The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199294 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 #25 on: 03/10/2013 09:14:46 »
If you stay inside four defined 'degrees of freedom' for all things moving, three spatial, one temporal. Then you will find Lorentz contractions and time dilations, measuring between frames of reference. That should mean that my measurements won't be yours, even though we ideally can define something to be in a same frame of reference, or, 'at rest'. But those distortions do not create a homogeneous field to my eyes, defining a commonly same universe for us all.
 

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 #26 on: 03/10/2013 09:18:37 »
Against it you have those local proofs for it being possible to share a same arrow. That seems to me as a expression of something homogeneous, that smallest common nominator.
 

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 #27 on: 03/10/2013 09:29:43 »
We grow physics from some assumptions, one being how we define something to be 'globally, commonly for us all' true experimentally, by being able to repeat a same experiment, somewhere else getting the 'same answer'. A 'repeatable experiment'. Where is that repeatable experiment in a world where you microscopically find Lorentz contractions and time dilations? Then a repeatable experiment becomes a generalization of a ideal, instead of a 'objective' experimental fact, does it not?

Doesn't the assumption of repeatable experiments build on a idea of there being smallest common nominators 'objectively and globally' existing?
 

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 #28 on: 03/10/2013 09:38:10 »
You could imagine a universe consisting of 'excitations', as something becoming 'real' for us inside it. You can also translate a arrow into the ordered way those excitations change coordinate system. Doing so the arrow we perceive stops to exist to me :) with the excitations order becoming another type of arrow, hiding behind what we measure.
=

Or, and this one is quite weird, you could assume that what each one of us observe is wholly unique, able to relate to some common smallest nominator that globally gives us a universe, although always locally defined. that one also fits the facts, because whatever you measure, as a distance related to some 'speed', must be true locally, no matter how some other frame of reference, also locally measuring, want to define it. Because that is what a measurement is.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2013 09:44:16 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 #29 on: 03/10/2013 09:56:18 »
In the last type of universe a distance and motion are highly questionable. What exist in such a one is measurements, over frames of reference, that being no guarantee of a 'commonly shared universe' we find us to exist in. and what such a thinking would do 'dimensions' and 'degrees of freedom'? It turns it upside down for me.
 

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 #30 on: 03/10/2013 09:59:17 »
What would be a 'field' in such a universe can only be what we locally find to be the exact same, as joining the same frame of reference. And there we have, what? A same arrow? What would you define such a minimized frame to contain?
 

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 #31 on: 10/10/2013 00:48:49 »
The field in such a universe must have two principles at least, or? I'm thinking one relating to each 'local point' describing rules for it. Those rules should in my imagination :) be equivalent to/for all other points observed. Then you need something joining points to points ('c'). and then I think you need to introduce other parameters that we can observe from 'c' interacting with motion and mass(energy). those last ones may be emergences though :) But I do think one would need something explaining why one point can find and measure on another point, giving us a universe. As I said, this one is pretty weird, and also possible to join to an idea of everything being excitations, although not giving those to become a 'arrow of time'.
 

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 #32 on: 10/10/2013 01:04:16 »
You can, if defining it such as all 'frames of reference' are the same, equivalent, containing the exact same 'principles' or rules in some point like manner. Then you still need what connects them 'c'. then you need mass(energy) and relative (uniform) motion as well as accelerations as the definers of time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But it would be a pretty weird idea using the idea of 'dimensions', as each locally observed universe, if treated as a four dimensional continuum, must differ? What would that give each one of us, at different speeds and mass, measuring? Different universes, or the same?

Myself I would like to have a way of expressing it where time dilations and Lorentz contractions spring forward as 'emergences' coming from a more unified presentation, and to get to such an idea I think one has to look at what are equivalent for all frames of reference. and that should then become what a 'field' is :) well hopefully. And using that universe dimensions also becomes a emergence I suspect, as well as '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 #33 on: 10/10/2013 01:18:05 »
Think of it as a layer for example, a sheet. in it you introduce excitations, and some rules of how those excitations communicate with each other. Each point unique, and equivalent to any other point. What defines each points uniqueness are the measurements made. Either you can define it as all points measure on all other points constantly, interacting. Or you introduce consciousness under a arrow as the definer of what a measurement is. Myself I prefer the first one, as it seems simpler, and also allows those points a independent 'reality'. If you go by consciousness alone, then the only proof you have is your own mind. For all that you know you might imagine all other consciousnesses, as well as the universe you measure on. So the first one makes more sense to me.
=

A sheet is a very poor representation of what I'm thinking of, because now I defined something, either two dimensional, or one dimensional. But that's not what I'm aiming for. I'm aiming for a 'point like' universe in this one, in where degrees of freedom and dimensions are emergences allowing us the ability to make measurements.

But I still want to keep a common arrow, equivalent to all points, in this universe.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 01:24:38 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 #34 on: 10/10/2013 01:38:47 »
What you can say for any, biological or 'dead matter', system of mass is that if it consist of Lorentz contractions and time dilations. Then those either are to 'small' to disturb, or they do not matter at all (no pun intended). If they doesn't matter you need to ask yourself how that can be. In a 'point like' universe they are emergences, in a four dimensional continuum they should have to be too small. In a 'point like universe' it's the principle joining points, 'c', that creates it.
=

Alternatively you could argue that as they are complementary (observer dependent), defining all points as 'constantly measuring' on all other, they take each other out leaving a equilibrium on some non-defined 'ideal plane'. But that will introduce a universe of ideal principles, defining the local representations we have.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 12:20:09 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 #35 on: 10/10/2013 11:13:42 »
To see where I differ. Dimensions and degrees of freedom both presumes a common universe, using basic rules, same for all, defined through containment 'inside' this universe. If you instead define it such as what is 'real' should be what defines a universe then this conclusion becomes slightly distorted. What is 'real' in this universe are your measurements. When yours fit mine we might define this as a proof of a same universe, but using time dilation and Lorentz contractions we find that there is a plausible doubt over ours experiments truly being equivalent.

The other point is that the universe you measure on, will be the one you live in and are defined by. The experiments answer and measurements are what will define your outcomes. This doesn't state that there isn't a equivalence existing. It only states that practically it will be very hard to prove that equivalence down to slightest details, presuming complementary time dilations and Lorentz contractions existing. Assuming that experiments are locally defined and measured, presenting you with the closest approximation of your reality, but not exactly equivalent to a other local measurement, will give you a universe in where we do share common principles, with a twist.

In such a thinking the universe we observe is a emergence, defined locally. It needs something joining points creating the illusion, or local reality if one like. and there we have lights speed in a vacuum. That is what joins the information I get from other points to mine. It's not lights speed that is important there, it's the principle involved instead, the idea of information.
 

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 #36 on: 10/10/2013 11:24:50 »
You could call lights speed in a vacuum a basic rule for how points communicate, it's a limit defining it. And dimensions, our common four dimensional universe, stops covering this idea, as it to me presumes a container of sorts, us measuring from inside. Instead we find local points, sharing a way to communicate, a universe emerging from the communication as locally defined. It does not state how those points are organized from some global perspective, it will not involve degrees of freedom as defining some common container, and dimensions stop to make sense.

It's the same universe though, just turning it around.
 

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 #37 on: 10/10/2013 11:31:50 »
Using 'c' you can link that to your life span. then 'c' is your local clock. It ticks from your birth to your demise, presenting you a even reliable duration of 'ticktocks'. that gives the arrow a strictly local definition. Although we all share it, it once again is important to point out that this does not give us that commonly same universe, we normally associate with us agreeing on some principle. You have to differ between common principles, ideal definitions of equivalence, and the 'reality' you measure 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 #38 on: 10/10/2013 11:39:27 »
I'm slightly allergic to 'projections', as defining the universe becoming one. A projection uses dimensions to me, creating new ones, holding new degrees of freedom (ways to move) arising from the 'illusion/projection' created, to us being inside it. If there isn't dimensions then? What does the 'projection' rest on?

but we have common principles, the local arrow and 'c' merging into one expression, equivalent to all of us.
 

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 #39 on: 10/10/2013 11:47:47 »
That's why the arrow of time is a basic principle, equivalent to 'c', and also a strict local definition, only 'true' locally measured and ideally defined. As you move from a 'ideal' local measurement to measuring over frames of reference you introduce time dilations and Lorentz contractions. And practically, all measurements must be over frames of reference. You can't measure 'locally', you can only define some ideal. As superimposing something (identical), ideally sharing a same 'frame of reference'. But it exists and it is what I would call one 'local point'.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 11:56:16 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 #40 on: 10/10/2013 12:01:09 »
If you think of a field from such a reasoning, then the field should be those principles that equivalently holds true for all local points, painting up your local definition of a universe, communicating through '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 #41 on: 10/10/2013 12:08:51 »
And those principles we have common does not have the limitations we define inside our 'common universe', They are not dependent on distances, and although we found 'c' measuring displacements over time, the principle itself has nothing to do with that sort of definition, at least not to me. It's a much deeper connection to me, defining communication between points, not stating how it communicates, although we have our definition, defined from an idea of dimensions.
 

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 #42 on: 10/10/2013 12:44:45 »
It's very hard disconnecting consciousness from a universe. Either you define it as 'everything measures on everything', then the universe get a independent reality from consciousness. Or you define it as without consciousness, there can be no measurements. The later opens for interpretations of your reality, in where consciousness is the redeemer of that reality. But if we can agree on that there must be principles, or rules, defining the universe you see, we already have moved away from consciousness. and there a adjacent question becomes what those principles states, another way to consciousness, or not? Consciousness is easy to define if we use the limitations of a arrow to define it with, and doing so we also move consciousness to a question of 'free will' is what defines it, as it seems to me. Because living under a 'linear arrow', being conscious, we also have a opportunity to choose.

The principles defining local points though, do they choose? Take interference, Feynman's description, if I remember it right, of how a ultimate (quantum logic) answer becomes, through quenching and reinforcing. Would that be a choice, or is it just some 'cosmic principle'. If the answer to a identical question always becomes the same, is there a 'free will' involved?
 

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 #43 on: 10/10/2013 14:15:55 »
There is the argument that there are no choice, everything being predestined. Against that you can set the difference between a 'quantum answer' always being the same (as a presumption), relative ones ability to make a 'wrong choice'. If the universe is defined by some answers being more correct than others then those choices you make may not be the correct ones, the perfect answers as it may be. That is what free will implies, the possibility of me making a mistake, presuming there is a better answer, although you can imagine a universe under arrow with no answer being 'ultimate', or all being it, depending on circumstances. Quantum logic on the other hand presumes that one optimal answer must exist as I read it, as in the idea of a quantum computer. So there we find a definition in where there is one correct answer to any well defined question.

Assuming predestination, meaning that it won't matter what choice I make, be it bad or good, as there is no other choice than the one I made, no matter how I think of free will, it still exist a difference in that the quantum computer 'must' present me with the 'perfect answer' to any well defined question, whereas my own answer might be quite far from it, comparing. So, do you think there are principles defining a universe? Do you think there can be several of different credibility, 'ultimate answers', to a well defined question?

I don't think so. I think principles exist, and that it is those defining our universe. And that's also one reason to question predestination as an idea.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 15:11:08 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 #44 on: 10/10/2013 14:33:24 »
You can keep predestination, although in a limited sense though. Imagine a universe defined by outcomes, all possible outcomes, depending on choices, all together in a 'timeless block universe'. That universe would then be representation of all choices possible, timelessly together. It allows for 'free will' to take any route it want through that universe, defining it using a arrow. Under a arrow it should be able redefine what we see, at the same time as it would allow predestination as being some non-measurable, ultimate, 'reality'.
=

That one still demands principles existing though, and those other, not realized, possibilities in my universe, depending on my choice, can then either be presumed to exist in alternative universes, or you are free to define it such as it is what you measure that exist, leaving those unrealized possibilities be as they do not exist after my choice becoming a outcome.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 15:12:50 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 #45 on: 13/10/2013 16:05:15 »
Dimensions contra degrees of freedom. Damned if I know how to define this. We live in a four dimensional SpaceTime, right. We use parameters defining where you are, relative some agreed on grid. The grid consist of the degrees of freedom something can have. Physically (not strictly mathematically now) a test particle should be defined by three degrees of freedom spatially and one temporal. Meaning your position in the room as well as the time. To that there might be other parameters you can add, as 'energy' 'spin' etc, but for a point particle that you want to place the first four should be enough.

Then we have Phasespace.

"In mathematics and physics, a phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. For mechanical systems, the phase space usually consists of all possible values of position and momentum variables....

In a phase space, every degree of freedom or parameter of the system is represented as an axis of a multidimensional space; a one-dimensional system is called a phase line, while a two-dimensional system is called a phase plane. For every possible state of the system, or allowed combination of values of the system's parameters, a point is included in the multidimensional space. The system's evolving state over time traces a path (a phase space trajectory for the system) through the high-dimensional space. The phase space trajectory represents the set of states compatible with starting from one particular initial condition, located in the full phase space that represents the set of states compatible with starting from any initial condition.

As a whole, the phase diagram represents all that the system can be, and its shape can easily elucidate qualities of the system that might not be obvious otherwise. A phase space may contain a great many dimensions. For instance, a gas containing many molecules may require a separate dimension for each particle's x, y and z positions and momenta as well as any number of other properties." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

Mathematically it becomes even weirder. A circle can mathematically be defined as having three degrees of freedom, its radius being one, and two center coordinates. A angle has four degrees of freedom, two coordinates of its vertex and the slopes of its rays.

So what is it? What is a dimension, and what is a degree of freedom? I like degrees of freedom, and naively i would define those as the possible ways something can move in a dimensional system, from an idea of physics. We better take a look at dimensions too.

"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.

Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line).

A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude).

The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_%28mathematics_and_physics%29

One might find dimensions easier to comprehend, as a description of the universe you can 'touch'. But I find degrees of freedom better. And why is just because I'm questioning what it means.
 

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 #46 on: 13/10/2013 16:23:11 »
But both build on a ideal as I see it, the assumption that there is a global definition of a 'space', from where you can lift out parameters defining somethings position. If you split the definition into two parts, you get to a similar but yet different resolution.

What I measure locally, relative what you measure locally. Where we agree on local measurements we ultimately define repeatable experiments. But measuring over frames of reference, introducing mass energy and motion we will not agree.

Either you find this to be the universe adapting to your local parameters, as your mass, relative 'speed' etc etc, or you don't? Although, there is very little logic in me assuming that my futile,and very finite adjustments of a speed, would be able to contract a whole universe, to me.

But if you define it as a commonly same SpaceTime, that's exactly what you do.
 

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 #47 on: 13/10/2013 17:00:58 »
The universe as a illusion.

Well, if it is, it's still very real to me, measuring, and to you too, isn't it? :) The problem is twofold, at the very least. There is a universe locally measured, you exist in it as I exist, we both agree on that from our local measurements. We can communicate. At the same time as my very real universe, isn't the exact same as yours. What would you need to question to make it fit?

If you want to make a time dilation into a illusion you need to do the same with a Lorenz contraction. They must be complementary. If you as me define it such as 'c' and your local arrow is equivalent as a clock, then I don't see how to avoid finding time dilations and Lorentz contractions existing, being as real as measurably can be.
 

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 #48 on: 13/10/2013 17:12:47 »
You could try to define 'c' as a variable, but that's not what experiments tell us. Questioning motion, as well as distances, or you could ask yourself if there is some other way to define how a universe comes to be behold, in local measurements. If there is a way for communication to define dimensions, and 'degrees of freedom'. There is a difference between a illusion and a emergence I think, in that a emergence is measurable, a illusion should be able to be proven false.
 

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 #49 on: 13/10/2013 17:26:07 »
And now we come back to degrees of freedom. Isn't it those that will define dimensions? Take a point, give it parameters. Let some parameters define a room geometry, giving us distances, a arrow, as well as speeds. Then take a parameter defining a limit, as 'c'. Either define it as one point, making all points :) or fall back on the idea of some 'plane' or 'strings'. It's the one with one point making all points that I don't find the words for, because we don't have either words, or a logic, for it that I know.  But if you look at what parameters you would need for a point, being the exact equivalent to any other, then use communication to define a dimensionality the question seems to become how many points do you need? It's a pretty weird idea :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #49 on: 13/10/2013 17:26:07 »

 

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