The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199674 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1100 on: 14/07/2014 13:26:20 »
That makes the universe something different from the container idea. No defined chamber at all, from where it 'spreads out'. what we have that could be said to 'narrow down', is a time line. And that time line you must find where ever you go to look out at the universe. Fits my ideas perfectly actually :) Time is as 'real' as can be, it's a constant that you can confirm, no matter where you go. And equivalent to 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1101 on: 14/07/2014 13:27:22 »
Don't lose yourself in the mathematics, use your logic.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1102 on: 14/07/2014 13:31:41 »
And, it's always a local definition. and that is what a inflation is too, and a expansion, and a constant. But, equivalently shared everywhere. So, no center to any of it, or if you prefer, everywhere you are observing is the center, locally defined. Try to see it this way and a lot of things will take a different meaning.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1103 on: 14/07/2014 13:38:22 »
It all magnifies into a universe from locality. With you being the definer of that universe you describe. what makes it seamless is that it contain a logic, not a shared chamber.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1104 on: 15/07/2014 20:21:59 »
It's a weird place this universe. And it builds on logic, although not the straightforward linear variant, in where you can be certain of a definite answer. I suspect renormalization to be, in a way, a statistical approach to reality, you use experiences of how it is, to set limits for your mathematics and so getting answers that makes sense. Looked at that way a renormalization is some motto self-fulfilling, on the other hand it gives a tool that works with what one know.

That's the only presumption I think should be, btw, for any physics. That there is a logic to the universe, the rest of our presumptions are more questionable. And that also answers whether mathematics is the tool of the trade, sure, it is, but as with all tools you need to use the right one for the job.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1105 on: 15/07/2014 20:26:55 »
But it is also so that if this universe would be a 'linear mathematical box', containing no uncertainty, and no indeterminism, those thinking that free will can't exist most probably would be right. HUP is to me a invitation to that state before a outcome, or choice, has been made. Also a promise of your free will.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1106 on: 15/07/2014 20:33:12 »
That does not state that you can't imagine a mathematical 'space' consisting of all choices there ever to be, or has been. And being in that space you might want to argue that everything is 'known', and so a free will is a illusion. But that would then be from what I call an 'eye of a God', not from me standing inside this universe acting on will.

Every time you make a choice, you're defining this universe we find ourselves in a little further. Doesn't really matter if you imagine yourself to have countless copies of yourself, taking all possible choices. You're not them.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1107 on: 15/07/2014 20:40:10 »
But what makes the free will. Is not the outcome. It's that 'space' in between a action and a reaction, it's uncertainty and indeterminism, and somehow also disconnected from my usual thoughts of time. In a very strange way, ones free will connects to the very small. On the other hand or tentacle :) treat it all as a surface. Everything becoming a sheet, then nothing is further away from the very small than anything other. Just unfold 'dimensions' into a plane.
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1108 on: 15/07/2014 20:45:55 »
It's really 'infinite'. It has to be, if inflation and expansion is correct.
I agree, and the way I see it is thus:

The Big Bang was a local event in an infinite bulk. And inflation and expansion are also only local events on the grandest of scales. Many other so-called Big Bangs are not only possible in this bulk but, IMHO, inevitable. But we shall never witness such events because light speed restricts this possibility.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1109 on: 15/07/2014 20:47:21 »
Actually there's no need for treating it that way. No need of a sheet as I see it. There already is no position in this SpaceTime, further away from 'QM'., than any other. You just need to turn your head ever so slightly to realize it. Doesn't matter if that position is outside your body, or inside it.

But what it might be translated into should be a plane, sheet, surface.
Whatever you prefer to call it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1110 on: 15/07/2014 20:50:59 »
Possibly Ethos. Although there's a need to define what a Big Bang is though. In a way this Big Bang still is going on, unfolding as we write :)
=

Also, by using 'bulk' you seem to define a container of some sort? I don't think you need a preexisting container for it. My thoughts on that one is that whatever 'container' we measure ourselves to exist in, creates itself by communication, so to speak. Making geometry a result of a logic unfolding inside a arrow.
« Last Edit: 15/07/2014 21:00:51 by yor_on »
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1111 on: 15/07/2014 20:56:18 »
Possibly Ethos. Although there's a need to define what a Big Bang is though. In a way this Big Bang still is going on, unfolding as we write :)
Truly yor_on,..........I've always wondered if a Black Hole had a limit to it's size and mass. Could we be seeing the explosion of a really huge supermassive Black Hole? A White Hole as it were, located in the infinite bulk that we interpret as our local universe. Just a thought...........
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1112 on: 15/07/2014 21:03:03 »
Heh :)

You need to define what you mean by bulk Ethos.
Do you suspect it to preexist?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1113 on: 15/07/2014 21:08:52 »
There's nothing I can see stopping your idea of other 'universes acting out a same logic that this one, but there is neither anything, that I see now, that will connect them to us and our universe. The 'bulk' would then, from my point of view, represent this possibility, but not some defined dimension(s) in which it all take place.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1114 on: 15/07/2014 21:14:55 »
Looked at that way you can see a Black Hole several ways I think. the one making most sense for the moment, for me (maybe I'll change my mind later:) is the one discussing them as singularities. As some cosmic censorship. It's results of the logic this universe use, and although part of it, censured.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1115 on: 15/07/2014 21:46:16 »
By similar logic you might be able to argue that if communication is what define a geometry, then any 'many worlds' theory, that births new worlds to fit all possible outcomes, also must present a logic why, if now their physics are exact the same as their 'parents', they lose communication with us.

the way around it might just be defining dimensions as preexisting universes, although that one is severely convoluted to me. So maybe I need to retract the statement of several possible identical universes, for a same reason? That as soon as we have means of communication that are 'identical' as having a same physics, there should be communication possible, presuming dimensions are treated as 'constructions' created in a universes communication? Three of the dimensions 'distances' can be measured from any direction, the fourth that we call time has only one direction, which gives time a privileged place in my thinking.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1116 on: 15/07/2014 21:55:43 »
Because, as soon as I do away with 'containers' there is nothing more than the logic (physics, mathematics, chemistry etc), defining a communication. There, the 'space' created for a universe becomes its physical artifact, having no meaning from any thought up 'outside'. And furthermore I don't think there can exist a 'outside', using this logic. What's nice with it is that it leads us to communication, using laws, rules, properties and principles.
=

And I think you can treat time this way too. As a physical artifact, having no meaning 'outside'. But I also define it as a local constant, adding that I don't know of any global constants that isn't equally local.

You have two choices here. Either defining laws, rules, properties and principles from the whole, a container of sorts, or, defining it locally to then introduce several frames of reference, co-existing and communicating, presenting us our SpaceTime.

Both definitions will lead us to a definition in where it doesn't matter where you are, the physics you meet must be the same, but the one using locality is sharper to me, less of a theoretical point. Because if locality is right it can be no other way, as far as I see.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 00:07:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1117 on: 15/07/2014 22:01:31 »
Alternatively you might want a plane, or a point, and call it some sort of projective reality? Many worlds scenarios becomes somewhat of 'holograms inside holograms' to my thinking, also presuming no interference etc. Or fractals?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1118 on: 15/07/2014 22:06:06 »
You can think of it as a symmetry break too. Then dimensions should be a proof of us being in one.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1119 on: 15/07/2014 22:11:20 »
I think the last one is the simplest one actually. And whatever 'symmetry' should then be about HUP and indeterminacy to me. It's not that there isn't anything more, just that it isn't 'outside'. Using logic, rules, a local arrow, etc, the universe create its dimensions, and us, and sets its limitations for measuring. So the inside could then be described as being the outside too, :) in a slightly convoluted way.
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1120 on: 16/07/2014 03:38:18 »
Heh :)

You need to define what you mean by bulk Ethos.
Do you suspect it to preexist?
Yes; I believe it to have an eternal past and an eternal future.

I can imagine this Bulk to be an infinity of nothingness wherein many, if not an infinity, of universes could exist. This is where true space exists, the empty void where a vast number of universes might reside.

I've made a point in other threads to suggest that I believe there is no space empty of field. But this remark is only applicable to the space within our own universe. It may or not be true within the Bulk.

I prefer to think that the Bulk is devoid of field, where no spatial fabric exists, only emptiness separating the many possible universes. But alas, this is only conjecture on my part without proper substantiation and will likely remain so for a very long time.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 03:53:22 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1121 on: 16/07/2014 11:46:38 »
Never mind Ethos :)

Just make it into a mathematical space, equivalent to that mathematical space in where many worlds theory lives. That's a better type of bulk than any other I can come up with.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1122 on: 16/07/2014 11:50:03 »
although, if you do, you need to leave the arrow. That type of bulk isn't about a arrow. There will be no way to sort things as being before something else. It's more of a static reality in where everything that ever has been and ever will come to be 'co-exist'.

It's the same 'bulk', if so, that I think of when referring to HUP and indeterminacy.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1123 on: 16/07/2014 12:01:23 »
that's another problem with the many worlds theory actually. As far as I get it, it is about outcomes, ordered as a string of pearls, each 'pearl' then initiating its own mathematical space in where all outcomes, imaginary possible from that event, will initiate somewhere, with universes included. There are other ways to look at it, but they are all unsatisfactory to me. They don't have the logic I prefer.

As a static mathematic space though of its own, no arrow involved, I have no problems with it though. I think that way is simpler, and also, highly possible.

but when it comes to events creating a infinity of alternative events I find the logic lacking in simplicity and beauty. As well as it has to use a arrow. but the arrow isn't in that mathematical space at all.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 12:03:02 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1124 on: 16/07/2014 12:13:35 »
Why people like it, and why I too has a sweet spot for it. I think is a result of it promising some sort of 'eternal justice' and equilibrium. As we all then are in equilibrium, no one totally a victim and no one totally a perpetrator, as long as we accept those 'alternatives' as being part of ourselves.

But if you don't, and I don't, then it has no specific ethics of 'justice' involved. Although it still could be seen as some sort of equilibrium. But the equilibrium we refer to here, doesn't need this string of pearls to exist. It's already apparent in HUP and indeterminacy.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1124 on: 16/07/2014 12:13:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length