The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201262 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 #425 on: 12/01/2014 17:02:48 »
I know, it seems to destroy 'gravitons', doesn't it :) It's all about your definitions. Even with gravity becoming a 'down welling' in my thoughts it does not exclude gravity having a 'infinite reach' acting on all mass in a universe. One way does not exclude the 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 #426 on: 12/01/2014 17:23:28 »
So, let's see. I've defined three things as being constants so far? The speed of light in a vacuum

'c'

Then this arrow, as being locally equivalent to 'c'.

So 'c' and 'a' ::))

And possibly, still need to wonder about this one.

Inertia being equivalent to a gravity, when described by/in its local arrow, defined as a 'local observer' of a universe, in a collision for example. I think this is right but also described in simple terms. Then again, I like simple?

That should mean that inertia, just as a vacuum, always is there as a property and constant. But to get to 'gravity' you need that arrow 'pushing you' into a future :).

And no, I don't know if a vacuum would be some sort of 'constant', although it makes sense from my ideas, don't it :)
But I could go out on limb here defining it as being of a same quality, property etc everywhere. and yes, a 'constant' of sorts. But not really, to me a vacuum is undefined, unless we introduce mass.

Any way.
I like the way I defined inertia.
==

So 'c' and 'a' and 'i'.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2014 17:25:48 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 #427 on: 12/01/2014 17:50:25 »
Then again, a property or constant is what it has. and that one defines a constant as something being the same everywhere you go. And as I also define distance as a effect of frames of reference interacting, and with that motion as it needs that distance as well as as a arrow as a global illusion, although locally as real as it can be?
 

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 #428 on: 12/01/2014 17:52:17 »
Sounds mystical doesn't it :)

You need something as a vacuum, and rest mass, to define dimensions. But you can, using my definitions, also relate to it as a 'constant', a axiom able to be proved anywhere you 'go'.
 

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 #429 on: 12/01/2014 18:03:48 »
A Higgs field is expected to define inertia right :)

Hmm. Inside 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 #430 on: 12/01/2014 18:07:48 »
 I can relate to it as describing a way to define the inertia of rest mass, then again, it becomes a  'side way' description of a container universe, where you find 'forces' acting on you. Whereas, in my ideas, you have local constants and properties, creating 'globally valid' principles that defines inertia and gravity. Two ways, in which mine is the one zooming in on local definitions.
 

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 #431 on: 12/01/2014 18:09:27 »
And a 'field' is always locally defined in my way of thinking.
 

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 #432 on: 12/01/2014 18:24:16 »
The point enabling one to see it better is the question of what a inside is.

You are here, ain't you? And everywhere you look things seem much the same. A isotropic and homogeneous universe in where we, and everything else, exist. Or have you seen a 'wall' defining where this geometric universe stops? From a point of inflation taking 'place' everywhere there is no limits to this universe. You do not need to go out to the right to come in at the left, as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go.

And there is no container to it either.
 

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 #433 on: 12/01/2014 18:28:16 »
"as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go." And tell each other about it, that is :)
A Black hole is not included in this description, as there will be no telling of what it is like inside.
 

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 #434 on: 12/01/2014 18:32:06 »
Although, assuming it to have a same background of constants, properties and principles, namely that classically defined non existent vacuum, well, as a way to make it 'touch able' imaginatively? Then we might assume it to be describable, possibly? Or maybe that is a place where those constants we find breaks down? I don't know what I would prefer there?

But if there exist walls to this universe, a black hole must be one.
 

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 #435 on: 12/01/2014 18:33:43 »
Although :)

The wall consist of information, just as 'c' becomes another.
 

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 #436 on: 12/01/2014 18:41:13 »
You could say that what defines a universe isn't the idea of dimensions, but the idea of information. And the idea of information is not entropy, it's 'c'. The speed of light in a vacuum defines the speed of information. and that one should be applicable on everything. A entanglement is not information, not unless you find a way to define what the spin is, before measuring. That one you won't find. In the universe I think of, that is :)

It may seem as a boring universe but it isn't. It's a projection, defined by informations speed, as locally measured.
 

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 #437 on: 12/01/2014 18:48:16 »
And we have ways of traversing it, expending 'energy'. But you won't be able to shrink a dimension, because dimensions does not exist in my thoughts. What you have is degrees of freedom, and they are a relation to your local constants, properties and so principles. We all have those equivalently as a 'back ground', and so we agree on a 'inside' in where we all exist. But it's not a container defined by dimensions. Maybe I could call it a container of constants 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 #438 on: 12/01/2014 18:56:46 »
Well, maybe you can use dimensions too? But not as a global container of a universe. You define a distance between rest masses relative your clock and ruler, and that will vary relative motion, mass, and 'energy'. You can either define that relative some expectations of a universally (globally) existing measure, making it a container universe. Or you can define it relative locally existing constants, properties and principles, equivalent no matter where you are. That makes the background for your experiments the same, everywhere, doesn't it :) Then you introduce parameters as motion, mass and that pimpernel 'energy' to define how the universe you observe will behave. And it will be true, and you do not need a container anymore.

But it makes it important to define what a 'motion' should be, as well as mass and energy, 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 #439 on: 12/01/2014 19:06:50 »
What we have so far is 'c', a equivalent arrow, and inertia combined with a arrow, giving us gravity. All local definitions, although equivalently shared everywhere. Not much is it? Well, we have the idea of scaling and decoherence too.
 

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 #440 on: 12/01/2014 19:10:43 »
Scaling becomes something different to me, thinking of it as meeting a background of constants, etc, also losing that arrow. The local arrow gives us our linear definitions, as distances, dimensions and a measurable universe.
 

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 #441 on: 12/01/2014 19:14:58 »
Isn't it strange to you too? I imagine that by scaling down a universe loses all definitions we find macroscopically. I also define it such as you can't include a observer of it in this definition. For relativity everything evolves around observers, and so it does in all experiments we do. There's alway a locally defined clock and ruler involved. Even theoretically we involve arrows, as bringing us outcomes.
 

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 #442 on: 12/01/2014 19:20:06 »
You can't ignore the observer, the only thing you can do is to clarify his/hers/its involvement. And defining it this way the observer must have a relation to what he measures. Is there a difference between a detector and a observer? You can either assume that consciousness must be involved for any measurement to take place, or you can define it as detecting is observing. The last one is the one making most sense to me, and it accepts everything, able to interact with something else.
 

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 #443 on: 12/01/2014 19:25:08 »
What it does is two things. It ignores consciousness as a prerequisite for observing, and it defines all 'observers' as being as important for the experiment, you included. It doesn't split it into different categories, instead it assumes that a outcome is a result of relations, where everything defining it has a relation to that outcome.
 

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 #444 on: 12/01/2014 19:25:43 »
Your clock and ruler too :)
 

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 #445 on: 12/01/2014 19:35:28 »
It is your clock and ruler that finally put a stamp upon that experiment, is it not? And a repeatable experiment is a equivalently made, defined, experiment, although done at another location and time, at a different position inside this SpaceTime if you like. And when we do them we define 'laws' by them, if they truly gives us the same outcomes.

For this we ignore the idea of a arrow 'pushing us' into a future, but my own definition of inertia can't do that. And neither will a 'container idea' of a SpaceTime. Because in such a one the dimensions 'adapt' to 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 #446 on: 12/01/2014 19:38:32 »
There my idea of a arrow can be used more simply though, as it presumes all arrows locally equivalent, even though we will ignore accelerations for this, just looking at time dilations, as defined in uniform motion.

Locality builds on constants, locally measured.
 

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 #447 on: 12/01/2014 19:49:32 »
Although, using inertia as becoming gravity due to a arrow interacting with it? What would a acceleration become?
 

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 #448 on: 12/01/2014 20:30:30 »
You can't define a rocket accelerating at a uniform constant one G, the same way you can define it standing on Earth. Or can you? Locally defined it should be the same? And, if I now define a arrow as being locally equivalent anywhere, then also define inertia as being a local constant?

Then you have two locally unchanging constants. What you introduce that differs is then a acceleration, which is displacements, and assuming a constantly uniformly accelerating, gravity.

That states that motion should be gravity. Locality defines a uniform motion as being no motion at all, as I think I discussed before. Locally defined you only can get to a 'gravity' through acceleration (deceleration). Also you can consider all particles as, more or less, being at rest with each other in a relative (uniform) motion. It becomes harder from gravitational time dilations to do so, but macroscopically it works. If it didn't you shouldn't exist :)

So, using that definition the only 'motion' we need to consider here should be accelerations, right?
 

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 #449 on: 12/01/2014 20:44:24 »
So using accelerations we find the displacements to grow over a defined time period right? Maybe we should look at it at a particle level though? Maybe introduce local clocks microscopically instead too? Instead of using a fuzzily defined 'local' macroscopic clock?

Then each microscopic clock should find a constantly uniformly growing displacement relative the other as a constant uniform acceleration builds up, displaced space growing between them each 'instant', if you see how I think there. Which then would make gravity a result of displacement? But where would that displacement be standing on Earth?

Damn :) I really liked that one.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #449 on: 12/01/2014 20:44:24 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length