The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199578 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 #125 on: 14/12/2013 18:02:07 »
What I mean is that there is a difference between stating that 'all time must coexist' as you can get to different 'time slices' theoretically, and what a SpaceTime really is. Ours must be regulated by 'c', that's the speed of communication, everywhere we measure, to make sense to me. That communication defines your reality. But it's not impossible to consider the 'common universe' a illusion, if you find a way to stop 'c' locally measured. But then you will meet another place, using another way of 'communicating' as neither causality, nor 'c' as a mean of communication, should exist.
 

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 #126 on: 14/12/2013 18:34:42 »
You can get to a universe imagining it having no dimensions at all. You can also find something not using a propagation, instead finding a rhythm, defined by 'c'. What's real would then be constants, equivalently so in each frame of reference, aka 'point'. The rhythm is defined by 'c', and those constants, giving us causality. Defining it locally also mean that whatever dimensions and degrees of freedom we measure are 'local constructs' defining your relation to a universe. That doesn't make dimensions non existing, or degrees of freedom. It's just another way of defining it. In this universe observations define degrees of freedom, and dimensions. In it we have 'c', but we don't have a explanation of why we can communicate between frames of reference, although we know how. 'c'.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2013 18:36:14 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 #127 on: 15/12/2013 00:25:29 »
So what do this mystical revelation mean :)
Nothing special.

Just that I think scales are more important than what I see normally.  And as I've always have said, it's not so much about proving a 'new theory' as it is about applying a different point of view. Using that view some things that I wonder about becomes simpler, others doesn't. The clock and 'c' is true, prove it wrong and I will be pleased. That will give me something new to think about.
=

as usual, my spelling sux...
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 02:15:20 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 #128 on: 15/12/2013 00:29:14 »
And yes, it's indeed taking Einstein seriously, more seriously than what we normally do. We like to split relativity from the very small. I don't, I just use a local description, that keeps it as simple as I can get it. My universe needs to make sense, and I'm prepared to ignore most archetypes for getting there.
 

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 #129 on: 15/12/2013 10:37:59 »
When I think of the very small I do it in terms of frames of reference. Assume that a clock stops there, assume that 'gravity' disappear, assume that 'c' is gone, as some definition/limit of communication. How will you differ one point from another in a positional system? To me they become inseparable, doesn't make sense to say that this point belong to there, and this to there. They are one and the same.
=

That gives one a question, can you presume a geometry? Or is geometry a result of matter, relativity and 'forces'? We're in a fishbowl, with limits.
==

And that bring us back to how we do a measurement. We can't do it purely locally, measuring 'inside' one frame of reference. We can loosely define me as being at rest with earth and so you can argue that I can do a measurement inside one frame of reference, but gravitationally that can't be true, and ones position must also have a impact on the measurement, comparing it with another observers 'identical' experiment, also 'at rest' with earth.

To me it's the difference between a macroscopic and microscopic definition, and also why I think it should be possible to define one singular frame of reference to Planck scale. Maybe there is a geometry existing microscopically too, but all points in that 'frame of reference' should be microscopically identical as I think. I don't know if it would matter, if there is, or not, actually.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 10:51:54 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 #130 on: 15/12/2013 10:56:34 »
There is a tentative idea I have of it though. And that one uses something similar to the idea of decoherence. I assume that a geometry is a result of interactions, 'c' defining its communication. We have the idea of 'symmetry breaks'. Assuming that a geometry is a result of limits imposed on a regime, defining 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 #131 on: 15/12/2013 10:59:29 »
That will give you one  equivalently same point, or no point at all :) as you need a positional system to define a 'point', microscopically, becoming many points for us inside, allowing us coordinate systems.
 

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 #132 on: 15/12/2013 11:04:09 »
In that way everything we measure is a illusion, theoretically :)
But to me it's not, and neither can it be to any other observer existing inside 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 #133 on: 15/12/2013 11:07:44 »
And then a Big Bang must be what defined that 'first' symmetry break, presenting us a arrow. But it should also mean that when scaling down, we look at what always is there, the regime we come to be from. It's not 'gone', it 'coexist' with us.
==

We speak of distances, don't we?
Well, the distance to that origin is the same from all positional points, 'coordinate systems', you can think of. The exact same distance, into a 'center' if you like, from any position chosen.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 11:11:15 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 #134 on: 15/12/2013 11:21:14 »
A 'symmetry break' is such a perfect description of it. Whoever first thought that word up found a real beauty :)

It's simply a break in a symmetry, SpaceTime.
 

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 #135 on: 15/12/2013 11:32:39 »
So what is entropy?
It belongs to a arrow.

And what is consciousness?
 

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 #136 on: 15/12/2013 11:38:03 »
We think we 'invent' a quantum computer, don't we :) Well, if we're a symmetry break, why not say that this 'invented' us, consciousness, entropy, and all, like some white mouse ::)) Douglas Adam had it right.
=

Applying frames of reference on such a reasoning, I must state that it, from its own frame of reference, the origin of our symmetry break better should be considered to 'invent', as there is no arrow to define for me there. It never started, and it never finished it either. All such definitions belong to us, inside a arrow of time, our 'fish bowl'.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 11:44:58 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 #137 on: 16/12/2013 12:13:30 »
Let us assume that Planck constants aren't constants at all, instead being some agreed on definition relative some ill defined earlier definitions. Would that destroy the equivalent way I treat 'c' and a arrow? I don't think so, what my reasoning rests on is the assumption that at some point it will become meaningless to define a 'propagation' of light. I'm discussing where physics breaks down actually. That's also where I will place a singular 'frame of reference'. A frame will become apparent when it gets a definition through interaction, and so will a arrow.
 

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 #138 on: 16/12/2013 12:18:00 »
You can free this definition from the one where we define 'c' as defined constant speed too. Although that would give us a very flexible definition of where such a 'break down' of physics take place, as it still is observer dependent, it would still point to locality being what defines it. And locality from my point of view isn't solely about interactions, locality can also be seen as one singular frame of reference, equivalent to all other frames, consisting of the exact same properties, principles etc.
 

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 #139 on: 16/12/2013 12:24:02 »
Easiest to understand is to think of a arrow, locally defined. You're 'constantly uniformly accelerating', being at rest, with Earth. Does you clock still work? You go into a rocket to be shot at a relativistic speed into the universe, will your local clock stop?

Nope.

Doesn't matter if we define it as uniform motion or accelerating decelerating. That wrist watch must exist, or you will have to define a entanglement of sorts instead, somehow? :)
 

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 #140 on: 16/12/2013 12:29:44 »
And those discussions about what arrow is becomes ill defined to me, considering what people discuss. A arrow is to me your wrist watch, equivalent to 'c'. I do not need to define that 'speed', and argue what is should be. It's a relation, and a equivalence, the same no matter what 'speed' you would like to define from some comparison. Can you see what I am talking about?
 

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 #141 on: 16/12/2013 12:36:39 »
Using such a definition everything becomes a equilibrium. There are parameters that change your 'universe', comparing your local clock to other frames of reference, but you are still in a equilibrium with the cosmos around you. Motion, energy and mass. And as it is a local approach to reality, presuming equivalence between all 'singular frames of reference' a Lorentz contraction can be understood as yet another relation changing due to those parameters. What defines your universe are local constants.
 

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 #142 on: 16/12/2013 12:39:11 »
And the universe you think of as a 'commonly same container' of us all will cease to exist. What's commonly same in this universe are constants, principles, properties, that we ultimately can refer to as existing locally defined in all points.
 

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 #143 on: 16/12/2013 12:48:36 »
But I will use 'c', and I will define 'c' as a constant through all types of motion, the same way I challenge you to show me how your clock experimentally can be proven to change its 'speed/ticks' locally measured.

You can't.

Only comparisons will infer such a notion. And that comparison builds on you, using your local clock :) Can you see what that implies? That you have no defined notion of a arrow what so ever, using that type of argument. If you apply your local definition on some other frame of reference. Then others can do the same with you, and hey, they won't agree on your 'time keeping', will they? So, what is a 'time keeping'?

Either it is non existent, in which case there are no 'repeatable experiments', or, it is locally defined, equivalent.
 

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 #144 on: 16/12/2013 12:55:57 »
There is a causality to cosmos. We define that causality through 'c'. That's what gives you the opportunity to do a Lorentz transformation, transforming my notion of a SpaceTime to yours.

'c'
 

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 #145 on: 16/12/2013 13:02:39 »
It's a ultimate game. You build it from 'nodes'. You give them common principles, constants, properties. You define limits of communication as 'c'. You, and here's what I don't know how to understand, have to find a way for the nodes to interact. That/those interaction(s) will then define dimensions, and 'degrees of freedom'.
 

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 #146 on: 16/12/2013 13:05:54 »
Entropy can also be seen as a mean of 'communication' I think. Transformations leading to some minimalistically equivalent state in all points, called 'heat'.
 

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 #147 on: 16/12/2013 13:12:00 »
But tell me one thing, can 'heat' exist in one singular frame of reference?

Can it?

I don't think so myself, 'heat' and 'temperatures' are interactions. Although, one could assume that there should be properties defining that interaction, existing in all frames of reference.
 

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 #148 on: 16/12/2013 13:20:49 »
And all that clever reasoning building on a presumed container model of a universe stops making sense. No use defining a loaf of bread, with 'time slices', 'proving' that all time is co existent.  Using my definition we come down to two things, a locally equivalent arrow to 'c', also equivalent for all points or 'nodes'. And then something where a arrow stops making sense, that's what 'co exist' to me, and you can use scales to see 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 #149 on: 16/12/2013 15:17:33 »
There is another alternative way to think of it, possibly? The 'commonly same container' we see is defined by Time dilations and Lorentz contractions. Apply the eye of a God on this, a thought up 'outside', and then define what allows communication, not meaning 'c' now, just a 'fabric' of sorts. What keeps it 'together'?

a very weird 'fabric' it must be. But we need something, allowing for lights propagation in a vacuum, communicating over frames of reference. That to us defines the 'dimensions' we find us to exist in.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #149 on: 16/12/2013 15:17:33 »

 

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