The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199152 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1200 on: 25/07/2014 12:26:16 »
Let's take child soldiers as a example. Who is to blame there, the children forced to soldier or those adults forcing them into a inhuman mold? Those adults are not only destroying their own humanity, but also the children's. And I'm not prepared to understand those adults, there's a limit to it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1201 on: 25/07/2014 12:34:10 »
The problem, as I see it, is that there is enough having a very little percentage of this kind of adults, to effect changes that will involve many. One can always argue that those adults may have had a terrible upbringing themselves, and it might even be correct. But we all have ethics, well, most of us do. Another thing is that the free market always seem available to this kind of actions, as long as there is a profit, and 'deniability', available for it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1202 on: 28/07/2014 18:46:01 »
Been thinking of logics. There are different kinds of logic but they all build on premises. Ones preconceptions as it might be expressed. Accepting this you then have to decide whose preconceptions make the most sense to you. People seems to think that because we can find some logic to a situation it then make it more acceptable, or even 'right'. But you can in reality twist together some logic defending whatever premise you want to argue. Statistics is a very good choice for arguing a logic, but to make the statistics unquestionable you need to build it on experiments, not your faith in whatever beliefs you might hold for the moment.

On the other tentacle, there is ethics to everything, and honor.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1203 on: 28/07/2014 18:54:38 »
It's sort of scary, isn't it? Very little of how we expect life to be seems to be correct. And we hide behind other peoples logics instead of making our own. To grow up is to use your mind yourself, not get a new suit, to fit some others idea of how life 'is'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1204 on: 28/07/2014 19:02:15 »
and yes, it's about physics, in the end. Because it is there, and in philosophy and mathematics, you will find the clearest tries for defining what a logic should be. But as I like physics myself, I will define it such as it is statistics, from whatever experiments you can imagine up, that will decide the logic that creates us.

On the other tentacle, we also need to acknowledge that life is more than just ones logics, it's also about faith, loyalty, friendships, love, and finally, that last breathless moment, whatever ethics you lived by.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1205 on: 28/07/2014 19:04:50 »
And as those build from life, they are here, for us. Would they exist without life? I don't know, sometimes I think that we are the universe, looking at ourselves.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1206 on: 28/07/2014 19:11:45 »
Now, if that would be true :) wouldn't that make your life, and the way you live, and act, your ethics, the most precious definition of what a universe will be.

Which universe do you want to live in?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1207 on: 28/07/2014 19:37:50 »
And naturally, as I think I should be able to give those 'intangibles' a logic too :) And if we can, then it also must be part of this universe we exist in. It means that you need more than entropy to describe it, if so. A universe with only entropy acting could do just as well without this 'life'. Unless we expect it to need a 'conscious observer' to be able to exist? Do we? Entropy is not enough, to me that is.
=

Realized I needed to add 'conscious', as my own definition of a observer is that any interaction measured, should consist of 'observers'. But one more common seems to assume that consciousness is the definer of what is 'observed'.
« Last Edit: 29/07/2014 00:06:23 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1208 on: 08/08/2014 01:51:18 »
"The video is a real time capture of the moon rising over the Mount Victoria Lookout in the capital city of Wellington, New Zealand."

No tricks involved, just optics and a digital camera recording of what those optics saw. From Full Moon Silhouettes from Mark Gee.

The world are more than its parts :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1209 on: 05/09/2014 20:11:27 »
You know, Pete is perfectly correct in defining it as a blog. I agree, then again, it's a blog about things I don't understand. Yeah, I know, it seems as if I understand some things, but really, I don't :) Because my universe becomes a projection. And I have no answer to why it is this way. the only thing I think I will lean to is just those ethics.

They are what we might become, if we don't I'm sure the universe will make a new try
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1210 on: 05/09/2014 20:21:28 »
You could naturally assume that we already are 'enlightened', as per Feynman's 'many paths' and that timeless pause that it includes before a outcome. I won't agree to that for several reasons. the simplest becoming that for you and me time do exist. so, ignore that on your peril.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1211 on: 05/09/2014 20:25:03 »
And to me it connects to the idea of mankind becoming 'caretakers', not 'conquerors'. Don't know what you liked as you lived your life, but looking back I think I always was partial to surprises, things that made me smile, and love. the stuff that made life a place to be.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1212 on: 05/09/2014 20:29:03 »
Some have only hate, that's a very heavy feeling. there should be something more to life.
Don't you agree?

I think you do :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1213 on: 05/09/2014 20:50:26 »
And just to add to the mess I've may made :)

The naked Scientist makes a very special place, for us all, and I'm happy to have been a part of it.
we might not be perfect, or even correct, but we're at least interesting to read :)
And we're what we make of it. Nations ignored.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1214 on: 06/09/2014 13:03:50 »
So, can you use constants to define ftl (faster than light)?

sure, no problem. Make a sheet, use a narrow light source and move it under that sheet. the further away the sheet is the faster that light will seem to move, for someone existing 'in' that sheet. Don't think you need to break any constants for it, just use 'dimensions' imaginatively.

But there is one restriction to it, if we want clocks and rulers making sense, our causality, as described 'seamlessly universally'. You must restrict useful information.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1215 on: 06/09/2014 13:05:22 »
You don't even need motion for it. No propagating light source at all, lightening up that 'sheet'. You need 'change' though
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1216 on: 06/09/2014 13:07:04 »
Looked at that way, a universe suddenly becomes much more interesting, doesn't it :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1217 on: 06/09/2014 13:12:21 »
Change defined as motion, I've always liked that one. It makes so much sense, when thinking of relative motion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1218 on: 06/09/2014 13:15:06 »
But it becomes a very different universe from what you thought it to be. Any movement by you, you stretching out that arm to get yourself the mug of coffee, will then be described in terms of a field changing. Coordinates changing state.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1219 on: 06/09/2014 13:18:39 »
The fields 'depth' or 'dimensionality' defined by the coordinates relations to each other. No external ('objectively' existing) 'room' necessary for it, as they are created from you, living 'inside' it, just as me. In fact, you don't need 'objectivity' as some archetype, or original mold, for it.

Don't you like it?
I do.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1220 on: 06/09/2014 13:21:01 »
that way you can get to a expansion, but to get to that inflation you will need to define it differently. So what might differ a initial inflation from its subsequent expansion? If we want causality to survive it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1221 on: 06/09/2014 13:55:00 »
Ones main thesis here should be finding a way to keep constants, and causality, intact I think. Ftl no longer being ftl,  more of a illusion as defined from inside. to me it seems as if constants is what builds everything.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1222 on: 06/09/2014 13:57:35 »
Or maybe you can treat a inflation as an expansion? Probably you can. Ah well, it's Saturday and yesterday was as I vaguely remember a Friday, just sayin :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1223 on: 22/09/2014 18:00:12 »
Me discussing logics :)

Here's one description
Hand to mouth.

worthy of thoughts I think.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1224 on: 10/10/2014 22:09:20 »
Have a read "According to Einstein's theory, informally speaking, time runs slower closer to massive bodies. That means that natural clocks in the sun run slower than the same clocks on earth. Of course there are no ordinary clocks in the sun. But there is something much better. Excited atoms emit light in very specific frequencies and our measuring the frequency of that light is akin to our measuring the frequency of ticking of a clock. Any slowing of those atomic clocks would result in a change in the frequency of light emitted from the sun.

Einstein's theory predicts a very small degree of slowing of clocks in the sun. It manifests in the light from the sun being slightly reddened for observers watching from far afield on the earth. The red shift for light from the sun is merely 0.00002%, which proved extremely difficult to detect. The effect was found later in the light from stars far more massive than the sun. The figure shows light climbing out of the stronger gravitational field of the sun towards the earth."

Now this sounds as rather solid argument of clocks ticking 'differently fast' at different locations, doesn't it? Let's see what it presume, that energy isn't consistent with a given mass, but observer dependent? A interesting universe, but it's not mine. Three observers with differing uniform motion will define that sun differently, the frequency too. As all uniform motions are locally, and experimentally equivalent, there is nothing explaining this. Accepting clocks 'ticking differently' though uniform motion you also redefine 'c', from being a constant measured relative your uniform motion, to a variable, although it does not show itself to be so locally. So you have now to take farewell of all constants, as they all partly are a result of your  clock and a ruler, as well as of any definition of a repeatable experiment. Then physics too should be gone as we define it today. Does it simplify the universe to think this way?

Against my arguments we can note that if all clocks and rulers are locally equivalent, you now have to place time dilations and Lorentz contractions between frames of reference, it becoming a result of a relation between your 'local reality', and what you measure to be the 'far away reality', aka between frames of reference. That doesn't fit the twin experiment, in where one twin (traveling) in the end is found biologically younger than the other. So, to find out what that is about we either have to invalidate that thought experiment, or find a way to define what happens between frames of reference, 'locality's relation to another frame of reference' as it might be. Then I suspect you have two general ways, a 'container model' representing a seamlessly existing 'commonly shared' four dimensional universe ,with some sort of real but observer dependent 'plasticity' built in, or a version defined through locally equivalent 'points', preferably reducing the 'dimensionality', at least trying for as simple as possible model.

for any definition of energy it shouldn't matter, I think, as the 'energy' should be there, both ways. In the end we have to return to a container definition, of some sort, as that is what we agree us on existing inside.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1224 on: 10/10/2014 22:09:20 »

 

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