The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199102 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 #475 on: 13/01/2014 00:59:28 »
What I'm certain of, well almost certain anyway, is that is that the equivalence principle capture gravity.  And that it defines it two ways, 'proper' rest mass (matter) and as a uniform constant acceleration. And so you can speak of Earth as 'accelerating' at one Gravity, constantly and uniformly. I find a Higgs field define inertia, but I don't see how it can define Earth in a uniform motion. It's solely about accelerations to me, it does not discuss proper mass in uniform motion.

 

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 #476 on: 13/01/2014 01:07:02 »
Einstein doesn't tell you why those two are equivalent, but he differs between uniform motion and accelerations, defining uniform motion as 'relative' what you measure it against, and so all uniform motions becoming equivalent, a 'relative motion'. Also giving the concept of proper mass a much clearer definition. To me the Higgs field attach itself to the definition of accelerations, and from there expect a proper mass in uniform motion to follow, magically. But I don't see how it does?
 

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 #477 on: 13/01/2014 01:19:42 »
If we want a Higgs field to cover a proper mass in uniform motion we also need to define how it can 'accelerate'. To see why a uniform motion isn't enough you just need to make some experiments in where you measure your gravity with a accelerator, and a scale, in different uniform motions, relative Earth. Would you expect to weight double your original weight, if we would give Earth double its velocity, as measured relative some distant star?

The acceleration needed will give you a added weight, but as soon as we go back to a uniform motion, no matter what velocity, you will weight the same as before, and your accelerometer won't react any more.

So in the acceleration you weighted more, both as measured from a scale, and from accelerometer. Well, a scale is a accelerometer too :) so maybe I should have avoided that one.
 

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 #478 on: 13/01/2014 01:24:26 »
The difference here is that a Higgs field comes with presumptions. To me it defines a container universe in where we have a field, that field reacts with accelerations, but does not define how it reacts with uniform motion. Neither does it define how it assumes a equivalence to Einsteins definitions of a uniform motion, relative a constant uniform acceleration. Instead it seem to presume as Einstein defined Earth as 'accelerating' a Higgs field will hold true there too?
 

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 #479 on: 13/01/2014 01:28:01 »
Einstein defined things, and they worked, but we, or maybe it's just me, still don't know why. Why is 'c'  'c' ? Why is uniform motion relative? How does a uniformly moving Earth, in 'relative motion', accelerate simultaneously?

A hypothesis should move the questions forward, to new ones.
 

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 #480 on: 13/01/2014 01:36:35 »
Ah yes, there is that other thing I don't see how it (Higgs theory) defines, and that is observer dependencies. The more you bury it in weird mathematical notions (and notations:), the better it may sound, and the harder it becomes to understand what you really mean. But, if you really think you found a way to make something work, you should at least give it the same time as it took you to get that idea, to explain it as logical and simple as you can. Einstein succeeded, and his theory is weirder than most :) So why can't you?
« Last Edit: 13/01/2014 01:40:29 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 #481 on: 13/01/2014 01:47:55 »
Read me right now :) I enjoy relativity, and I think the parts I understand to be correct. Doesn't mean I can explain the stress energy tensor 'works' though, even though it do, 'work' I mean. That's a mathematical description that I keep losing myself in, or maybe I'm just too lazy for it.

But I don't find the Higgs to address relativity, only accelerations.
 

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 #482 on: 13/01/2014 02:20:59 »
Sort of a sign of the times isn't it, or humanity maybe? Higgs gets a Nobel prize for his idea, Einstein never got one for his theory of relativity. Higgs particles becomes, at best, a sub discipline of relativity, needed from a discrete bits theory of a universe. But a discrete bits theory does not state where those discrete bits come from, neither how they organize themselves into dimensions, they instead define them from a container, be it how many dimensions you want..
 

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 #483 on: 13/01/2014 02:34:23 »
Then again, Higgs and Einstein isn't that separated in time. There are some decades between them, and Higgs shaped his theory wanting to incorporate relativity in it as I understands it. and the discrete bits theory of a container universe isn't that different from the way Einstein defined the moon, there even when I look away. It's when you use local definitions that the container model becomes really questionable, observer dependencies, and how to think of those, real or not? Defining it from a background of constants, locally equivalent, a container model stops making sense. But 'c' and relativity still works for you, observer dependencies works perfectly, but a Higgs field need to be 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 #484 on: 13/01/2014 02:56:23 »
And then the most confusing part of it all :)

You measure locally, you observe your universe locally. We expect differently made, equivalent, repeatable experiments to define it, and we find this idea to work. That makes for the foundation of physics. Then comes 'c', and introduce locality. But we don't question repeatable experiments, and why they still work? Neither do we question what constants becomes, in a universe always defined locally. How they can exist, from what frame of reference.

What I like to think of as, back to fundamentals.
 

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 #485 on: 13/01/2014 03:29:56 »
Also, there is a universe of difference between discrete bits, and a universe existing through 'frames of reference' interacting. I too would like to be able to define one frame of reference, 'bits' of a sort, but the closest I seem to get to such a frame is when using local constants and properties, forming principles equivalent everywhere, leading us to repeatable experiments defining physics.

Einstein didn't define it from 'one bit', as I read it, he defined it from frames of references interactions. You need two frames for a universe, yours relative the one you observe.
 

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 #486 on: 13/01/2014 11:59:21 »
been thinking about this idea I got yesterday:) The one that refuse to work out. Inertia becoming gravity under a arrow. It's absolutely lovely ::))

And I would like it to work. I can't put it on time dilations and Lorentz contractions though, that's a result of gravity, not a cause of gravity. Shows you the danger of not going to sleep when you should. Sloppy thinking.

I could use time dilations as described from a far observer though, but then I'll go against the definition I use of ones arrow to never change. Because locally 'c' will be 'c' in any uniform motion, and if I define a arrow from 'c' using it as a clock, splitting it in even chunks?
 

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 #487 on: 13/01/2014 12:10:21 »
To get that one to work I then have to define it as 'c' being 'c' locally, everywhere, although assuming that from a 'eye of God', a 'global description' every observer will find time dilations, although not locally observable.

Can you imagine what that should mean for one observer, accelerating uniformly and constantly at one Gravity. Let's make two more 'far' observers of the first one. Each one measuring a different velocity relative Earth, going in a same direction as the one accelerating. Both finding the guy accelerating having a different (unique) time dilation and Lorentz contraction, none agreeing on the others findings without a Lorentz transformation. Assuming that time is the culprit also makes you need to define it from some 'objective definition'. Using locality I don't see how to do that, using a far observer I have to define which one that would be 'objective'.
 

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 #488 on: 13/01/2014 12:14:11 »
What I need to make this make sense would then be something like a 'global time', a 'hidden variable' not resting on what observers, or Earth, define for this guy accelerating in form of time dilations. Something like a Lorentz transformation, keeping that 'global time'.
 

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 #489 on: 13/01/2014 12:19:12 »
But it would not be your local time keeping, so I can't use a locally defined 'sheet of constants' for it. Neither can it be the other observer definitions of a time dilation and Lorentz contraction. And it doesn't matter what type of 'motion' they are in, making a whole universe able to give that guy accelerating different time dilations and Lorentz contractions.

In other words, it sux, badly :)
And I still like it.

It seems right.
 

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 #490 on: 13/01/2014 12:23:55 »
And it won't help to define a arrow as 'non existent' either, as far as I see. What you have, assuming that inertia becomes a gravity under a arrow, is just 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 #491 on: 13/01/2014 12:29:25 »
I could possibly use something in where certain interactions, as entanglements are 'time less'? Allowing gravity to become one, similar to Mach principle, but now of a 'infinite speed', instead defining it as some Jungian 'gestalt'? In where gravity is what join a universe, 'c' being meaningful communication, relating 'gravity' to something like a entanglement?

Weirder and weirder, what would that make of a gravitational wave coming from a binary star, spinning around each other?
 

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 #492 on: 13/01/2014 12:31:48 »
Then, using that nomenclature, a gravitational wave does not exist, or it becomes a 'meaningful information', as it obey 'c'.
 

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 #493 on: 13/01/2014 12:41:21 »
How about this then.

Assume that light is non propagating. Use that sheet, paint a pattern of instants, each representing a static 'picture' of a universe on it. Then imagine the sheet to be exchanged at 'c', each instant existing let's say, one Plank time.

That gives us something similar to a gestalt. Assume this direction of exchange to be in one unmeasurable direction we call 'global time'.

Then introduce a 'side way' universe, defined by equivalent local arrows. In where we define gravity as acting and being acted on by all mass. Two ways.
 

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 #494 on: 13/01/2014 12:43:09 »
That one might work.
 

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 #495 on: 13/01/2014 12:45:29 »
And it seems to fit a description in where singular bit quanta becomes a very tricky proposition, where frames of reference must be defined as a observer, relative what he observes, I think?
 

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 #496 on: 13/01/2014 12:49:22 »
Although :)

This definition leaves us to ponder what meaning consciousness will have in it. It gives us structures, from simplicity to complexity, that have very little to do with a definition of 'c', even though it comes from it. On the other tentacle, we already have those structures, anyway.
 

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 #497 on: 13/01/2014 12:52:54 »
Then we have a ground beat, we call 'c'. On that beat we have our local interpretations, defined from this ground beat.
=

Well, possibly?
 

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 #498 on: 13/01/2014 12:58:54 »
The 'forces' I define should then be a result of my definition of what I can measure, while the universe at large will be instants flickering at 'c', leaving me unable to measure 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 #499 on: 13/01/2014 13:02:11 »
Very theoretical that one, no way I see to prove it. It would be cool if it was provable though. as I could define it as a result of 'free will', I mean, there isn't really a need for a static gestalt to prove itself, is there? Unless we introduce something like a consciousness in it, feeling that need.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #499 on: 13/01/2014 13:02:11 »

 

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