The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201483 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 #325 on: 07/01/2014 11:57:56 »
Ever wondered why you can't tell which spin you will measure on a entanglement? Mostly it is presented as it either is a 'hidden variable', or as QM demands it to be this way, just using probabilities which in this case is 50% up and 50% down. The next thing should be to wonder what is 'entangled', right? Everything, now and here? Or at a inflation/Big Bang, then disappearing when things start to bump? Or each bump representing some sort of 'new' entanglement?
 

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 #326 on: 07/01/2014 12:20:32 »
If you define things bumping into each other as observers of each other then? Does that change the relationship? And what is a entanglement? Then time, again :) In my eyes time is a local property, a arrow locally equivalent to 'c'. Local connections and relations defining what 'dimensionality' you will find, and so 'universe'. The arrow may be able to be scaled down into a 'standstill', but 'time' must be there for this idea to make sense. I do not believe that you can get to change by stipulating that 'change is the origin of change'. That's a circular argument leading nowhere.
 

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 #327 on: 07/01/2014 12:29:22 »
So I have two ways of treating arrows 'standing still'. One is describing it over frames of reference, classical Einstein. The other is a local description, assuming that as you scale something down you also home in on what defines this 'locality'. And I can use a sheet this way too, layer, plane whatever. Which ever one you prefer, it doesn't matter.

But if I can get a arrow to disappear, and I assume it will, locally defined, totally ignoring the 'observer question' for this. Then all ideas we use to define this dimensionality also disappear. Distance disappear, and without a distance, where is a displacement?
« Last Edit: 09/01/2014 14:19:07 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 #328 on: 07/01/2014 12:32:41 »
Same goes for dimensions. I don't need to define what a vacuum is. In fact I can define it any way I like. It's our experiments that define the degrees of freedom something have.
 

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 #329 on: 07/01/2014 12:34:02 »
So what would a entanglement be from this point of view?
 

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 #330 on: 07/01/2014 12:36:33 »
The observer question have no place in a strict defined locality. As soon as you want to describe something the observer is there naturally. But for this one you must ignore it. A strict local definition has no observer in it. Without a arrow, how do you observe?
 

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 #331 on: 07/01/2014 12:39:54 »
people ignore this one, string theory too. All assume observers, string 'vibrate' etc. All of this presumes the possibility of observing something. Can you see why I think indeterminacy is a better description than virtual particles, taking this view?
 

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 #332 on: 07/01/2014 12:51:49 »
You can also consider my idea of 'Planck steps' as way of defining 'discrete bits', equivalent 'everywhere'. Everywhere as the whole idea of 'commonly same universe defined by dimensions' disappear down there. There is no defined dimensionality for this universe, or, there is :) Defined then by what constants, properties and principles resting inside each 'point', we locally find, measuring over frames of reference. But what exist scaling down would then be something 'equivalent' and without a 'arrow' as I think.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2014 12:58:09 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 #333 on: 07/01/2014 12:56:39 »
But we need a property creating frames of reference. 'c' describes it, and also defines meaningful communication. But to me there must be another way, possibly also being 'c'. And that one stymies me. Because that demands me to define why 'c' is 'c'. But there has to be a way, if we want a logic that's not circular. One way might be symmetries though?
 

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 #334 on: 07/01/2014 13:06:51 »
So, think of constants etc, as a 'background'. That 'background' contain entanglements, 'c' and whatever constants you are able to define as a 'origin', not resting on 'c'. Which ones would that be? Or you can take another approach to it and use all 'constants' you expect necessary, ignoring which might 'come first' from an idea of a arrow..
 

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 #335 on: 07/01/2014 13:12:58 »
Looked at it from a process of scaling it down 'c' is a local arrow disappearing. So taken as a 'constant', that 'constant' merge with something locally indescribable in my thoughts, although we have quantum computing etc. But Quantum computing is observer dependent, it assumes a 'outcome', and the outcome demands frames of reference, interacting.
 

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 #336 on: 07/01/2014 13:15:42 »
Frames of reference interacting demands a arrow.
 

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 #337 on: 09/01/2014 12:47:59 »
So what about a time asymmetry in my thought up universe then? In my definition you should be able to get it both ways. You have 'time' as a property, and you should be able to see that express itself, even when measuring over frames of reference. The observer always have his local clock to measure by, but as we all know some weird things do happen as you scale down, using quantum mechanics. A time asymmetry is just the way we find a arrow to always keep one direction, into the 'future' as it might be. And that one should, in my mind, relate to the idea of decoherence. My reasons being expecting interactions to disappear as you scale something down, until you meet a state in where no interactions are observable, assuming perfect measurements/instruments. And I go by measurements as far as possible. I think I can argue it otherwise too, for example using a definition of any interaction craving 'observers' interacting, but it also puts a lot of expectation on us macroscopically measuring, as we then represent that local 'clock' by which we find something to interact.

Either you can think it to be 'patterns/sheets', 'moved' by 'c', according to us measuring. That's to my eyes a 'God given' view of in, not unlike the one we normally use, thinking of this universe. Or you use a strict local definition in where nothing 'moves', unless we introduce frames of reference.
 

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 #338 on: 09/01/2014 13:01:33 »
I think you can simplify the idea of a observer, as being one local 'frame of reference'. The whole idea of a frame of reference builds on a locally usable clock and ruler, but always as related to another frame of reference. Defined strict locally though, that clock is non-existent, only coming to exist measuring over frames of reference interacting. And that's time dilations, Lorentz contractions and relativity.
 

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 #339 on: 09/01/2014 13:04:12 »
Expressed another way. The 'clock' is interactions, oscillations. What makes our 'common universe tick'.
 

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 #340 on: 09/01/2014 13:07:34 »
But it assume constants, properties and principles existing as a 'origin'. And it assumes those to be existent even when a clock stops 'ticking'. The 'direction' of your local clock is then defined by 'c', and to get to a distance you need a asymmetrical definition, although you after defining that 'speed' theoretically may define it as working both directions.
 

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 #341 on: 09/01/2014 13:09:33 »
You could possibly describe it as something constantly evolving from simplicity into complexity?
=

Assuming a 'heat bath' this one is questionable though, then again if I think of it as a fractal behavior? I don't know.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2014 13:13:48 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 #342 on: 09/01/2014 13:16:50 »
Why I like the idea of a fractal is because I think you can in cooperate 'arrows' in it. As a figure evolving on your 'flat screen'. And the figure being a local representation defined by 'c', as measured by you.
 

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 #343 on: 09/01/2014 13:31:30 »
Expressed another way. You being the observer of frames of reference interacting in a oscillation are actually the observer of a fractal evolving, in 'time or a arrow', as defined by you locally. But the figure evolving does not need you to interact, assuming all frames being 'observers'. Or if you like :) You are the 'clock', defining this figure evolving.
 

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 #344 on: 09/01/2014 13:36:53 »
Now use a sheet, place that fractal on it, and see it rush into a future.
Or, evolve.
 

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 #345 on: 09/01/2014 14:03:29 »
You could either think of it as one fractal, representing a universe, or as fractals interacting, as it seems to me. It's new territory to me this one, and it depends on if I use the 'eye of a God', or define it locally. One way to test such an idea might then be, assuming a 'eye of a God' being possible, to define how several fractal, locally defined, behaviors merge into one 'commonly same' fractal behavior. Alternatively this assumption is wrong, (but I don't think it is, now at least:) and you can ignore it for a definition in where you define this evolving pattern as a strict local, defined by your clock and ruler.

But as we can agree on a universe there should be a possibility of describing it mathematically as one thing, 'evolving'.
 

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 #346 on: 09/01/2014 14:06:17 »
What I mean using a fractal is that locally, 'inside it', the arrow becomes a pattern evolving, like rings on the water. Although as defined by you, observing it, having a defined arrow, a past, a 'now', and a future.
=

You might consider yourself the stone, thrown into the pond, measuring rings. Although that is a weak comparison, as it assumes you having a arrow in where to move. On the other tentacle, you have, don't you?
« Last Edit: 09/01/2014 14:12:03 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 #347 on: 09/01/2014 14:24:16 »
But it's nice anyway as you need the stone to define the rings here. No stone, no rings.
 

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 #348 on: 09/01/2014 14:27:53 »
And that is also the 'observer problem'. I like to define interactions as possible because they all represent 'observers', observing each other. But you could, if you like, define it such as without consciousness there can be no observers. We need consciousness to 'observe'. Why I don't like that definition is because we then need to define what a consciousness should be, and how it can exist at all, if a arrow needs it. We can agree on that we need 'outcomes' to define a past, a 'now' and a future though.
 

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 #349 on: 09/01/2014 14:30:54 »
Using a definition in where consciousness needs to be there as a catalyst, you also need to assume something 'timelessly' existing, put into 'motion' by you observing.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #349 on: 09/01/2014 14:30:54 »

 

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