but I do like the idea of some sort of first building blocks, although if we think of the uncertainty principle and indeterminism, it also seem to become a result of frames of reference interacting, creating this reality we live in. Decoherence, as QM speculates about.

also, any extension measured must be a result of a time involved.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1032 on: 12/07/2014 02:23:28 »
I don't think you need description 'limiting' the infinity of this universe. No need to walk out to the right to come in to the left. Better to use the idea of a real infinity, you being the center of this universe. The center is just a concept, a complex focus point consisting of 'you' observing the universe around you. Because 'you' is more than the sum of your parts. You are the thoughts, the mind, the focus that observe, and measure. It's exactly like the idea of a proper time existing. That proper time we refer to exist for each one of us, equivalently so. But you can't define it to some 'point' in this four dimensional universe we find. It's like decoherence, it comes to be as a focus.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1033 on: 12/07/2014 02:25:10 »
It's all about complexity, isn't it?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1034 on: 12/07/2014 02:30:13 »
Alternatively you can think of a proper time as something existing in all points, locally defined. And that one is about whether there exist a discreteness to this universe. If it does, then the question becomes if that is a end to it, or if it is a duality of sorts with what I call a 'flow'. We have a way to look at it, the way inwards, magnifying. And when we do I think we see a duality there too. What some call a field.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1035 on: 12/07/2014 02:36:26 »
It's a weird concept :)

You are more than the sum of your parts, consciousness add something. But so is your proper time. And there is a discreteness, as I think, but that one is also part of a flow. I'm slightly starting to understand the old lady who thought Earth rested on a elephant. "It's elephants the whole way down, my young man.'

Well?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1036 on: 12/07/2014 02:44:24 »
So what have I against a field? I don't like container models, that's about it. Give me a way to think of a universe consisting of a observer dependent field, able to be measured differently by different observers, without giving it limits. Otherwise I like it a lot.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1037 on: 12/07/2014 02:48:49 »
As I see it then, a field is what you should get as frames of reference interact, locally defined.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1038 on: 12/07/2014 02:54:57 »
Think of a expansion again. Assume it to happen in each point. Can you see yourself falling in? Do you expect it to have an end?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1039 on: 12/07/2014 02:57:15 »
Is that a direction?

What about a perfect sphere of (even density) matter in a flat space.

Which way points gravity?
« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 03:12:36 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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 »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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 »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 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.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1049 on: 12/07/2014 12:36:40 »