The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201341 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 #400 on: 11/01/2014 17:55:18 »
A tension though, does it need to 'vibrate'? Something that vibrates normally have a interaction, as molecules and atoms. If you want to define strings as being over Planck scale then? Well? That would give me my 'theoretical Plank threshold' wouldn't it. But I will not define that as some building blocks you fit together, instead i think I'll let them be as points on a sheet, each one defining the others, locally. And then take the sheet away as it only is a prop, helping me describe it :)
 

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 #401 on: 12/01/2014 14:36:57 »
I started this some years ago, as I started to wonder what a 'frame of reference' really mean. That lead me to scales and Planck scale. Because I'm not discussing 'at rest' here, well, depending on definitions and scale then, not yet at least. And I assume Plank scale to mean something physically meaningful here.

"Experimental observations on the wavelength distribution of the energy emitted by a black body as a function of temperature were at variance with the predictions of classical physics. Planck was able to deduce the relationship between the ener gy and the frequency of radiation. In a paper published in 1900, he announced his derivation of the relationship: this was based on the revolutionary idea that the energy emitted by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta. The energy for a resonator of frequency v is hv where h is a universal constant, now called Planck's constant."

"What is a Planck length?  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. The physical significance of the Planck length is an argumentative topic of research. Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is currently no way of probing this length scale directly"

I don't expect us to be able to measure at that scale, ever. According to how I look at it measurements shouldn't be possible at this scale. Then again, maybe this is wrong. Maybe we can pass it? Doesn't really matter actually. Frames of reference then 'move' down to some even more 'fundamental' scale.

It has a relevance no matter how you define that scale.
 

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 #402 on: 12/01/2014 14:38:49 »
Why would a wave universe be limited to discrete magnitudes of quanta?
 

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 #403 on: 12/01/2014 14:47:45 »
Would you say that there is a limit to the differentiation of waves we expect to exist, in radio transmissions for example. Does the universe limit the waves we observe? Should we think of this the same way we use Fourier transformations? http://www.dspguide.com/ch8/1.htm Analogue to digital, and then back?

Using that we then define this universe as having less information than being possible from a analogue definition. Bits do not contain the same information. That's why you can 'compress' the old 'LP' into something more compact, a MP3.
 

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 #404 on: 12/01/2014 14:55:29 »
And a 'bit universe' should at some scale dissolve into bits, shouldn't it? A 'frame of reference', scaling it down to a bit, must then be this discrete 'bit quanta'. As that should be where a universe end.
 

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 #405 on: 12/01/2014 14:57:22 »
But if you want it to 'vibrate' then, having a tension? Why would a bit be able to vibrate?
 

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 #406 on: 12/01/2014 14:58:40 »
Which is more fundamental, bits or frames of reference? I think it must be 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 #407 on: 12/01/2014 15:06:53 »
Frames of reference does not confuse itself with wanting to define a physical dimensional 'quanta' of a 'size'. What it does is to define the universe as being a result of frames of reference interacting. I use scales for defining it, but I'm not sure you have to stop there. It's my limits of imagination restricting my definitions here. What a frame of reference ultimately might become I'm not sure. But it's a very valid definition, and scaling it down we reach something similar to a 'bit', but we can pass that one into a analogue definition, without bits. A undifferentiated 'sheet' of constants properties and principles giving us a universe.

Analogue as there are no 'bits' to define there,
 

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 #408 on: 12/01/2014 15:12:26 »
It's not a strict definition :) but it gives you a flavor of how I think of it. Assuming we would like to stop at those bits though, ignoring the constants etc? Do you expect that bit to 'move'? Relative what?
 

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 #409 on: 12/01/2014 15:18:45 »
You want something to move, you need dimensions (degrees of freedom) to move in. You need frames of reference, in where we now have defined one 'bit' as becoming one 'frame of reference', interacting with another frame of reference, inside something containing, and enabling, them to observe each other.

You need a arrow, you need a sheet, you need a observer. Or, you need a sheet, you need a arrow, if you define each frame of reference as able to 'observe', as in interact, even without us defining that 'motion'.
 

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 #410 on: 12/01/2014 15:21:04 »
Can't 'vibrate' outside 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 #411 on: 12/01/2014 15:25:04 »
So assuming 'one bit' to exist at that sheet, it then must use the sheet to define a vibration from, and it must find a arrow to do it in.
 

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 #412 on: 12/01/2014 15:25:47 »
But that's not 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 #413 on: 12/01/2014 15:41:37 »
So either we use a sheet, defining that plane in where something move, or we could use frames of reference interacting, defined locally.
 

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 #414 on: 12/01/2014 15:45:46 »
Does a hologram enable you to define a position to the things it depicts? From the 'inside'? Or is it a interaction between 'frames of reference' giving you those positions? Don't want to use hologram for it really, this is no hologram to me, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it :)
 

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 #415 on: 12/01/2014 15:54:00 »
We need interactions, and interactions presume relations between what interacts. And that 'between' could then be described as a vacuum, with what interacting representing 'frames of reference'. Degrees of freedom defining dimensions.
 

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 #416 on: 12/01/2014 15:57:35 »
Assume the sheet to be a vacuum, then define one 'bit' inside it. Now tell me how it knows it 'move'?
 

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 #417 on: 12/01/2014 16:17:28 »
Then tell me how it will define a dimensionality to this vacuum?
 

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 #418 on: 12/01/2014 16:20:53 »
Two ways. Mach principle or as a 'property' of a 'rest mass'.
Inertia.
 

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 #419 on: 12/01/2014 16:24:14 »
That's what you have left here. Using my definition of gravity as able to define as a 'down welling' in each point, locally defined, well? I would say that what I define is the 'origin' if you need one, but I would not define it as Mach principle being wrong either. You want to use that arrow defining it, don't 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 #420 on: 12/01/2014 16:27:02 »
Ok, we have a third, assuming you able to define what rest mass you have into a geometrical shape. Then you also get to 'dimensions', but that one would then consist of frames of reference, interacting, finding degrees of freedom relative each other.
 

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 #421 on: 12/01/2014 16:42:46 »
And Einstein should be correct in defining a 'motion' to gravity, as Earth acting on us at approximately one Gravity, I think? :) 'inertia' as a property, times a arrow, becomes gravity. We are 'rushing' through 'time'.
 

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 #422 on: 12/01/2014 16:45:12 »
And if that is correct, then assuming 'c' locally equivalent to a arrow? Well, it will give us inertia as a constant too, won't it?
 

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 #423 on: 12/01/2014 16:47:16 »
Sweet one. I really like it.
 

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 #424 on: 12/01/2014 16:58:38 »
You have a added difficulty counting on that one though. And that is mass. Inertia is related to what mass we give something before we try to move it, inside that local arrow you measure it from. But it should still be possible to add in a arrow (another constant, locally equivalent to 'c' in my thoughts) to find inertia as being a constant too. And it simplifies what gravity is, as gravity is inertia, counted on over a arrow. And it fits both a acceleration, and you standing on Earth, 'feeling' that gravity act on you.

Yep, I'm very pleased, so far, with this one.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #424 on: 12/01/2014 16:58:38 »

 

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