# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 188458 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1050 on: 12/07/2014 12:45:12 »
The first thing you need to define, a basic, is whether you expect there to be a logic, or not? Without a logic, without a time reversibility the universe becomes magical to me. With a time reversibility I find a logic that fits to the arrow we measure locally. A place where causality breaks down must also become place without measurable statistics, as I see no way to guarantee a result there. Probability also builds on a assumption of there being a logic existing, causality holding, and when it comes to very low probabilities, actually need this base to be able to define such.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1051 on: 12/07/2014 12:48:23 »
How else did you think you would be able to define that almost magical probability of all molecules getting collected in a corner of your room? It there was no bell shaped curve defining its probability?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1052 on: 12/07/2014 12:59:54 »
so what about Feynman's ' many paths' then? Isn't that a example of a state where it becomes extremely difficult discussing a arrow? Sure, that's what I naively think of as a example of a symmetry, and a symmetry break. The symmetry exist, still does, with us and our local arrow, becoming something of a needed counterpart to it.

Without that arrow, would a consciousness exist?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1053 on: 12/07/2014 13:10:18 »
This universe is defined through outcomes. The outcomes follows a logic that should be reversible to fit my thinking. Even though this logic is strictly local (as in a local arrow), to get to a 'seamless container universe' you need it to connect all 'events', as instants of outcomes, in a understandable way for all observers. That's what relativity does (Lorentz transformations).  Behind it all though is our presumption of this is the way it must work for us. It has to make sense.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1054 on: 12/07/2014 13:19:27 »
there is actually a possibility of the universe being magical :) A 'wizard  of sorts' having a laugh on us, creating a symmetry break out of thin air, stringing us up to a logic, as puppets to a show. I don't think it is so, I think of it as a symmetry, and I find no way to see how this wizard should be able to exist, to formulate this symmetry break, without a arrow involved. That mathematical space of 'many paths' should then be its whole existence, as I think.

No, it's a symmetry, and we are needed. We're the symmetry break making it all possible, to me, that is :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1055 on: 12/07/2014 13:25:08 »
the reason is rather simple, which is to my liking. 'many paths' presume exactly what exist, namely us and our universe. Take it away and that mathematical space shouldn't exist either.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1056 on: 12/07/2014 13:33:21 »
It's a basic, and a presumption.
But it got to be there.

If you on the other tentacle love containers, then you also probably want to define something making it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1057 on: 12/07/2014 14:27:30 »
So what is a dimension?

I would define it as a distance. A distance is something you measure under a arrow. Without a arrow a distance won't make sense. We have four dimensions. On the other tentacle, three of them are the same, equivalent distances, the fourth is that arrow which makes them exist. A distance is observer dependent, as we all know from relativity. It belongs to 'you' measuring it, relative your 'proper time' and local ruler.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1058 on: 12/07/2014 14:31:18 »
Together with time, mass, 'speeds' and 'energy', they form our geometry. 'Speeds' as you can break that one into two categories, uniform motions equivalent to no discernible local change and so equivalent to being still, accelerations (which include decelerations) expressing itself as a locally definable inertia, and under special definitions 'gravity'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1059 on: 12/07/2014 14:39:22 »
the Higgs fail miserably with defining what mass is under a uniform motion. If you would imagine it as a viscosity then you also need to explain why rest mass under different uniform motion still will be of the same gravity. As a explanation for inertia it becomes different, there it seem to fit, but that will then split gravity and inertia. You don't get both as far as I know, with a Higgs boson.

There is also that, that a Higgs boson is a try for explanation versus 'forces'. You might say that it is a return to Newtonian outlook of a 'container universe' in where there are force carrying particles, as the Higgs Boson that then regulate inertia, and as some want, also somehow (?) create gravity.

This sort of reasoning is not relativistic, it's a return to a universe that is a container. On the other tentacle, didn't we agree on that it has some properties that we definitely would expect a 'container' of sorts to express? Even Einstein defined the universe as 'one thing', making a 'relativistic sense'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1060 on: 12/07/2014 14:49:20 »
Let's see, you're constantly 'infalling' :), when using my definition of a expansion, remember? At the same time as you, standing on Earth, is accelerating constantly and uniformly, according to the equivalence principle, with gravity's arrow, defined from some ideal sphere of a even density in a flat space, pointing in the opposite direction from your 'acceleration'. I can see why a Newtonian outlook seems to make more sense :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1061 on: 12/07/2014 14:50:19 »
But relativity has hold all tests I've heard of.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1062 on: 12/07/2014 15:06:53 »
So where does my interpretation of Einsteins relativity differ? It's one word.
Locality.

And that one is about presumptions. I presume that it becomes simpler to explain as defined locally than presuming a container, and then try to explain it. Doing so frames of reference ability to communicate becomes the big mystery, presenting us the illusion of a seamlessly existing universe in where we all are 'contained'.

You use a container? Then time becomes a illusion. You use locality, then time becomes a (local naturally:) constant. Which one do you prefer, and which one fits your life?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1063 on: 12/07/2014 15:10:11 »
It's simpler because it unite your arrow with 'c'. It gives you a simple logic (although understanding why 'c' is 'c' still is a mystery) explaining why you will find yourself to age wherever you go, at whatever mass, and speed.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1064 on: 12/07/2014 15:13:35 »
And just as a expansion, and gravity, and constants, it's a local expression. What makes our seamless universe is the way they connect. And that is 'frames of reference'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1065 on: 12/07/2014 15:20:32 »
It's also dependent on what you want to call a 'illusion'. Reality, as far as I can see, is about communication. Connect frames of reference, enable it to communicate, and evolve, and you should have yourself a logic, a arrow, and a universe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1066 on: 12/07/2014 15:22:46 »
And from that you should be able to define 'force carrying particles' be they bosons or rest mass (fermions).

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1067 on: 12/07/2014 15:24:51 »
And our measurements will define dimensions.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1068 on: 13/07/2014 16:08:12 »
Can a 'photon gas' have a temperature?
Not really, at least not from where I stand. But it will present us with a temperature as soon as it interacts. Photons do not interact with each other, normally defined. If they did we should see all kinds of interesting phenomena happening in a vacuum, as space, as I think. although to test it you really need to create a 'perfect vacuum'.

A BEC is consisting of particles obeying Bose-Einstein particle statistics, similar to bosons as photons, with Fermions (matter) obeying the Fermi-Dirac particle statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that you can't have identical properties for two particles of rest mass, normally. They each need to occupy a unique state. that's, as far as I get it, what builds our 'touchable' matter.

It also means that fermions can't share a identical ground state, in contrast to a bosonic BEC in where all particles, at extremely low temperature, will do so. Fermions are defined from their spin which are described as half-integrals (1/2 = half integer spin). Helium 3 is a atom of rest mass, consisting of two protons, one neutron and two electrons. It's particles adds up to an uneven number creating this atom, and therefore can not be made into a BEC. Bosons spin, on the other tentacle, is defined by whole numbers, integer spin, from zero and up. So, if you can find a atom with the correct number particles creating it, getting a integer net spin out from the 'gas' of atoms, you have the possibility of a BEC.

Helium 4 is such a atom, consisting of two protons, two neutrons and two electrons. Cooling an assemble of such atoms down will lead to them losing their individual identity, following Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP).

HUP is a statement about uncertainty. One explanation is that as you cool those atoms down the number of possible energy states existing for them drastically shrink. As a result of this their velocities becomes more definite, and with that follow that their positions must become more and more uncertain,  in the end resulting in a BEC. Another partial explanation come from the QM statistics itself, stating that when treating bosons as a 'ideal gas' there will be a limit for the total number of particles moving at excited states (kinetic energy). And this allowed number shrink with the temperature shrinking. Passing the allowed limit will then start to force particles down to a zero-momentum ground state. Those not stopping their motion will not become the BEC, just those forced down.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1069 on: 13/07/2014 16:25:46 »
It's about that Big Bang, and temperatures, heat, and interactions actually :) I can't be the only one wondering about what transitions you can expect 'pure energy' to be able to do? Or ignoring that, a 'photon/wave' universe?

If there are no interactions?

Then again, we have the idea of spontaneous particle creation to consider too. Although I find that one rather weak, and weird:) it is a possibility. Is gravity equivalent to energy? Also, are there proofs of virtual particles becoming real out of a vacuum?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1070 on: 13/07/2014 16:29:21 »
It's like temperatures, isn't it? To measure it you need to produce that thermometer. doing so you introduce a interaction between radiation and rest mass, that result in giving you a temperature. Radiation on its own does not have a temperature, unless extremely theoretical. Experimentally you need rest mass for producing it as I think?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1071 on: 13/07/2014 16:30:36 »
and to proof your 'virtual particles' you will need rest mass for it to interact with too.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1072 on: 13/07/2014 16:31:46 »
And it all goes back to what a Big Bang means? Well, except for the obvious :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1073 on: 13/07/2014 16:39:14 »
A simple definition of why I'm correct is to consider the vacuum existing. You have space just some tens of (swedish) miles away. Further out you have a sun. We assume that light propagates between that sun and here, constantly, unerringly :)

So, does it heat up the vacuum?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11652
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1074 on: 13/07/2014 16:42:10 »
Do that mysterious energy 'stored' in the vacuum interact with the suns radiation then?

N000Oooope :)

If it did we would notice.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1074 on: 13/07/2014 16:42:10 »