The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199941 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1275 on: 18/10/2014 18:43:03 »
To do this, keeping symmetries and opposites in this universe, you need another way to look at light 'propagating'. Somewhat alike a field, but not as in a 'container model', but as a field lighted up from locality, and that one sound phreakingly mysterious :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1276 on: 18/10/2014 18:45:27 »
You look out, and you see. Every observer does that. If we now define a observer as something able to interact, then the interaction consist of observing.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1277 on: 18/10/2014 18:47:36 »
It's action and reaction, in Newtonian terms, and also what normally is described as 'locality'. That something reacts, and the reaction spreads out, interacting with other observers.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1278 on: 18/10/2014 18:49:22 »
In my universe this must be what create dimensions. Give us our boundaries. but it has local properties.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1279 on: 18/10/2014 18:50:19 »
And those properties are also what I think of as the 'discreteness' we want to find.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1280 on: 18/10/2014 18:51:08 »
and 'constants'
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1281 on: 18/10/2014 19:01:32 »
So, defining it this way there is no thing as 'infinite'. From where would you be able to define something as 'infinite' in such a universe? Upheld through locality, and causality? You would need that 'absolute frame' that won't exist in it. This universe will fit your nail, or it is several times bigger than it is, or it... To me it's created dynamically through 'c', which is your arrow, locally defined. Causality will keep it definable for us. But all of those rules are local properties.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1282 on: 18/10/2014 19:07:28 »
It is 'infinite' in that you won't be able to define a boundary though. But the real point here is that 'infinity' is our idea, and we use it to differ from something 'finite'. We grew up in a world where we easily could define between what was finite and what was not, at least we could do the former if not the last.  It's a symmetry too :) and I do believe in symmetries. But they don't always come out as one expect.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1283 on: 18/10/2014 19:14:12 »
I would like light to be one way. 'c'.
We need sources and sinks, that's causality. But there are different ways to reach it. If a propagating photon also can be described as a local disturbance in a 'field' then those two ideas are not logically incompatible. You can keep that field, and you can also call it a propagation, even if there is nothing propagating more than a local arrow.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1284 on: 18/10/2014 19:16:56 »
'c' becoming like a wave on a 'surface', the field becoming what it is immersed in. and there are still several ways to define that 'propagation'. Because what it is, broken down to its constituents, are displacements under a arrow.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1285 on: 18/10/2014 19:17:44 »
Can you see that arrow? Always local, and a property.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1286 on: 18/10/2014 19:21:33 »
Doesn't matter, I think? How one would like to define that arrow. As a result from frames of reference interacting, or as a 'local constant'. I prefer the last one myself. the reason is simple, A arrow as a local property starts itself. How would interactions start a arrow, without a arrow already present for those interactions, starting it :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1287 on: 18/10/2014 19:22:45 »
But I define it as a property, not as something 'touchable', but so we define all constants.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1288 on: 18/10/2014 19:34:41 »
Because whatever 'points' we want to define as discrete need those properties. I doubt they need to be 'material' in some way. But they still need to be definable, just as we can define light as a particle, and a wave.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1289 on: 18/10/2014 19:42:34 »
But, defining a arrow my way it's no longer 'moving', it's a local property. what makes it 'move' is interaction between frames of reference. Or you might want to think of it as having its own 'local dimension' in where it takes you with it, to your death. But it's no longer 'c' 'propagating', at least not solely 'c' 'propagating. Because 'c' and this arrow is equivalent to me. It's a clock, and measuring it interacting with other frames of reference, it will tick differently, locally it always have a same beat though.
=

Locality has one beat, not several. Superimpose light, join within a same frame of reference, one beat. Will be consistent for all positions in time and space. and it works as a definition, if you define it locally.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 20:10:18 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1290 on: 18/10/2014 20:16:33 »
Otherwise you would be forced to define light as a variable, with its equivalent clock, still observer defined when comparing between frames of reference though. And that one is a real headache. Because you would now on one hand presume absolute frames to exist, on the other still keep observer dependencies as we know that 'motion' change a clock, as does mass. It's not logically consistent to me.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 20:18:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1291 on: 18/10/2014 20:54:46 »
You need it be placed between frames of reference defining it my way, time dilation and Lorentz contractions. The problem is how to define that. Either you use motion and mass as local variables imposing on the local beat, or you need a new way to define what is a relation, if you as me want all local beats to be equivalent. I don't know how to define that one more than as a SpaceTime distortion of some sort, presenting us with a twin experiment giving different biological aging. Possibly I can keep a equivalent local beat the first way, using SpaceTime geometry to define light finding different paths locally with motion and mass. But I have a feeling :) that it's weirder than that, or maybe it isn't?

Because you could use light that way, if you define it as a clock, also involve different  geometries, depending on mass, relative motion, accelerations, locally as well as observer dependent. As if we then would be as 'bubbles' in that glass. That would keep the clock as a constant equivalent to 'c'. But I'm not happy with it.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1292 on: 18/10/2014 20:56:23 »
And you can still define dimensions as coming to be through local properties connecting. Maybe tomorrow I will know what I want there :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1293 on: 18/10/2014 21:00:26 »
Maybe it's me still stuck on this old idea of a universe? A container model as I call it. Locally defined the universe would consist of motion and mass, imposing on your local beat, as well as the distance you define between points.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1294 on: 18/10/2014 21:03:32 »
But it would be geometry then, and geometry need dimensions, or it will be relations between points that then define dimensions. the first would be close to a container model, the last one avoids it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1295 on: 18/10/2014 21:14:51 »
defining it locally both 'c' and your time becomes properties, and 'constants'. Those can then be manipulated relative mass motion and ? Defined locally you don't move if so, it's the universe that does it, imposing itself on the local beat. So what would such a reasoning make of a gravitational acceleration? heh.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1296 on: 19/10/2014 08:00:41 »
I'm not happy at all now :)

1. decoherence
2. mass
3. motion (all types)

I will avoid the vacuum because that one is pretty complicated to me, as it presume this container model existing, of some sort. If someone could prove that a vacuum can exist without 'energy' as 'virtual particles' or indeterminacy I would be much obliged. That would simplify it, I think? Or maybe just complicate it :)

The point is that one doesn't have to change anything to find this 'beat' I'm referring to. One can keep the idea of mass and motion locally redefining your clock, and so get to a twin experiment. The beat being 'c', in a wider perspective becoming causality, the problem is that I want to find some other way to define it.

I don't want light to solely 'propagate', which also can be connected to a 'container model'. Neither do I want pre-existing dimensions, for much the same reason. I want causality building it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1297 on: 19/10/2014 08:09:14 »
And yes, the idea of 'energy' is deeply connected to mass, motion, and a vacuum. Then again, assuming that you can build a universe through causality, including a vacuum in it to define distances, degrees of freedom, and dimensions, this vacuum becomes a inseparable part of a universe. Can't avoid it, can I :) But when thinking of Lorentz/Fitzgerald contractions, real and observer dependent, how do one think of that 'field' there? You can't use a global definition of a container model there, it won't fit. You can use local descriptions though, each one unique to the local observer, causality connecting them through 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1298 on: 19/10/2014 08:14:51 »
Why I want a vacuum to be able to exist even without 'energy' defining it is simple. Then it becomes a opposite and a symmetry for me. the other way, assuming a vacuum to be 'energy', not able to exist without it is a lot more confusing as we have inflation and expansion to consider, injecting 'new energy' from nowhere, or 'somewhere', inside or outside a universe. the alternative might be that the universe gets diluted 'energy wise' as it expands. And that one will be a snakes nest.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1299 on: 19/10/2014 08:16:25 »
All of the last is a snakes nest to me, as it both involves this 'container idea', as well as giving no understanding to what makes a inflation.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1299 on: 19/10/2014 08:16:25 »

 

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