# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199751 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #250 on: 03/01/2014 12:45:50 »
When a oscillation falls into a 'low state', passing a 'peak', that's where we think a tunneling can take place.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #251 on: 03/01/2014 19:47:22 »
What is Time? a Arrow? Arrows? Oscillations?

Locally it is one single time keeper, equivalent to 'c'.
There is no confusion to that statement.

The confusion arrives when you treat this from a common universe, containing us all and all we measure.

So what is more right? The common universe one assume one self to exist in, shared with every-one and '-thing' else. Or the local definition of 'c'? I'll go with 'c'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #252 on: 03/01/2014 19:54:40 »
So what connects 'locality'?

We arrive to relativity in comparing frames of reference, using a local definition. We assume the physics of this 'universe' to be the same everywhere. Now, that is my definition of a 'locality' too. Is that to complicated :) I don't think so.

Then I assume this locality to be governed by relations, relative all other 'localities', that I then call 'points'. What I do not presume though is a 'container' of it. I define the 'dimensions' we define to be created from 'points' connecting and interacting. That means that it's our inability to pass whatever local constants, properties and principles we have equivalently, that will define a 'commonly shared universe'.
=

It give us a background of constants properties and principles, but it doesn't state from where they come. You might assume this to be a symmetry break though, which is what I do. And a temperature craves interactions between frames of reference. Radiation/matter.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2014 21:22:36 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #253 on: 03/01/2014 19:57:54 »
That way it is simple. Then we have all complementary effects. It's like we stand on one side of a mirror, to suddenly find us on the other side. Alice, that's me, and now you're in wonderland :)

Or maybe that was where you was, before reading me.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #254 on: 03/01/2014 20:02:19 »
No need to get stuck on time dilations, as long as we agree on that ones local definition of a arrow never change. The problem left is to define what a local arrow should mean. Can I scale a world down to one frame of reference? Not practically, and as I'm starting to suspect then, neither theoretically?

I really wish I could though..

As that would join relativity with our need of something 'tangible'. We like it that way, we've always had I think. And it's hard letting that one go.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #255 on: 03/01/2014 20:08:55 »
'c' is a 'local background', one point and all points, becoming local observers interacting over frames of reference, defining a universe and dimensions. A common local principle and constant, governing information.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #256 on: 03/01/2014 20:12:37 »
That's where we arrive at 'symmetry breaks' to me. Because when defining one singular frame of reference there is no outcomes, and that is a indifferentiated place I can't really describe, nothing happens 'locally' there so what would there be to describe? You need a symmetry breaking before we get to a arrow, and interactions.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #257 on: 03/01/2014 20:17:21 »
But, when assuming all points locally equivalently the same, impossible to differentiate from each other, any ideas of a distance lose its meaning. And as soon as you measure you introduce frames of reference.
=

Let me rephrase the last.
As soon as you measure you introduce 'frames of reference', and scaling.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2014 20:41:48 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #258 on: 03/01/2014 20:37:52 »
Expressed otherwise, introduce a observer and you must define a arrow, frames of reference, and 'distance'. Motion though? Let's see, that involves a distance doesn't it? And a arrow? And matter, or radiation? And then you can split distance with time to find displacements. We define a distance relative a clock, 'intuitively internal' or external, and then use displacements in a 'space', to define a motion. And motion is weird. Uniform motion ('relative' motion) versus constant uniform acceleration, relative non uniform, non constant, accelerations, all treated differently in relativity, and with right.

It's not that we can't agree on a 'space' existing, it's just that it is observer defined, as I see it 'locally defined'. In a way one could presume this 'background of locality' to also become some sort of 'frame of reference', possibly? Although I don't see how that would be provable, as there won't be any 'outcome', unless we introduce something more, interactions.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #259 on: 03/01/2014 20:47:21 »
Scaling becomes a distance too in my thoughts, and the only way we have to get close to what I think governs this universe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #260 on: 03/01/2014 20:53:44 »
But the unique thing with this distance is that it is as 'far', or 'near' to locality, everywhere. You can go wherever you want in this 'common universe' to measure. The distance is the same. Well, a little, but let's use 'test particles for it :) and define a flat space, we can use scaling for arriving to that one. 'gravity' and 'mass' redefines space, as does motion. But in a uniform motion, using a test particle in a 'flat space' your distance to that 'singular frame' scaling, should be the same everywhere.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #261 on: 03/01/2014 21:02:55 »
From such a point of view one also safely can assume all relative motion to be equivalent, even though we can prove different uniform motions existing, measuring and comparing over frames of reference. Because we define it locally, and locally it is equivalent. I really like that one as it solves a problem for me.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #262 on: 03/01/2014 21:13:15 »
It doesn't matter for this how you define your (uniformly moving) velocity relative incoming light, or other bodies. All uniform motion is locally equivalent although your relations relative other frames of reference can change. As you measuring a time dilation and a Lorenz contraction.

Although it makes our common perception of a universe into some sort of projection to me.
And that one is a headache.

But it makes it no worse than 'one dimensional' loops and strings do? Or as some geometrical definition, as relativity for one is described today, does it? :)

There's just a need of defining how it 'connects', joining into our defined 'dimensions'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #263 on: 03/01/2014 21:25:17 »
A symmetry break also fits the idea of a inflation (and expansion), and the way it seems to have been faster than light. I need it to be a symmetry break to fit my ideas I think.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #264 on: 03/01/2014 21:30:32 »
And I don't want a initial 'temperature' scaling down, temperature must disappear, locally defined as I see it. And that's the observer problem for me, all over again. The way we introduce frames of reference in all observations. We can't avoid it, not if we want to measure something.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #265 on: 03/01/2014 21:36:52 »
And yes, as I define constants properties and principles as 'preexisting' expressed though symmetry breaks, equivalent in all points, I think I'll do the same for 'gravity', for the moment that is :). A 'down welling' in each point, scaling it down.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #266 on: 03/01/2014 21:39:27 »
And now we come to another interesting aspect of it. 'c' disappear as you scale it down, using Plank scale, although 'time' still should be there as some 'property', not ticking though. What happens with gravity as you scale it down?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #267 on: 03/01/2014 21:47:44 »
Then again, think of a black hole. Then define that infinite mass inside a event horizon to some 'dimension less' point? Energy constricted? A broken symmetry, broken again? If I'm defining all points as equal, what would that make of this? I really do define them that way you know :) and they are, to all experimental definitions, locally equivalent.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #268 on: 03/01/2014 21:51:07 »
Then again, that's behind what we call a event horizon, is it not? A singularity, nothing able to go in, and come back, with information. The universe closing itself of? Something consisting of infinities?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #269 on: 03/01/2014 22:00:47 »
If we think of it from a geometry, that dimensionless point defined, should be a representation of all other points defining whatever mass there is, before a compression. And although that still is correct, from some distance outside the event horizon. As you close in to a event horizon, tidal forces and gravity will start to act on you, more than what you expect, if comparing it to its former mass as matter, acting on you. And passing your/the event horizon there should be no way back for you, as far as I get it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #270 on: 03/01/2014 22:11:25 »
I have no problems with 'dimension less' points though. Not from a definition in where you scaling down should see interactions change and ultimately, assuming it magically possible to define a (singular) frame in itself, disappear into properties, principles, and constants. Those are noting tangible, and they can only express themselves in interactions. And locally defined, if there is no way to find and define a distance, does it exist?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #271 on: 04/01/2014 00:58:29 »
I know, it sounds pretty weird, doesn't it? And yes, I'm not sure of all of this:) But it tickles my curiosity.
And no QM, and no 'forces' discussed for the most part either.

But I mention it, now and then. How should one define interactions without at least two frames of reference being involved? As well as the observer/detector, assuming a experiment? Although you can take away the observer/detector, presuming a natural interaction as a radioactive decay, it must continue anyway. That is statistics. And as I define interactions as 'frames of reference' interacting, each frame becomes a natural 'observer/detector' to me.

And 'one frame of reference' then?
Well, prove that one and I think we definitely passed QM:s limits, into ??
But on the other hand, using frames interacting I can't see how to pass two frames?
Well, I might be able to imaginatively but I don't see how to test it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #272 on: 04/01/2014 13:32:35 »
Another point with this idea of a black hole is the one in where it is a equilibrium that breaks down, creating that singularity. A geometric relation between a mass and a space, creating 'infinities'. So that 'infinite mass' created inside a event horizon is not related to how many kg:s you throw in, although we can speak of smaller and greater black holes from its outside. Break that relation microscopically and there will be a 'black hole' too, and passing that event horizon you won't get back.

In a one to one relation it seems possible speak about different infinities, but as you also must acknowledge the fact that any real infinity always will give you a one to one correspondence, no matter how you first defined them by 'size', you can't really prove that one experimentally, can you?

Let's use it on different black holes, of a different mass, initially.
What's important there?

'initially'. Initially we can say that the relation between matter and geometry will create different sized black holes. But from passing a event horizon they all are alike. Theoretically we can assume all sorts of things inside that event horizon, practically we will never know if we don't pass a event horizon to see.

So in a 'one to one' relation we have two things, our definition before defining two infinities, of different amounts. After the 'real infinity' is established though, they will be the exact same to all experimental approaches. Even if going inside a 'microscopic' black hole, it won't make a difference to your chances of returning. And counting one infinity relative another will never end, no matter how you define them initially.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #273 on: 04/01/2014 13:38:44 »
'Initially' here is what exist before the singularity is established. There we can labor with those concepts, using a 'one to one' definition. But any real infinity is countless, and for that your initial parameters won't matter. And a black hole is a nice practical definition of why.
=

Using numbers for defining different infinities you will find the same. Using that 'one to one' correspondence it doesn't matter what your initial definitions of them was. Neither of those infinities will end, you counting 'one to one'. If one would end, your initial parameters would be all wrong, as you now have a finite result for one.

Then they can't be infinities.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2014 13:46:40 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #274 on: 04/01/2014 13:52:47 »
People just love to get stuck on the first definition, and stop there :)
Calling those that take it to its logical end being 'wrong'.

But it's not. The most I can say about it is that depending on what 'system' you choose, you will get to a different definition.
=

Possibly exchange 'system' for frame of reference too. As I'm interested in local definitions.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2014 14:03:04 by yor_on »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #274 on: 04/01/2014 13:52:47 »