The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199647 times)

Online 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 #1150 on: 18/07/2014 16:43:16 »
You really need to look into this. Once behaviorism was about pure logic of 'change'. Today it encompass a lot more, and Skinner may turn in his grave, not that it bother me, thinking of his daughter :)
==

Have a treat on me :)

http://www.snopes.com/science/skinner.asp
« Last Edit: 18/07/2014 16:45:36 by yor_on »
 

Online 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 #1151 on: 18/07/2014 16:48:21 »
It depends doesn't it?

What someone outside thinks, and what those inside describe it as?
 

Online 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 #1152 on: 18/07/2014 16:52:46 »
So, what is justice, and a fair deal?
 

Online 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 #1153 on: 18/07/2014 17:02:20 »
I'm slightly inconsiderate here, but I can't help but remembering the experiments in where a factory got repainted, and so increased the 'productivity'? Depends on what you think you're here for, doesn't it? To increase productivity? To reproduce?

What is spirituality?
 

Online 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 #1154 on: 18/07/2014 17:05:53 »
You really want to put your daughter into a weather insulated box yourself? I don't know, the concept disturbs me.
 

Online 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 #1155 on: 18/07/2014 17:24:39 »
To define existence as we are here because we are here invalidate any science. It's a mirror to defining such as existence has no purpose, and no meaning. you might call it a proof for the futility of life.
 

Online 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 #1156 on: 18/07/2014 17:26:27 »
invalidate any science because it ultimately invalidate logic to me. At least the logic I use, in where things do have a purpose, and a meaning, following causality.
 

Online 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 #1157 on: 18/07/2014 17:30:25 »
the whole idea of a complexity building inside a arrow, gives science a meaning. It tells us that it is worthwhile wondering about the universe, and to try to decipher its logic. and the life you live now should tell you the same thing, assuming you live at the right place naturally. A concentration camp is not the place to feel optimistic in, neither I would say, is a dictatorship.
 

Online 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 #1158 on: 18/07/2014 17:32:05 »
Yeah, what is spirituality? And do you think you can give it a logic?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1159 on: 18/07/2014 19:21:42 »
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? :)
It only becomes a flame war when you start insulting me. Moderators only step in when people are breaking rules. I'm not saying you're breaking a rule. I'm saying that when you do this in science forums it makes it hard to read and you become disruptive and that shows little or no concern for your fellow posters. This is a discussion forum and not your own personal blog. Therefore I have every right to say this on this forum, whether you like it or not. It's your total lack of concern for every single person on the forum that bothers me and your total lack of caring how people feel about it. Shame on you.
 

Online 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 #1160 on: 18/07/2014 23:21:15 »
Sorry Pete, no meaning to insult anyone here. When it comes to this thread it's no big thing? I use it to ponder about what I find strange, and interesting. As for the rest of your views, I don't know what to say really. It's you reading me, then complaining that you read me? Don't read me, and the irritation should pass.
=

Thinking about it. I don't really know how to define a blog. Everyone starting a thread might be said to start a blog, the rest being a discussion on what this person thought about something? If you look at the latest blog I linked too, I think I find it just as lively as any discussion I've meet on TNS, for example? With the 'author' of the idea/question/whatever also arguing, if now just ever so slightly, for his views. Probably there is some nice definition about it, it's just me missing it :)
« Last Edit: 18/07/2014 23:30:39 by yor_on »
 

Online 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 #1161 on: 18/07/2014 23:44:17 »
Anyway Pete, you want this writing to disappear, then I still think that it is the moderators ire you need to invoke. As for this blog, as you call it? It may continue, it may disappear. Sometimes people comment and then there's what you might call a discussion? As it could be seen to be now too, although not on what I was writing about specifically?

Three major choices I think?

1. Keep arguing your view in this thread, until someone notice :)
2. Or, discuss it with the moderators, and let their decision rule.
3. Or just let it go, and do the stuff that really interest you instead.
=

And it's not meant to insult you, it's just that I find this discussion to be at the wrong place. If my writing is at fault in, or for,  some fashion, then I expect moderators to be the ones reacting. That's why they are here. If it is personal in some way you had the possibility to post personally, one option that you chose to ignore, right?

That I read as you want it into the open, so to speak, a debate, using this thread as an example, correct? Maybe open your own thread on forum policies, and where you consider them misused, could be a further option here?
« Last Edit: 19/07/2014 00:05:15 by yor_on »
 

Online 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 #1162 on: 19/07/2014 00:41:31 »
I think it's a interesting subject, spirituality. The question to me is whether it could be applied as a logic? Why I'm asking this is because I consider almost everything I know of to have some sort of logic. Even a entanglement have a logic, it may not make the best of sense to me, but the logic is there to be tested, and that at least makes sense :)

And if we look at behaviorism before and the one we see today, I think I would like to define the type I see today as a more 'ethical behaviorism', taking into consideration a lot of human parameters that the old type didn't really find relevant. As for example what cost a society the most, being homeless for example, maybe also self-medicating, stealing to survive. Or a society that tries to plan for it not to go that far. A society whose answer to deviations of the social norm is prison, or rehabilitation.
 

Online 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 #1163 on: 19/07/2014 00:59:18 »
The point is that the logic that didn't exist before, do exist now. And it makes sense, both economically and humanly. So, can the same be true for what we think of as spiritual questions? That I think was what Nury in that blog I linked to, at least partially, was wondering about. If there behind everything we do and think, compassion and empathy, actually exist a logic.

And if there is, is it also cost-beneficent?
 

Online 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 #1164 on: 19/07/2014 15:34:57 »
That question also depends on your view of what society should include naturally. If you only include your peers the question becomes moot, as they all should be in a similar situation to you. If you on the other hand include everyone living in some community where you exist? Or taking it a step further, everyone sharing a same nationality?

And if you take those steps? Well :) I believe we should be getting closer to becoming, what I call, care takers.
 

Online 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 #1165 on: 20/07/2014 12:16:07 »
I took up entanglements as a example. Doing it I started to wonder exactly how Einstein came up with this notion, and how we from his thoughts on it got so far as we actually have done? Entanglements are spooky :) I know the history, I think? But I keep forgetting, so I decided to try to track it down once more.

Anyway The Spooky truth.
 

Online 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 #1166 on: 20/07/2014 13:29:51 »
The problem, for me, is that entanglements are so closely related to the debate between Bohr and Einstein, on the reality of it. Einstein could not accept the idea of spooky action at a distance. He meant that is collided with a reality in where you find action and reactions track-able, and where you have physically meaningful limits for it. He, as me, seem to have considered QM to be a statistical interpretation of reality, that still needed to be filled in to become a 'realistic theory'.

It may be that his demands on what should be deemed realistic differed from my thoughts though. As my definition of what I see as 'locality' does? He most probably would give me a real lecture if he ever read me :)

The EPR (Einstein Poldolsky Rosen) papers rests on two assumptions, as I gather.

Separability and locality:  That if two systems are separated in a space, one must assume that each one exist separately from the other, ideally without influencing each other. From that follows that a measurement on one must be independent of the other.

For a better description, with links, I think you should read Einstein on the Completeness of Quantum Theory.

 

Online 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 #1167 on: 20/07/2014 14:27:05 »
But that's where I find history lacking. Because the EPR paper is a reaction on what the, then newfangled QM theory, was predicting. It makes little sense to start at the EPR papers, although that is what you will find if you search the net.  Schrödinger's cat in a box was a subsequent try for a intuitive description of one side of what the EPR paper discussed, not any reason why the EPR paper came to be.
 

Online 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 #1168 on: 20/07/2014 14:28:54 »
So, what started the idea of entanglements?
 

Online 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 #1169 on: 20/07/2014 14:46:45 »
Well, it's a lot of things, studying the very small, that clashes with how we normally expect the world to behave. Maybe we should look at the 'Copenhagen model'?

"there are several basic principles that are generally accepted as being part of the interpretation:

1.    A system is completely described by a wave function, representing the state of the system, which evolves smoothly in time, except when a measurement is made, at which point it instantaneously collapses to an eigenstate of the observable that is measured.

2.    The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of a given outcome of a measurement given by the square of the modulus of the amplitude of the wave function. (The Born rule, after Max Born)

3.    It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known exactly must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)

4.   Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.

5.   Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure only classical properties such as position and momentum.

6.   The quantum mechanical description of large systems will closely approximate the classical description. (This is the correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg.) "
« Last Edit: 20/07/2014 14:48:20 by yor_on »
 

Online 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 #1170 on: 20/07/2014 15:12:09 »
Seems it should be 1.
Don't you agree?

"A system is completely described by a wave function, representing the state of the system, which evolves smoothly in time, except when a measurement is made, at which point it instantaneously collapses to an eigenstate of the observable that is measured."

Think of down converting a 'photon' by splitting it in a prism, into two photons of half the original energy. (beam splitter). Then the question becomes what you consider to be the 'system' here naturally, but we just consider the original photon split into two here.

But we need something more, we need some principle that explains why, for example, the spins must be opposite, don't we?

Conservation laws?
 

Online 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 #1171 on: 20/07/2014 15:17:53 »
And yes, I think we also need HUP? Or could we do without that?

"It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known exactly must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)"

Because that is what defines the 'super position' of the entangled system, before a measurement, all as I think.

Indeterminacy.
 

Online 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 #1172 on: 20/07/2014 15:21:18 »
But we can say some things about the 'system' of two photons, with certainty, can't we?
Opposite spins.

where does that come from?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1173 on: 20/07/2014 15:40:04 »
But we can say some things about the 'system' of two photons, with certainty, can't we?
Opposite spins.

where does that come from?
Nature seeking balance!
 

Online 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 #1174 on: 20/07/2014 15:53:21 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1174 on: 20/07/2014 15:53:21 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums