The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201223 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1300 on: 19/10/2014 08:18:46 »
Without a vacuum demanding to be equilibrated with energy, it gets back to being 'nothing', no cost involved.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1301 on: 19/10/2014 08:20:57 »
But then light won't propagate inside it, even though we define it that way, because you do not have a medium any longer.
=

Instead you have a beat, and causality defining the observable part of this infinite universe.
« Last Edit: 19/10/2014 08:22:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1302 on: 19/10/2014 08:24:08 »
Think about it and see what you can make of it :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1303 on: 23/10/2014 18:21:42 »
Okay, then the other way. A vacuum consisting of 'something', whether you want to call that virtual particles, indeterminism (my choice), or 'energy'. Doesn't really matter as a start.

Read Why are loaded fridges difficult to budge? Because empty space impedes them. for one idea on it.
What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? for another

Neither of those are what I think about, although if it now was the way I like to wonder then my ideas need to involve the ideas described above.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1304 on: 23/10/2014 18:24:22 »
I would like the vacuum to be 'gone' :) myself, well ideally so. I would prefer it as a symmetry to matter, or 'rest mass'. It's the relation creating a universe, and it need both. You need a vacuum to get to this macroscopic universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1305 on: 23/10/2014 18:31:05 »
What it goes back to, for me, is the question if it is correct to think of this universe as a 'container', or not. Actually it should be a duality if I was correct, meaning that it is possible to describe it both ways. After all, we already have a standard theory, using all sorts of descriptions, color forces, gluons and quarks, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules creating taste and matter. And it works.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1306 on: 23/10/2014 18:36:29 »
Because most of what physics do today, is treating room time as something pre existing, although 'plastic' according to relativity. I like another approach in where a 'SpaceTime' is a local construct, as real as can be, joined through causality and constants into a universe. That allow relativity to be perfectly consistent, without needing to refer it other 'dimensions', as some final 'super container' describing a universe through the 'eyes of a God'. Because that's another assumption you make referring to something that will 'join' relativity and quantum mechanics. And there is one more thing, seems as if people still believe that should be a finiteness ultimately.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1307 on: 23/10/2014 18:44:44 »
And no, it's not that general relativity would be wrong. It's a 'container description' of how the 'energy' is distributed inside a universe. you might call it a description of levers and cogs, balancing a universe. Everything is a description, even 'atoms'. And 'electrons', no matter if you have 'photo graphical evidence' as from Lund university, of a electron 'orbiting'. It's a weird universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1308 on: 23/10/2014 18:48:29 »
Einstein saw a 'container' of sorts, his reaction on the question of 'action on a distance' tells me that he did. Without a container model there is nothing forbidding it more than causality and constants. He also seem to have been somewhat agnostic if I read him right, as me too I suspect :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1309 on: 23/10/2014 18:51:01 »
It's hard not to be agnostic, considering the weirdness we meet. On the other hand it's really, really, hard believing in us humans as being some sort of 'crown of the universe'. Don't think many do that any more, too much evidence to the contrary.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1310 on: 23/10/2014 18:54:39 »
Get rid of the 'container', define it locally and use constants and causality to define the universe. Causality is the only containment you need, with constants. And causality is about relations to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1311 on: 23/10/2014 19:02:05 »
If you define the universe as a sheet, consisting of 'pixels', then you only need some simple rules defining 'change' to create dimensions as I expect. That doesn't guarantee that it must be a discrete universe, it's just easier to describe it that way. If distances wasn't observer dependent according to relativity you would be perfectly correct in finding me dreaming away here, but they are, observer dependent.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1312 on: 23/10/2014 19:03:46 »
and what defines those distances are the anchors consisting of constants, motion, acceleration, and rest mass we (locally) use.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1313 on: 23/10/2014 19:06:54 »
In there a relative motion is experimentally inseparable from being still, locally defined. When using comparisons inside a expected 'container universe' we do see differences though. Now, what do you think is correct there? One or the other, or both?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1314 on: 23/10/2014 19:08:14 »
actually most physics, and especially astronomy, seem to ignore the first. They happily go on defining the 'container universe', but always locally measured.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1315 on: 23/10/2014 19:13:12 »
And 'change' as such is not about lights 'propagation' in my universe :) It's just change creating it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1316 on: 23/10/2014 19:28:39 »
Think of it as a super position, then introduce a 'ground beat', locally equivalent for all SpaceTime positions, that beat also becomes a local arrow and a limit called 'c'. Through the local beat you will get outcomes. With a 'relation' defining your comparison between your local, versus, some other SpaceTime position. Somehow the vacuum, now ideally consisting of a 'nothing at all' not even indeterminism, come into play here. It's very weird idea, as it assume a vacuum to not be existent, but it fits your local reality in where a distance can be shrunk, not to a nothing, but very close to it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1317 on: 23/10/2014 19:31:24 »
Imagine yourself 'moving' uniformly, extremely fast relative the rest of your universe. Will the light bulb in your room have an extra energy? due to the motion you define outside that 'black room' looking at the rest of the universe?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1318 on: 23/10/2014 19:35:16 »
What about the local arrow, will you now become immortal? due to that uniform motion putting you infinitely close to 'c'. and what about the universe you see, will it age faster? and what about the distances you measure in the direction of your relative motion, versus the universe? Should it shrink?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1319 on: 23/10/2014 19:37:43 »
and that motion is still equivalent to no motion at all, locally defined. And locally defined experiments are what we use, for everything, all hypotheses, all theory's.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1320 on: 23/10/2014 19:42:25 »
Doesn't matter if you call them 'repeatable', they are still locally made, although now assumably 'equivalently made'. But they create the physics you use.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1321 on: 23/10/2014 19:50:16 »
But we see a universe, where we all exist together, and so we need Einsteins stress energy tensor. to define it. Or, we see the demands of causality, which probably is closer to the way I think of it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1322 on: 23/10/2014 20:00:56 »
One of the major problems I've had looking at physics is finding out what it builds from. and I don't mean its history here, although I think that is much more important than what one generally might assume. To me it builds on locality, with a presumption of a physical 'container universe', of one sort or another. The 'container' is an old, old, thing, and although its descriptions may have changed it still becomes a presumption to me, one from where you describe the universe.
=

It's not that there isn't a 'container', it's just that that one to me is about relations, causality, constants and possibly 'properties'. Properties are magic :) Or maybe not, they are at least 'intrinsic' to whatever you measure.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2014 20:09:14 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1323 on: 23/10/2014 20:11:37 »
Would you call 'energy' a property?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1324 on: 14/11/2014 14:38:39 »
Now this is a pretty weird idea, and I'm not sure. Think of light as a 'field', changing observer dependently, meaning that we need the 'observer' for it to exist, as well as what we define as a arrow (equivalent to 'c'). Assume that what we find to be dimensions all need mass. Mass cannot reach 'c'. Just writing it down because I just might want to remember it.
=

In this case I'm using the definition in where mass is 'rest mass' btw. Also :) as I don't want light to 'propagate' so, let's make it static, for this.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 14:43:07 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1324 on: 14/11/2014 14:38:39 »

 

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