The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 200352 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1125 on: 16/07/2014 12:26:05 »
Using a mathematical space, without involving arrows, makes it impossible to define a many worlds theory I suspect. They may exist, but if dimensions are a result of a SpaceTime, and with it this arrow, obeying a same physics, then why can't those 'universes' communicate?

Because to call them 'separated' involves limitations, and if it isn't non-equivalent physics, then? What have you left? Degrees of freedoms maybe, or 'dimensions', separating them.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1126 on: 16/07/2014 12:31:56 »
the important thing to remember before losing oneself into the mathematics, is that I presume dimensions to be coupled to a SpaceTimes existence, as described from its inside. And that is connected to a arrow. So you can't really invoke any eye of a God, to look at a infinite sea of 'alternative universes' constantly bifurcating under some eternal arrow.

The arrow is a result of a universe existing. That's also why it makes most sense discussing it as a symmetry break.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 12:34:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1127 on: 16/07/2014 13:21:10 »
And why I do it? A long story, but it started with observer dependencies. Either you believe them to be true, or you think of them as an man made and physical artifact. I tried to find a reason for them and this is what it lead me too. It's as real as anything you ever will know in this universe. Einstein seems overall to be a person QM find uncomfortable, but he really isn't. He's perfectly on the spot when it comes to how the universe works, the thing with him that first confused me was his preference for a 'container universe' in where time dilation and Lorentz contractions becomes a proof for times illusionary existence. But that I think, goes back to his trust in logic, and that there's should be a reason for things happening. In the end maybe also on a trust in something more than just us.

The only thing needed to make a better sense of Einstein from a quantum realm is to exchange the container idea to one where the container is the artifact, created from physics. The problem there is that it is not only Einstein that thinks of containers, of different kinds. You can find it, if you look hard enough, almost everywhere.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1128 on: 16/07/2014 13:38:20 »
You might summarize it into a question of time. Either time is a illusion, or it is a constant.

and as I adhere to the point of there being several way to describe this universe, yet expect one of them to make more sense, to me :) I use it as a constant, and that one is so simple. from that follows that a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation is a result of frames of reference interacting. And decoherence makes a lot of sense too, as it is about conglomerates, giving you that ideal constant of a arrow, locally defined as equivalent to the concept of 'c'.

And doing so there became more and more questions to my mind, about preconceptions that we don't even notice in ourselves. The final one, I think? Is the one about 'containers'. Lose the container and you will find new ways to define a universe. Although it might end in a 'container description', that container should be one of logic building from the very small.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1129 on: 16/07/2014 14:05:10 »
Actually it made me start to reread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

Neither Erik Verlinde, nor Gerard 't Hooft, are easy to fool I think. I still have a problem with holography, and objective dimensions existing, as the reason though.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1130 on: 16/07/2014 14:29:44 »
And naturally, determinism as the reason for a universe. I think that what allows the concept of free will is indeterminism. That 'space' in where everything co-exist is where we go to find that free will, ideally described. You might also consider it from the opposite, a totally logic, linear, deterministic system, in where only the outcome chosen ever could be? Does that fit you, and your actions? All assuming that we still can define probabilities. A perfect system like that shouldn't have probabilities btw. Because a probability assume that there are several opportunities equally existing, only differed by how we find nature to behave most of the time.

So a perfectly deterministic system should be one where probability won't exist at all, only one outcome possible.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1131 on: 16/07/2014 14:31:02 »
That should mean that QM cease to exist. As well as Einsteins observer dependencies. And your free will.
=

Maybe you could incorporate some type of determinism locally though? I see it as we have local constants after all, but when combining it into this seamless picture of a universe described by observer dependencies?

Then again, would a perfect determinism allow HUP?
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 14:40:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1132 on: 17/07/2014 01:37:38 »
There is one more point to it. Indeterminism does not state that 'this is what it is'. Determinism though, does. To me it seem to want what I call a 'container logic', a 'isolated system' that is 'controlled' in all aspects, unknowable for now but when known, taking us back to a 'Newtonian era' of full understanding.

Maybe the universe is like me :) not entirely sure on anything and so like to keep its possibilities open,. that's also what I mean when asking if you might be able to introduce some kind of determinism locally. As what I think we should meet, isolating a 'point', are just constants.

But we also find a indeterminism there, don't we?
As HUP?

It also depends on how you want to define HUP naturally. As a indeterministic principle in itself, or as a deterministic principle statistically seen? Or both?
« Last Edit: 17/07/2014 01:39:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1133 on: 17/07/2014 02:20:43 »
Entanglements are a perfect illustration to why I think we can't know it all. A deterministic model of a entanglement must rest on hidden variables, that steer the down converted photon into opposite spins. In such a model there should be no possibility of randomness. As well as I also see it as a support for our free will, as there is no known way to predict the spin beforehand, although there should be statistical rules for its proportionality, 'up' or 'down' when repeating experiments a sufficient amount of times.

That is not too far from that situation in where you find yourself 'of two minds', not sure of what you will choose, uncertain. So what you find to be macroscopically true isn't isolated to that, it exist everywhere.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2014 02:22:42 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1134 on: 17/07/2014 02:29:05 »
You might say that the universe make at least one choice. that choice isn't about this opposite spin we expect the unmeasured photon to have. It's about the spin you will see as you measure. Because even though the probability for 'up' or 'down' is 50% each way, once you've measured it it is set. And the choice of how that spin would turn out wasn't yours, unless you cheated. That the other photon then 'knows' the way it turned out is a added treat.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1135 on: 17/07/2014 02:35:14 »
And I don't think it matter for this how you want to 'isolate' your system. If you want to include the experimenter as well as the equipment, or how ever you want to set limits. It won't change the fact that there is no way to know that first measured spin, before you do it. So you can build out this 'isolated system' as far as you like, as far as I can see it won't change a thing here.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1136 on: 17/07/2014 02:40:16 »
Looking at it statistically we always 'know' the opposite spin, because as far as experiment goes this is what we see repeating itself, ideally now. Practically there are all kinds of complications involved in this kind of experiments. But we can also remark that this 50& probability of what the first spin will be measured as, is unknowable. but something 'decided' it, otherwise we wouldn't have a outcome.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1137 on: 17/07/2014 02:45:01 »
So you don't only, in a deterministic system, need hidden parameters for why there always seem to be opposite spins, you also need some hidden parameter for defining the first spin. If you don't set that, only set why the spins are opposite you end up with a incomplete deterministic system.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1138 on: 17/07/2014 03:03:36 »
To assume that hidden parameters would be a result of the whole of the universe communicating, 'everything' setting the state of 'everything', somehow, is a possibility naturally. But as a entanglement is presumed 'instant' you then need parameters that communicates faster than 'c'. Although iIf you to it add modern ideas, differing between communication that is useful/meaningful in some motto, from communication that you can't use for anything meaningful, then it might work?

That one can be seen two ways, as a conventional 'container model' of this universe. Or, possibly also working from some local definition. Maybe you will need both to prove it, if so.

And it doesn't change that I seem to presume ftl for it. A more preferable way (to me) would be to prove that is is a consequence of the way the universe exist. Not ftl as such, instead a question of what makes a universe, and dimensions?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1139 on: 17/07/2014 03:10:06 »
what does that state about our preconceptions? The idea that we can differ between meaningful and not meaningful information? Allowing the non meaningful to be faster than light in a vacuum? To me it says that we believe this universe to be logical, the things that makes a difference to us must make sense. And what about those things that doesn't make sense? As a entanglement?

Well, they are allowed, but they won't make a difference to us.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1140 on: 17/07/2014 03:11:57 »
We build it on logic, even when we do not see how it can exist.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1141 on: 17/07/2014 03:13:47 »
The same could be said for a singularity. They exist, but they are censored.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1142 on: 17/07/2014 05:42:16 »
This thread is a perfect example of why I stopped talking to you on this forum, yor_on. This thread is merely you talking to yourself, and nobody else cares about the subject. So that means its only an online diary for your thoughts on something that nobody else cares about.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1143 on: 17/07/2014 12:05:15 »
:)

It's ok Pete. you have your ways, I have mine. It's a big universe.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1144 on: 17/07/2014 15:36:25 »
:)

It's ok Pete. you have your ways, I have mine. It's a big universe.
And btw, I for one am interested in the questions yor_on is asking. Without such questions, science would have never discovered any facts whatsoever. I am a man of questions myself and admire yor_on's search for the truth.

If one has no curiosity for what lies behind the closed door, chances are that door will remain closed until one with a greater curiosity arrives upon the scene.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2014 16:31:51 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1145 on: 17/07/2014 20:01:30 »
It's like all other subjects of personal interest :) We all take our own thoughts seriously, well, sometimes at least. I don't know why the universe act as it does, but I do expect a logic. The alternative is a universe without, but as far as I've seen that's not what we have found, so far? And mathematics is the tool we use, describing the logic.

Apropos all and nothing..

Anyone read this one? http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

It made me wonder.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1146 on: 18/07/2014 00:58:23 »
Quote from: Ethos_
And btw, I for one am interested in the questions yor_on is asking.
You don't understand. I have no problems with questions. However yor_on makes threads difficult to read because he creates post after post after post never really asking a question nor waiting for an answer. What he's doing is philosophizing incoherently. For instance - what question did you see him post that you thought was intriguing or interesting?

Quote from: Ethos_
Without such questions, science would have never discovered any facts whatsoever. I am a man of questions myself and admire yor_on's search for the truth.
Again, I have no objections to questions. Why would you conclude such a thing? Didn't you read what I posted to him, i.e. This thread is merely you talking to yourself, and nobody else cares about the subject. What about that suggests in any way that I object to questions?

The worst part about it is that he has no concern for others in this respect. It's fine in this sub forum because that's the purpose of it. However in the forums for science it's inappropriate.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1147 on: 18/07/2014 12:31:55 »
Pete, I think you should take your considerations to a moderator instead. And let them decide what should be deemed appropriate for TNS. I would prefer if you didn't use this thread for it, it easily becomes a flame war :) Discussing (and doing so in the exactly same thread, nota bene) whether such should be allowed to exist or not, although it would make a slightly comic sense to me, if we all would do so, in a same thread we want to dispose of. As for the rest of it I really hope the universe is big enough for both of us? :)

=

Anyway, what made me wonder wasn't about whether religions could be said to repress or not. Just the idea that we all should carry some innate need for it. When it comes to individuals, not organizations.
=

Spirituality may be the word for it?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2014 12:59:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1148 on: 18/07/2014 16:37:58 »
What you use to decide is probably logic. Which society, of those existing, do you want to bring your kids up in? Assuming you're poor naturally. the whole thing loses its meaning if we assume us all to be prosperous. That's the 'dream society' in my mind, the one where we all become millionaires. So if you want that society, I think you're bicycling in great beyond.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1149 on: 18/07/2014 16:40:40 »
And yes, it's a question of how you would like to define spirituality? As a form of logic, or not?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1149 on: 18/07/2014 16:40:40 »

 

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