# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 200850 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1225 on: 11/10/2014 09:59:53 »
There's more to my arguments. One is the idea of something intrinsically consistent, the 'propagating photon'. Defined as I want it to be :) this 'photon' does not change 'frequency', nor 'energy' or momentum. Doesn't matter what mass it climbs to 'get out'. You don't really want it to be any other way, and neither want I. That's a very good argument I think for questioning any idea of being able to define far away clocks as being what really is happening locally, if instead measuring in same frame of reference. the other point is as always, you just need two observers of it, being in different uniform motion, to find them defining it differently.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1226 on: 11/10/2014 10:11:21 »
But what it all comes back too, is what universe you want to define it versus. A 'container model'? Consisting of four dimensions inseparable where you locally become a 'slide' changing this universe by what mass speeds and accelerations you locally define? A little like some 'local' glass bubble wandering inside glass, finding it distort differently when measuring,

If you want this universe you have to remember that this is true for all frames of reference. All 'glass bubbles' existing inside it. And also that what each of them see is exactly what they get, in other words being as 'real' as can be for each one. It's a very fluid universe that one. If we to it define time dilations and Lorentz/Fitzgerald contractions as also being real, then logically the common universe disappear. Unless, you define time as non existent, and with it also any idea of a consistent measurement. A 'locally made gold standard' defining your repeatable experiment.
=

also, remember that it includes distance, they are complementary to Einsteins universe as I think. not only that clock disappearing, also your ruler lying to you. And if you now still want the universe to make sense, where will you look. Outside :) which doesn't even exist experimentally.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 10:17:42 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1227 on: 11/10/2014 10:13:38 »
You really think your aging is a matter of will? Or of changing frame of reference to a event horizon? Nah, you grow old everywhere, and finally you die.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1228 on: 11/10/2014 10:24:15 »
So yes, defining this commonly seamless universe my way, also expecting a arrow to exist, it gets as good as undone. It doesn't make sense, so why do we still believe in it? Because when you look you do it locally, you do not exchange 'place' with the far away observer, neither 'exchange' your experiment. And when you do it, you need to presume that what you measure on actually exist inside common 'bounds', whatever they might be.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1229 on: 11/10/2014 10:31:29 »
A experiment build on presumptions. Like finding this seamless universe we exist inside. On the other tentacle we all agree on it existing, causality proving it so too. So, what more choices might we imagine, to define it from?

there I like locality, because you do find locally equivalent clocks in there, and rulers. And you do find repeatable experiments, and constants. they have to be there if all 'points' are equivalent.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1230 on: 11/10/2014 10:35:30 »
The problem with any idea of locality, is how to define it. I would like those 'points' to exist, as some lowest common denominator. That would give us a anchor, and a discreteness to our universe, 'grainy'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1231 on: 11/10/2014 10:43:51 »
If you want a graininess, there might be different definitions. Decoherence is an idea of where Quantum mechanical rules , as indeterminacy and 'virtuality' get exchanged for a (macroscopic) linearity, more or less. It's you holding that apple, taking a bite, knowing it exist. It's possible that the same sort of idea can be applied, to a graininess, meaning that when we define that grain, it also will be a result of some type of decoherence.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1232 on: 11/10/2014 10:51:34 »
would it matter if there would be some sort of 'flow' under what we define as a 'grain', if so? We want to define how we and the universe come to be, don't we? And there you might find that 'grain', giving you a answer.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1233 on: 11/10/2014 10:53:09 »
It's no different from you defining yourself as being existent, and your friends, and foes :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1234 on: 17/10/2014 18:58:03 »
Yeah, life is weird, don't know about you but I know that physics is about life. And I really want to understand life. Sometimes it seems a mystery, but then I realize something I already knew, but in a new way, and life becomes interesting again. It's not muscles, but it's not brains either. Life is more than that.

Life is love.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1235 on: 17/10/2014 20:07:08 »
It's like suicide. It's stigmatized in our society. But as I see it, it scares us. We don't want to see it and we don't want to accept it. Because every suicide tells us that we failed.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1236 on: 17/10/2014 20:09:08 »
And we can't defend ourselves, because those that should listen to us are already dead. That's part of ethics. We don't want to be in that position where we have to defend ourselves.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1237 on: 17/10/2014 20:11:01 »
But we can love, all of us can do it. We love our kids, even those relatives that gets on our nerves at times. Just give it some time.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1238 on: 17/10/2014 20:12:13 »
Can you see what I see?
That the world consist of love?
And ego

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1239 on: 17/10/2014 20:15:42 »
So we need to make a place where we listen.
I do not know if we can.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1240 on: 17/10/2014 20:16:17 »
Can you?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1241 on: 17/10/2014 20:33:15 »
Listen good enough, and you will hear the grass grow. Don't know if it is true :) But I would like it to be.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1242 on: 17/10/2014 20:37:23 »
Would you agree with me in that the people that means the most to you also are those that listened to you?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1243 on: 17/10/2014 20:38:31 »
And also, they didn't became Einsteins by it, but they meant the world to you, and me.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1244 on: 17/10/2014 20:39:13 »
Love.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1245 on: 17/10/2014 20:45:47 »
This one is to Viola. I think and hope she will know, wherever she is, or was.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1246 on: 17/10/2014 20:56:49 »
Ethics is a place where we are equal.
Where we all are worth something, no one able to look down at you as being inferior,

It's a weird place, assuming us all to be humans.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1247 on: 17/10/2014 20:59:53 »
Reminds me of Goa, where someone told me that there are 'humans' and 'real human beings'.
Don't really believe in that, but I can understand the way they thought.

As if it takes a effort to become human,
Do you think so too?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1248 on: 18/10/2014 09:36:04 »
Ah well, let's get back to container universes "All 'glass bubbles' existing inside it. And also that what each of them see is exactly what they get, in other words being as 'real' as can be for each one. It's a very fluid universe that one."

This time about relative motion. I've argued that even if you can't define any relative motion, you still can prove different relative (uniform) motions. Now, doesn't that idea need some 'universal container' of it? To define those different uniform motions from? Against it we can make any experiments we like, locally, without proving any uniform motion differing from any other. The second one does not speak about it as if something containing us, that we then could measure ones relative motion from.

It's also called a absolute frame that you then can use to measure all motion relative. If the universe now would be a sphere then, a boundary existing, could you now be able to prove absolute motion? That depends doesn't it, but assuming a equivalent inflation in all points possible (of that universe) it might be possible to reduce it to something 'absolute'. On the other hand, any idea of this type of inflation and you lose the boundary, unless you treat it as a emergence possibly.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1249 on: 18/10/2014 09:46:09 »
You might say that the point with different relative motions also is about what type of universe you think should connect them to each other. Different relative motions inside a 'container' will have a absolute frame, of some sort, existing as I see it. A fluid (relativistic) universe on the other tentacle does not have it. There the lever you use will be your local clock and ruler, to prove those (other) differing uniform motions from. As they will do with you, from their clock and ruler.

You can use that to question any idea of a container universe.

So, what we have, without doubt, is causality. Causality and the limit it use which then is 'c'. And 'c' also becomes the best clock you can use, locally measuring, split into Planck scale. Looking at it this way a vacuum becomes very strange.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1249 on: 18/10/2014 09:46:09 »