# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 188646 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #300 on: 04/01/2014 18:14:27 »
From a point of it being relations that defines a universe, its connective tissue being 'c', I just don't know? I mean, I'm discussing it as a projection, am I not :) That one you can transform into a plane if you like. Just one layer, updated at 'c'. From QM then? I don't know there either.

Is 'bits' really necessary for QM?
Why?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #301 on: 04/01/2014 18:23:52 »
What would it mean to the definition of a wave function, if that was a function of frames of reference, interacting for example? No discrete bits any longer, just relations.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #302 on: 04/01/2014 18:34:34 »
I don't find my ideas that complicated, they use a presumption that is 'c', and its equivalent clock/arrow. But 'frames of reference' is filled with traps, depending on how you want to define them. From relativity you need two frames of reference to describe it, and it works perfectly well, experimentally too. From QM:s point of view we find a need for discreteness, bits, but I'm not sure this really mean you can't use frames of reference there, the way relativity demands it?

The key to it is the question if there is a possibility proving a singular frame of reference, existing on its own. Do that and you have 'discrete bits'. I started my wondering from that approach, but with the realization that one singular frame of reference becoming a impossibility, describing it relativistically?

Although, 'locality' do use one singular frame of reference, I can't isolate it physically. I can idealize it, using some dimension less test particle in a flat space, but that one is so close to the way I think of constants, properties and principles, isn't it? As a 'background' of sorts.

Maybe the question should be if we need to prove it physically?
If it is right that it belongs to the 'intangibles'?

Circumstantial evidence my dear Holmes :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #303 on: 04/01/2014 18:55:44 »
My type of locality does not exclude things, far away, as I think of it. It though demands 'meaningful information' to obey 'c', but it does not forbid entanglements. Entanglements can be explained through your scaling it down. But I expect it to forbid startreck 'beaming' of matter as that becomes a macroscopic question, involving a lot of interconnected relations, wave functions etc.

It has a intangible 'center' to it, a singular frame, that I really would like to prove scale wise. That one defines it, 'c', and a arrow.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #304 on: 04/01/2014 18:57:38 »
Even if assuming two frames necessary, I still have a choice of what frame I use as my clock and ruler.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #305 on: 04/01/2014 20:57:53 »
Then there is that other possibility I might define :)
far fetched?

The one in where a oscillation at its very least must demand two frames of reference interacting, to exist, or 'states' if you like. But, on the other tentacle, in a universe demanding 'opposites' to exist for a interaction, is that really far fetched? What this one does to me, is to define it as there is no way of imagining anything, being a singular 'frame of reference'.

Don't know what to make of it really. In a way very close to scaling something, in the same manner we can imagine us to magnify something, hoping to find some final discrete 'bits', creating what we see. But it is interesting, for me that is :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #306 on: 05/01/2014 19:47:23 »
A time dilation is best described by a light clock.

John D Norton does a truly tremendous work of explaining it to us in a understandable manner. What his (or Einsteins) 'light clock' builds on is a presumption of 'c' being 'c', as locally defined, in a two way experiment done from any uniformly moving object, as Earth, assuming a 'flat space' for the light path to propagate in. That means that you need to ignore gravity for it.

It's called Special relativity (SR) and was also a ground for GR, together with introducing how gravity and a uniform constant accelerations, could be defined as locally equivalent. (the equivalence principle) One G in a rocket giving you the same experience as one G on the ground.

Light Clocks are Slowed by Motion.

It all builds on 'c', as far as I'm concerned :) Which also is why you need to demolish that concept before introduce some other theory describing light paths 'speed' and redefine the equivalence principle. But it does not stop you from questioning a propagation, as long as you find a way to transform the speed into? A rhythm for example.

I wrote 'redefine' the equivalence principle, because I don't see how you can invalidate GR. It's too well tested, and that taken to a logical conclusion, actually state that you need 'c' to be 'c', for GR. SR has also been tested and validated, tried to be falsified, several times. I won't write uncountable as it's just so much we can do to test it, but it's been well validated. And this concept of 'c' builds to GR, as I see it. Just think of the effect  it would have if variable lights paths existed in a defined gravity. As 'photons' of a specific 'energy, so having a equivalence to 'mass'.

The elevator experiment for example where you make a pin hole and find incoming light to 'bend', due to your elevator accelerating at a constant uniform velocity. If you now had a equivalent 'energy/mass' of all photons passing that pin hole, but giving light a variable speed, would you find a spreading out of those 'curved light paths', or would it be defined to one 'curved path'? Exchange 'energy' for equivalent mass, and think of yourself throwing stones at different speeds through that hole.
=

And spelling spelling spelllingggg.
Never look twice at what you wrote, beginners mistake that :)

« Last Edit: 05/01/2014 23:28:21 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #307 on: 05/01/2014 20:11:15 »
What locality does to a light clock is to define a arrow as something locally of a same 'magnitude', as described from some ideal local 'frame of reference'. And it presumes that this is true everywhere, meaning that it won't matter where you go, your wrist watch will tick as always, and you will find yourself aging, relative it, the same way as on Earth. In reality we have gravitational time dilations to consider too, as well as your motion relative, for example, very distant 'fixed stars', or possibly measured relative CBR (cosmic background radiation).

You should be able to define the particles holding you together as being 'at rest' with each other in a uniform motion, but if we introduce accelerations/decelerations then this is not correct anymore. As a acceleration 'wanders' through your body, particle by particle, as I think much in the same way as a very long rigid rod can be described as transmitting the force of you moving it at the speed of sound.
=

You should be able to exchange acceleration for 'gravity'.
Doing so we have to take a new look at the mass of particles making you up. They too are related to gravity. And thats how I come to think of it as a 'down welling' of 'gravity', in each, perfectly evenly distributed, perfectly spherical :) 'particle' of mass, ahem ::)) Also a idealized concept.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2014 21:06:28 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #308 on: 05/01/2014 20:22:33 »
And it is this 'frame of reference' I'm interested in. Because assuming that relativity is about two frames of reference, yours local, relative something measured over a distance. It actually defines one frame of reference as 'existing', and that one is your local clock and ruler. QM does much the same in assuming that we can magnify and scale down, and possibly to some smallest discrete bit creating us and a universe.

Then I just use this idealized local 'clock and ruler', and define a universe from it. That becomes a very local definition, in where mine won't be yours. So we get to 'multi verses' here and now. But only if using a model of something containing us and everything we measure. I let the container go, instead using constants properties and principles. Then I define them the same way I defined that clock and ruler, strict locally, valid everywhere you can 'go'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #309 on: 05/01/2014 20:32:37 »
So what about a relativistic mass in such a scenario? Everything locally defined being equivalent in uniform motions, no matter where you are? Well, you can as easily ask me, what about time dilations then? True or untrue?? That depends on how you define it. From a local definition everything you measure should be true, presuming that we can do a repeatable experiment on it. Because it also builds on repeatable experiments being the way to go. And repeatable experiments assume that it won't matter where I do them, as long as I have equivalent situations regarding mass gravity etc etc. The one defining it as the universe is the same everywhere we can go to measure something, and tell.

And that is constants, properties and principles being the same everywhere.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #310 on: 05/01/2014 20:36:09 »
Take that away and you have no repeatable experiments any longer. I can call it a fluke, you getting one, or several. There are 'hidden variables' you just don't know about. So, which one do you prefer? 'Hidden variables' or a universe acting the same, from the same constants properties and principles everywhere, not caring for your SpaceTime position?
=

A he*' of a difference here, isn't it?
'way' relative 'away' :) Dangerous stuff, spelling..
« Last Edit: 05/01/2014 20:55:44 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #311 on: 05/01/2014 20:37:07 »
The right question should be, which one is simpler.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #312 on: 05/01/2014 23:09:10 »
I hope you looked at the light clock John had made. One mistake, easily made, is to assume that, as the moving light clock only is a relation to a increasing distance, it has to be a optical illusion. Imagine yourself counting the far away 'light clocks' ticks, watching it turn around to come back to you. To make this into a illusion you now will have to assume that you, and someone at rest with that light clock, will agree on the exact same amount of 'ticks'.

From a local definition of every tick being the same, anywhere in a universe, as locally measured that can't be true, can it? Because, using that definition we find that Johns 'inertial frames' clock going twice as fast, as the moving light clock does.

But, the local definition I gave you, where your life span, relative your wrist watch 'ticks' never change, has to be true.
Imagine it not to be.

Then you would need to find 'time' to slow down for you, wouldn't you? How do you expect this 'slow motion' to express itself? As in a slow motion picture? forks taking a minute to fall to the floor?

Or you have to assume that you by moving relative the 'inertial' frame must meet some 'time dilated' space, slowing everything in it, thoughts, movements, etc? In where that 'slow motion' only can be observed by the far away 'inertial observer'.

Well, that sounds plausible until you realize that you by just defining a few more 'inertial observers', being at different velocities, find that they all will define your 'moving light clock' to tick differently. So now you've defined several 'time dilated' spaces, for one and the same space, right? By that meaning all measuring 'ticks' from a same 'moving light clock'.

A time dilation is a relation between frames of reference. A twin experiment is a uniform motion combined with a acceleration. The last to leave that 'inertial' origin of yours (as a Earth), to then get back (deceleration is a mirror to a acceleration, inertia there at both times, or 'gravity').

So it doesn't really matter for defining this relation, a time dilation must exist in all motions, as long as we have two frames of reference, your 'local' clock and ruler, relative some other frame of reference. And it builds on that all 'light clocks' have one 'speed', locally measured, no matter what velocity you may define to a uniform motion (or acceleration). But it also becomes a question of how to define that 'local frame', especially if I want it to cover both accelerations and uniform motion. But all of those falls under 'motion', as defined relative a observers local clock and ruler.

'c'

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #313 on: 06/01/2014 02:27:45 »
Oscillations are weird, they are used for string theory and QM, as well as for classical physics.

"Oscillation is the repetitive variation, typically in time, of some measure about a central value (often a point of equilibrium) or between two or more different states. Familiar examples include a swinging pendulum and AC power. The term vibration is sometimes used more narrowly to mean a mechanical oscillation but is sometimes used as a synonym of "oscillation". Oscillations occur not only in mechanical systems but also in biological systems, from human society to the brain."

A spring is often used to depict it. A simple harmonic oscillator is "a mass attached to a linear spring, subject to only weight and tension."

"The harmonic oscillator and the systems it models have a single degree of freedom.

More complicated systems have more degrees of freedom, for example two masses and three springs (each mass being attached to fixed points and to each other). In such cases, the behavior of each variable influences that of the others. This leads to a coupling of the oscillations of the individual degrees of freedom. For example, two pendulum clocks (of identical frequency) mounted on a common wall will tend to synchronise." This one also belongs to chaos mathematics, the non linear kind.

And then, from my slightly twisted view :) what does it depict? One frame interacting with itself? Observed by me? Or two frames of reference interacting, observed by me?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #314 on: 06/01/2014 02:35:43 »
As I define a 'observer' as anything measurable, interacting with something else. Does a spring interact with itself?`Well, I think it does? How do you want to define it? One 'frame of reference' representing that oscillating spring, able to present several 'states' locally, or as it being possible that each thought up 'state' of this representing a frame of reference? Or as there being, let's say, two frames of reference interacting, with or without me observing, creating this oscillation?

Because that is a presumption of mine, the moon will still be there, even as I look away.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #315 on: 06/01/2014 02:57:11 »
I could define it from Planck scale possibly? Proposing that a 'frame of reference', defined my way then, is one Planck length in one Planck time. Which then would make that spring into as many frames as there would be 'Planck steps', if I may call it that to shorten it. That would also need to define complementary Lorentz contractions at a same scale. Also, there is no way to measure such a thing, HUP combined with our instruments inability of 'sharpness' takes care of that, long before we even get close. And HUP gives every measurement a innate fuzziness, does it not? That's also what 'weak measurements' are though to make able to handle, presuming 'identical experiments'. That definition is tricky from relativity, as time waits for no one.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #316 on: 06/01/2014 03:06:48 »
Although it makes slightly more sense from an assumption that it doesn't matter where you are, you should be able to make a 'repeatable experiment' anywhere in the universe, from where you can communicate. It's not really the same, is it? A repeatable experiment is something identical, that you imaginary can freeze in time, each instant identical. A 'weak experiment' makes a wider definition of it, assuming that you by doing them at, for example, different positions also can prove a 'light path'? Not really the same..

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #317 on: 06/01/2014 03:18:35 »
I don't really believe in 'weak experiments', at least not normally, although there might be exceptions where they could make some sense. I do believe in the concept of 'repeatable experiments' though, proving that this universe is 'isotropic and homogeneous', equivalent in all directions, sort of.
=

Using locality you get to a exact same definition, always defined locally though.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2014 03:21:03 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #318 on: 06/01/2014 20:05:37 »
A vacuum is so weird.

Think of it, does a vacuum have dimensions? How about compressing it then :) Will you meet a resistance somewhere? We define dimensions from matter, having three dimensions, existing in a vacuum, following a arrow. Particles as atoms are mostly a vacuum too.

We find matter all around us, isotropically and homogeneously spread through the universe.
=

To see it remember that I find 'a universe' from equivalent connections and relations, defined locally.
And you can also ask yourself if you would have a problem 'decompressing' this compressed vacuum, in space, meaning a perfect vacuum. Will you now meet a resistance, as you just keep on 'decompressing' it, in space.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2014 20:09:04 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #319 on: 06/01/2014 20:12:40 »
Let's play some more with the vacuum. Assume yourself to be of two dimensions, and everything else you can see also being of two dimensions. Does the vacuum we have need to be changed for this? Or make it one dimension. Think this vacuum will do fine for that too.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #320 on: 06/01/2014 20:14:18 »
So, how many dimensions do you relate to a perfect vacuum?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #321 on: 06/01/2014 20:17:57 »
See why I like degrees of freedom? The ways something can 'move'. How many degrees of freedom do we find inside our universe? 1, 2, 3, 4, right? A two dimensional lattice is ok to me from a definition of locality, a four dimensional SpaceTime is also okay from a container model. It all depends on how you define it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #322 on: 06/01/2014 20:24:21 »
But there is a important difference, the idea of dimensions are 'global' descriptions to me. The idea of 'degrees of freedom' are always local descriptions. It goes out from what you observe, relative a local clock and ruler. Although now we are discussing how things seem to 'move', not what time we measure.
=

And so a observation of two dimensional interactions in a lattice becomes acceptable to me. It's about degrees of freedom, not about what 'dimensions' you expect this to happen in.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2014 20:28:47 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #323 on: 06/01/2014 20:32:00 »
I'll make a slightly disturbed jump now and propose a vacuum as 'non dimensional/one dimensional/two dimensional/three dimensional/four dimensional" up to whatever you can prove by experiments. In fact, I won't define anything there, but I think I would like to use a vacuum as a layer.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11692
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #324 on: 06/01/2014 20:42:50 »
Because that is how I think of a inflation, before we get to three dimensional matter. It's a layer, a sheet, a plane. Its 'degrees of freedom' is in a plane. Crazy stuff :)

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #324 on: 06/01/2014 20:42:50 »