# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199450 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #225 on: 01/01/2014 15:00:39 »
Using the idea of describing a dimensionality from locality we find that describing something, inside a lattice for example, as behaving in a 'two dimensional' manner is perfectly acceptable. It is not acceptable from the idea of a universe consisting of three singular dimensions and a arrow though. That one is rather easy to disprove, as you then need this two dimensional 'system', described in/by your lattice to 'disappear' from some angle of observation. It's not logically acceptable, as it won't happen in any experiment. Or you will have to define that as there can be no 'lower dimensional systems' existing in a 'higher dimensional system' invalidating most of the physics we use, as strings and loops etc.
=

spelling sux.
Keep missing words :)
==

That was actually the way I thought of it first, as if the universe we saw was made out of 'whole 4-D representations' in each point, also described locally to fit my thoughts. But using 'degrees of freedom' I think I would prefer to move away from that one, instead defining it as 'connections' expressing interactions. Those 'connections/interactions (relations) creating' what dimensions we measure. And so this lattice can be allowed to be 'two dimensional' for all practical purposes, and possibly even theoretically, as there is nothing stopping any sort of 'dimensionality' that I can see, more than whatever constraints being imposed by constants, properties, principles etc.

Einstein did not use a geometrical approach, defining relativity. And assuming this type of description, he might have been closer to the truth than the geometrical approach is, although that one is much clearer for us laymen. All as I think of it, naturally, as well as understands it, that is :)
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 02:18:46 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #226 on: 01/01/2014 15:02:12 »
So, degrees of freedom :) a better approach.

I'm sure you will agree on that one.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #227 on: 01/01/2014 15:07:53 »
Because when you describe dimensionality from an idea of 'connections', locally defined, that means that your experiments (relations) must define your universe. And it also allows for different observers having different relations. So, dimensions falls away, and instead we will use 'degrees of freedom'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #228 on: 01/01/2014 15:10:21 »
But there is something more to such a definition, presuming a 'logical universe'. It must presume something being constant for all observers, giving them, and the universe, a coherence. What you see, and me, as we go out at night to look at the sky. 'Our' universe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #229 on: 01/01/2014 15:12:12 »
And that must be local constants, principles and properties. We share them, everywhere, and they are our background.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #230 on: 02/01/2014 02:15:45 »
Now, where does a property come from?
spin?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #231 on: 02/01/2014 09:49:06 »
If you're asking yourself that one, you also might want to wonder what a nucleons 'rest mass' is, and you either define it as a rest mass, ignoring any thought up intrinsic 'motions', or you invalidate the idea of rest mass, and so also the idea of ever being 'at rest' with anything. A electron for example uses 'orbitals', not 'orbits', and if you don't know what a orbital is a 'goggle' will tell you the difference. And why is a nucleons mass bigger than its parts, theoretically measured.

This one treats spin rather nicely, Electron spin doesn't really exist.

But it also want us to go to a Bohr model?

Maybe this one should be read first. Q: What is “spin” in particle physics? Why is it different from just ordinary rotation?

And a Bohr model, Magneton?

"The magnetic moment has a close connection with angular momentum called the gyromagnetic effect. This effect is expressed on a macroscopic scale in the Einstein-de Haas effect, or "rotation by magnetization," and its inverse, the Barnett effect, or "magnetization by rotation." In particular, when a magnetic moment is subject to a torque in a magnetic field that tends to align it with the applied magnetic field, the moment precesses (rotates about the axis of the applied field). This is a consequence of the angular momentum associated with the moment.

Viewing a magnetic dipole as a rotating charged sphere brings out the close connection between magnetic moment and angular momentum. Both the magnetic moment and the angular momentum increase with the rate of rotation of the sphere. The ratio of the two is called the gyromagnetic ratio, usually denoted by the symbol γ.

For a spinning charged solid with a uniform charge density to mass density ratio, the gyromagnetic ratio is equal to half the charge-to-mass ratio. This implies that a more massive assembly of charges spinning with the same angular momentum will have a proportionately weaker magnetic moment, compared to its lighter counterpart. Even though atomic particles cannot be accurately described as spinning charge distributions of uniform charge-to-mass ratio, this general trend can be observed in the atomic world, where the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of each type of particle is a constant: a small half-integer times the reduced Planck constant ħ. This is the basis for defining the magnetic moment units of Bohr magneton (assuming charge-to-mass ratio of the electron) and nuclear magneton (assuming charge-to-mass ratio of the proton)."

And a brief history of how this term has been used. Brief History of Bohr Magneton.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 10:19:18 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #232 on: 02/01/2014 10:39:09 »
It's always hard to set things into a proper perspective historically, but I found this one N. Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules”

But before that one you might want to read this commentary about Bohr and this same paper? Niels Bohr and complementarity. by Plotnitsky. A (2012)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #233 on: 02/01/2014 11:37:30 »
I'm arguing that you can't ignore the observation from the observed, and something similar seem to have been Einsteins take on it too.

"Einstein told Heisenberg that our concepts and theories decide what could be observed (Heisenberg 1971, p. 63). Einstein’s argument impressed Heisenberg and, in part, guided his work on the uncertainty relations. Einstein’s insight is crucial because it leads to a questioning of the uncritical use of the idea of observation, an idea that has been a subject of much discussion throughout the history and philosophy of science."

To me that practically means that as soon as you measure, you should consider your observations part of a larger system, defined by locality. It also means that you can't ignore your presumptions, for example a local clock and ruler. That does not presume them to be meaningless in any way, but it do mean that a pure 'local measurement' is not possible. And you can easily see why by considering that all measurements are done over 'frames of reference', now defining it from scales. You have the possibility of being 'at rest' macroscopically but that one is to me discuss-able microscopically, although correct from a macroscopic view.
==

I am of two minds, when it comes to being 'at rest' with something. The way I would try to join it is from decoherence. While you only find probabilities at a small scale, at a macroscopic scale you will find a classic predictability, and so I think of being 'at rest' with something for now. It has to be something similar to decoherence, at least to make sense to me.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 12:28:13 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #234 on: 02/01/2014 11:54:53 »
It also means that defining the reason why one find a rest mass of a nucleon to be larger than its 'parts', being 'energy or quarks and gluons' in 'relativistic motion' have no real meaning to me. There is no such thing as a relativistic motion there, just as atomic particles spin is no real spin.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #235 on: 02/01/2014 11:57:10 »
I prefer indeterminacy to 'virtual photons'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #236 on: 02/01/2014 12:33:44 »
What one can question using locality, is whether the classically definable spin (angular momentum) of a spinning top is more 'real' than the atomic spin? After all, the classical definition of a spin comes scale wise from probability. What I probably :) mean is that both has to be accepted on their 'face value'. They exist measurably, therefore they are here.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #237 on: 02/01/2014 12:36:26 »
It all comes back to measurements, doesn't it? And what meaning we put into their results.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #238 on: 02/01/2014 12:51:33 »
There are two ways to look at 'weak measurements', as I think of it then. You might be able to argue that by doing a lot of weak measurements of, for example, a 'photon path' you also gives 'it' a higher probability, by finding this 'path' to be the one most chosen. Or you can argue the opposite, that there are no paths, only positions in space and time, defined by locality. To do the later you need local constants, properties and principles.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #239 on: 02/01/2014 12:54:41 »
Without a 'locality' existing the later interpretation becomes a hard one to argue. Only if assuming this 'background', valid everywhere, can I argue that this is one reason why weak experiments seems as working hypothesis's.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #240 on: 02/01/2014 13:00:04 »
So time dilations exist, as soon as you can measure them, locally defined. There's no reason to assume that accelerations/decelerations is the culprit for this, in my eyes. More than you need to introduce them to get back to a origin, now ignoring the idea of some 'spherical universe'. And why I ignore that one should be obvious from the rest of my ideas.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #241 on: 02/01/2014 13:19:30 »
So what gives us a arrow?
Decoherence too?

Don't know. It's somewhat of a local property to me, that I call 'time'. But I do assume that we get to a arrow by this property interacting, finding relations, in a similar way that decoherence is thought to work from probabilities microscopically to predictabilities macroscopically.
=

You most definitely need to introduce scales, and so 'frames of reference' to see my reasoning here.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 13:22:57 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #242 on: 02/01/2014 14:25:43 »
Why accelerations and decelerations are assumed to be a reason for a 'real' twin experiments age difference, I foremost relate to the idea of 'dimensions' as a container, containing us, and everything else we can measure. It's that one that defined most of what we think is 'real', and also that one that makes people doubt relativity most. The idea of different observers observing different 'times', and not only that but also different 'universes'. It's a hard one to accept from a container model, if I may call it that. But as soon as you turn it around, defining observer dependencies from your local definition, then it makes sense. But you need those constants for it. and you need them to exist everywhere, locally the same (equivalent).
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 14:34:50 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #243 on: 02/01/2014 14:31:19 »
Either there is a rhythm to a universe, as defined by 'c', or the rhythm comes to be macroscopically. Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #244 on: 02/01/2014 14:41:37 »
And Einsteins ideas must still be valid, but you no longer need to look for where that 'tension', relativistic mass, should be able to be measured, using different uniform motions defining it. If it all is a question of relations then the relations creates it as needed, in a collision for example. Not unlike a computer model over objects colliding, presenting a kinetic energy, the programming defining how it will behave. The 'programming' here should be constants, properties and principles.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #245 on: 02/01/2014 14:46:39 »
What can 'bump' (collide) here is matter aka restmass. As far as I know, there is no experiment proving radiation able to 'bump' with radiation. Radiation, treated as waves, can reinforce and quench each other, but not 'bump' into each other.
=

But it interacts with matter (rest mass)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #246 on: 02/01/2014 16:44:09 »
"Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes."

Well, that's relativity isn't it? 'two interacting', and symmetry breaks.
Eh, and 'observer dependencies' :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #247 on: 03/01/2014 12:38:11 »

Assume that you need 'two frames of reference'  to get to a interaction. Well, now I think you've defined a 'clock'. A 'clock' is a relation between two states. The one that fires the 'emission' and the one that does not. Very simplified naturally, but that is what I like, I'll freely admit.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #248 on: 03/01/2014 12:42:02 »
All oscillations are 'clocks'. They 'tick' and they need to be observed to exist, do they not? Or can we assume a universe where they 'tick' even without observations? If we define a observation as one frame of reference interacting with another we get to a 'system' in where the frames confirm each others existence. Quite nice, and very meta physical.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #249 on: 03/01/2014 12:42:58 »
Before you laugh, define entanglements, and tunnelings.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #249 on: 03/01/2014 12:42:58 »