# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199486 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 #350 on: 09/01/2014 14:32:15 »
And then the fractal becomes you.

#### 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 #351 on: 09/01/2014 14:34:36 »
Don't like that one. I prefer one in where we can explain things, both as a pattern and from an idea of a 'linear' arrow including interactions. And I would prefer everything to be able to 'observe', as in interact, with or without me.

#### 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 #352 on: 09/01/2014 14:36:39 »
The difference being that patterns really evolve in the later approach. You have something with a direction defined by its evolving.

#### 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 #353 on: 09/01/2014 14:41:39 »
In the first approach this becomes a illusion. You being the definer of a arrow there, and that makes it truly irritating to me :) It's not what I call a happily accessible definition, more of a mystical one. Everything can be a illusion naturally, from both definitions, but evolving seems to be a aspect this universe needs, and if it needs it then I won't accept it as a illusion. Everything evolves inside this arrow, you and me too.

#### 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 #354 on: 09/01/2014 14:46:42 »
And we do it individually, we have patterns defining differences even though we can track them genetically to 'origins'.

#### 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 #355 on: 09/01/2014 14:48:18 »
So from some undefined idea of simplicity, to complexity.
=

Assume that there is a fractal describing it all. Then that fractal evolves, using a arrow. More interactions coming to be, with indeterminacy and probability (statistics) defining rules, and to that add relativity and constants, properties, and so principles .
« Last Edit: 09/01/2014 14:53:17 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 #356 on: 09/01/2014 15:04:20 »
A fractal is a pattern evolving in time, coming from simplicity into complexity. It fits the way I look at it. Even if assuming those fractals to be locally defined it doesn't state that there can't be a equation, able to describe them all. It should be possible.

#### 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 #357 on: 09/01/2014 15:13:24 »
And I prefer mathematics before entropy for describing it. Entropy is more of a theory of temperatures to me. Fractals is just a way to describe something mathematically. A temperature is a relation between frames of reference. Fractals is just a pattern, evolving, when using a arrow.

#### 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 #358 on: 09/01/2014 15:19:43 »
Now think of the ability of tracking all seven billions of humans to some common origin. That is one fractal to me, you individually another, nested into the first. You belong to this fractal of origin too, but you're a individual.

#### 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 #359 on: 09/01/2014 15:29:36 »
To get from a fractal, to interactions, we need to assume that it 'laid out' on a sheet, have a way of allowing interactions between all points representing its pattern. How does it do that? It uses a locally defined arrow, equivalent to 'c'.

#### 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 #360 on: 09/01/2014 15:31:24 »
Defined this way the fractal change itself, constantly updating the pattern, using all points representing it. That's a non linear description.

#### 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 #361 on: 09/01/2014 15:37:13 »
We can't use a fractal as being one point, just as we can't describe the universe just using one frame of reference, as I see it. A fractal need something to start to 'move', to get frames of reference interacting. And that either is properties, constants and principles without a origin, although becoming a 'background' of sorts. Or you can define it at some linear process, needing 'opposites' from its very origin, frames of reference interacting inside a already existent arrow. Then again, according to my definitions, as soon as you have 'opposites' (frames of reference) you should have a arrow.

#### 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 #362 on: 09/01/2014 15:40:45 »
The description becomes non linear in that it should be impossible to define all points, as its pattern evolves in 'real local time'. Although if taken 'instant by instant' it becomes 'countable', not really though, just using that 'eye of a God' defining it now.

#### 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 #363 on: 10/01/2014 18:43:37 »
It's strange isn't it, that I reach such different conclusions. Not accepting dimensions for example, although we all know they exist each time we open a box :) Blame that on 'c', Einstein and relativity. You might say that strings and loops look at it in a similar manner though? See, if I'm right in that dimensions is a wrong concept then a lot of the definitions used becomes wrong too. And the reasons why Einstein never could find a mathematical way to describe this fifth dimension he thought to carry the four we observe becomes more understandable. He went out from a universe making sense, even though 'c' was there. And he went out from an idea of a universe 'containing us', so looking at the universe he found, time dilations and Lorentz contractions, he needed a construct in where there was no need to Lorentz transform anything.

I just run the opposite direction with his concept, assuming that we already had a universe without time dilations and Lorentz contractions :)

That's the 'strictly local' point of view. Problem with it is that it doesn't in-cooperate a clock, and there is no ruler to it.  The clock and ruler comes into existence, interacting with other frames of reference. You could call it 'time less' if you like. But it's not where you are, is it? So Einstein was right, still is, one hundred years later.

We measure relative clock and a ruler. We define both locally idealized. To do it we must assume them to exist, even though we can't measure it. Any other way, and you have no more repeatable experiments.

#### 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 #364 on: 10/01/2014 18:50:43 »
Time-less isn't the best way to put it though, as I differ between time as a property, and a 'arrow'. A arrow is what you meet interacting with frames of reference, time is what locality already has, a property of sorts, like spin, to me. What more is that in my eyes 'gravity' becomes a property too, idealized into one (local:) 'spherical point' of rest mass for example.

all property's, together with using your local arrow as equivalent to 'c'.

#### 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 #365 on: 10/01/2014 19:00:53 »
So what would a symmetry break be? I would say it is all we can measure. We measure this symmetry break in a arrow. Scaling it down we find it to transform, into something time-less, locally defined. That's not what a observer, usually does though. He goes out from frames of reference, finding a local clock and ruler to measure in. That's not, what I define as being 'locality'.

Looking at it my way the symmetry still exist, our universe more of a projection on it, than anything uniquely existing by itself. Now, if it would be this way, would that make us 'unreal?

Define reality.

#### 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 #366 on: 10/01/2014 19:06:24 »
Outcomes?

'c'

oscillation?

'a spring'

a geometry?

degrees of freedom?

dimensions

time

arrows

consciousness?

please define what a reality need, I'm really interested in 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 #367 on: 10/01/2014 19:20:06 »
Using my idea of a fractal, on a sheet, representing points interacting and updating this fractal behavior constantly it becomes a very non linear description very fast, assuming a arrow. And you definitely need a arrow, as well as frames of reference, for it. The 'sheet' it rest on are those 'local' constants and properties, giving us those repeatable experiments we define science and physics from. Without them we don't have a measurable logic. But we have one.

So reality needs logic?
Does it?

#### 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 #368 on: 10/01/2014 19:21:35 »
this logic, does it remind you of something? A 'system' maybe? Something defined by your limits? Are the universe then a 'system' too

#### 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 #369 on: 10/01/2014 19:23:41 »
If it is, and I think it has a reasonable similarity to one, then degrees of freedom are so much more appropriate describing it, than any idea of dimensions.

#### 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 #370 on: 10/01/2014 19:29:20 »
Four degrees of measurable freedom is what we have, 'time' 'length' 'width' 'height'. And 'plastic' from a containing description. Our very own fish bowl. I don't think it is a fish bowl at all. On the other tentacle, described from a inside it is. And it makes us 'exist', crazy isn't it :)

#### 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 #371 on: 10/01/2014 19:58:57 »
To describe a universe, following different constants etc we then need to define how we would describe them, separated from ours. There is no arrow at the scale I'm thinking of, and so no distance, and so no 'dimensions'. Or how, if I would define this universe as 'point like' as that follows perfectly reasonable from this definition, I should be able to define how other 'point like' universes can exist, separated? Then again, looking at it that way, you also might have a possibility of allowing something 'super imposed' on our reality. Defined by other properties than ours.

although I can't define a outside to it as I don't find anything describing a outside, more than the way locality itself seem to exist, as some 'dimension less point'.

#### 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 #372 on: 10/01/2014 20:03:50 »
From a container idea you can, but the universe does not act as a container, what defines it to us are the limits of 'c', and 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 #373 on: 10/01/2014 20:10:08 »
A reality like ours though, definitely need a linear logic. And we got 'c', and that local arrow defining it, don't we? What more do we need? Distances, which mean a space, defined from? a vacuum? Or 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 #374 on: 10/01/2014 20:13:15 »
If I allow relations to build 'dimensions' I definitely need rest mass. And I use it to define the dimensions we see. But a vacuum becomes trickier to define.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #374 on: 10/01/2014 20:13:15 »