The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199519 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 #375 on: 10/01/2014 20:17:02 »
You can't stretch a vacuum. And you can't tell me you can compress it either. If I would to assume that a vacuum contain a energy, how do I prove it? The only thing I know of is the 'Casimir force'? And that one isn't that convincing to me as it contain combination of rest mass versus rest mass.

What is a vacuum?
 

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 #376 on: 10/01/2014 20:19:21 »
What you can do in a vacuum though, and prove, is to create a repeatable experiment. And that we all assume to be correct, anywhere.
 

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 #377 on: 10/01/2014 20:23:13 »
You have to look at it from 'frames of reference'. Would you say that a vacuum consist of one or several frames of reference? How would you then define it, if so? Using gravity? Gravity will disappear, scaling it down, isn't that a reasonable assumption? So what will you use, separating one patch from another?
 

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 #378 on: 10/01/2014 20:24:57 »
What I think I will agree on is that a vacuum contain the same constants, properties, and principles as rest mass.
 

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 #379 on: 10/01/2014 20:32:05 »
It's like the 'layer' unhidden, isn't it? Rest mass defines a vacuum. We measure a vacuum in distance, and as it exist all around, as well as inside, rest mass, it begets the same properties we define to a rest mass. Having three room dimensions with a complementary 'arrow', always locally defined.
 

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 #380 on: 10/01/2014 20:33:44 »
There is no measurable pressure either, to a vacuum.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #381 on: 10/01/2014 20:57:29 »
A field is only observer dependent when the observer chooses to influence it by physical means. No hocus pocus mystery unintended quantum consciousness influence.
 

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 #382 on: 10/01/2014 23:37:34 »
Depends, although I would define all fields as observer dependent Ethos. Two ways to define it that I know of, the one where we assume the 'eyes of a God' which is theoretical, not measuring. The other is by measurements and there they must be observer dependent. Create equivalent observer dependencies (all other equivalences included:) and you should get to a repeatable experiment. You have mass and motion defining your observations.
 

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 #383 on: 11/01/2014 14:22:39 »
A vacuum, does it exist? It has to, don't you agree?

From where does it exist?
From a 'inside' it does.

We have no other way of measuring it, than from this 'inside'. Geometry keeps giving us a definition of a inside versus a outside, doesn't it? And 'dimensions' are actually very similar in that they creates a container, containing four 'singular' dimensions, that somehow coagulates into a SpaceTime.

Forget that distinction for a while, exchange it for 'degrees of freedom' instead, and what experiments tells you.
 

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 #384 on: 11/01/2014 14:24:41 »
Treat it as a 'point like' universe, each point defining relations relative all other points. We finding dimensions in our inability to ever pass outside those points relations and interactions.
 

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 #385 on: 11/01/2014 14:27:04 »
It fits relativity. And it will work for strings and loops too as I expect. And you really becomes the 'center' of whatever universe you observe. Feels good, doesn't it :)
 

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 #386 on: 11/01/2014 14:31:13 »
But it gives another definition to a 'outside'. It does not specify it as one geometry relative another. The difference is subtle, but you have no 'anchor', more than yourself and what you measure relative yourself. There is no objective 'center' anymore, to anything. And that's one reason why I think one have to assume a frame of reference as being a 'observer'.
 

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 #387 on: 11/01/2014 14:34:14 »
If you want a 'center' to such a universe you need to scale it down. And it doesn't matter where you do it, you will reach that same 'center' from anywhere in the universe.
 

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 #388 on: 11/01/2014 14:42:28 »
You could call that 'objective' possibly? But I don't see how you would give it a SpaceTime position?
 

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 #389 on: 11/01/2014 14:45:21 »
How about this then?

Reality is defined by outcomes. No outcomes, no reality.
 

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 #390 on: 11/01/2014 14:46:28 »
So how can I ignore a arrow?
 

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 #391 on: 11/01/2014 14:50:17 »
Doesn't matter for this if we define super position and wave functions. You still measure outcomes, not wavefunctions, neither can you measure a superposition. You can draw a theoretical conclusion from circumstantial evidence, making you think of it this way. But using relations with you as a center, you, your experiment and your experimental outcome is one thing, not many superimposed upon this reality.
 

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 #392 on: 11/01/2014 14:56:42 »
And it allows a two slit experiment giving you a duality of light. As a particle or as a wave, depending on what relations you and your experiment set up. What it should not allow, is to prove both simultaneously, meaning at a same SpaceTime position (same 'instant'), in one experiment. And what defines that is a real local arrow, equivalent to c'.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2014 14:58:54 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 #393 on: 11/01/2014 15:04:53 »
Think of it, you need something 'stringing up' those outcomes, because they are stringed up from your local observations. Forget simultaneity for this one, it doesn't discuss it. Your particles, creating you, interact, don't they? How else will you read this?
 

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 #394 on: 11/01/2014 15:06:17 »
Simultaneity presumes a container universe.
 

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 #395 on: 11/01/2014 15:11:16 »
It becomes a meaningless definition from a strict locality. There WYSIWYG.

And accepting locality defining my definitions of a dimensionality, we need to look elsewhere for why we find dimensions. It does not make the concept meaningless though, dimensions exist and becomes our 'inside' in my thoughts too, but as a local relation to constants, properties and principles interacting, giving us outcomes from where we define 'c', and a arrow.
 

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 #396 on: 11/01/2014 15:15:14 »
So, what is 'reality'?
 

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 #397 on: 11/01/2014 15:19:39 »
A reality is a logic, explaining outcomes?
With outcomes explaining 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 #398 on: 11/01/2014 17:40:09 »
The problem with strings, and all 'moving' things, is that you need a clock (and ruler) for it. You can naturally define it from our normal definition which assumes a macroscopic observer using a local clock. From such a definition you always have a arrow to find a motion in. From a observer definition, using 'c' as equivalent to a arrow you still should meet a scale in where that motion blurs out though, and that is what we do. Strict locally though, no distance can exist and neither can a arrow. The alternative would be to assume that there are no stop to a distance, and a arrow. Split it as far as you like, there will always be a part left, to split further.

HUP do not agree on that one, relativity doesn't either.
How you define a string as having a distance or geometric form seems subtly wrong to me, although it presumably work from a observer definition, using that local clock and ruler. And naturally, the same goes for something vibrating. Indeterminism is not vibrations.
 

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 #399 on: 11/01/2014 17:46:28 »
If string theory insist on strings vibrating we must find that 'frames of reference' either is 'smaller' than strings, or that it is in a relation to a macroscopic observer using a local clock and ruler you define it, using a clock ticking better than Plank scale.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #399 on: 11/01/2014 17:46:28 »

 

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