The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 200918 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #50 on: 13/10/2013 19:19:52 »
Relativity is about measuring between points, you at A, me at B. When we compare our results we can agree on parameters explaining differences in measurements, as Lorentz transformations. Those parameters are not part of your local reality, neither of mine. Our local reality is the exact same as what our respective measurements will tell it to be. So where is the commonality? In a mathematical space?

Alternatively you use local definitions as your stepping stone, then use what is shared 'globally' (principles being equivalent) to define a commonality. Doing so you either try to keep a 'common space', or you don't. The later is simplest, let that space go. What you then have is your local definition of a space, but a space that due to communication also includes me. If I find a way to communicate rules for finding me in your space, also assuming that 'being at rest with' and sharing a same frame of reference is approximately true practically, and ideally a absolute truth. Then we come back to the space we have. the difference being that it is no container anymore, rather ways 'things' connect. The container gets its shape through the connections.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #51 on: 13/10/2013 21:03:03 »
That one is crucial to how I'm staring to think. If we are defined from sharing some same local rules, those rules enabling us to connect, then that is a total different universe from one that is defined from some global point of view. In a 'global universe' containing us, dimensions and degrees of freedom being how we can behave inside it, we are fishes inside a fishbowl. In a universe constantly created and updated through information/communication the fishbowl is a construct. It's like everything else, a matter of where you stand and look at it.

but it can treat a universe expressing Lorentz transformations and time dilations better than the one in where we live in a fishbowl.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #52 on: 13/10/2013 21:11:37 »
And as it is defined through principles that must be true in each local definition, as 'c' and as I think, as a arrow equivalent to the way we define lights speed in a vacuum, for any frame of reference. And I'm including accelerations for this, because if the arrow have a equivalence to 'c', then I need to include a acceleration in it too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #53 on: 13/10/2013 21:13:02 »
So it should be easy to disprove :)
Just prove that 'c' isn't.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #54 on: 14/10/2013 23:48:23 »
There are interesting possibilities to such a approach. One is hierarchy's, as in 'layers' upon 'layers' using scales to define it.

"In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:

decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s."

There is no set scale that I know of that limit a quantum approach from a 'classical'. But we see the results of a 'classical answer' in easily defined outcomes daily. And then we have consciousness, what would you refer that to? Is it a classical phenomena or a quantum logical? Or a little of both?

In a universe built on communication/information, assuming everything to be 'in touch' constantly, a hierarchy becomes a theoretical construct. In it a universe will be a construct from communication, creating definitions we use of dimensions, as well as of 'degrees of freedom'. Scaling as such is one logic way we find to probe this construction. another question becomes what 'local' should mean in such a universe as it is just information that are being exchanged.

from the universe's side communication should be communication as I think. It should not differ between hierarchies, and so could be seen as a 'flat network' of nodes communicating, the hierarchy/ies we find arising from the way the information is handled, meaning all measurements. Another way of expressing communication is that 'everything measures on everything' as I think. 'Locality' in that definition should then be a definition of what nodes communicate with what nodes under a experiment. And a hierarchy would be the way we define it to become, building a mental logical construction, either using a arrow, or not.

It's locality in the old way as it assumes that nodes 'close' to each other are those that communicate, now using a arrow for the definition. But it's locality in a new way as it does not use a definition of a dimension, distance etc, limiting it. The universe built from its communication, and our experiments, as it may be. In it, a definition of something being 'close' to something else, is resting on what experiments tells you, not on what its (the universes) 'dimensions' tell you.
=

Think of it this way. The experiment will define 'closeness'. Using the arrow, as I do, is related to outcomes as measuring in our classical way. The arrow ticks, everywhere, and its outcomes define a universe. But the experiment will define what is 'close', not an idea of dimensions.

A measurement is a outcome. Can't get around that, 'weak measurements' must also give you a outcome to draw a conclusion.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 01:12:31 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #55 on: 15/10/2013 00:00:08 »
I want to keep a arrow, locally defined, and I use 'c' for it. Then you have a locally equivalent definition valid for each 'point' in a 'universe'. It's primary a theoretical definition as it under our ordinary paradigm today then must, for being 'measurable', be able to be related to some scale or other. And I am using 'points' for it, am I not? It's been a headache to me, trying to imagine how one should define some smallest common nominator for such a 'point', holding equivalent properties in itself, valid 'everywhere in a universe'.

But you don't need points for it, you can use a field. Although a 'point like particle' is one without dimensions a field is easier to relate to, possibly. You just need to treat it, scaling it down, to some common principles defining it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #56 on: 15/10/2013 00:05:53 »
A field have another excellent property to me :) There is no set 'size' defining it, as in finding 'bits' at some ultimate scale. More than possibly the idea of scaling down to its singular excitations, but that will then be a question of your interpretation of a excitation. That means that it is a smooth phenomena to me, although possible to translate into 'bits'. The 'common universe' we measure on have so far proven to be smooth, astronomically tested. and it makes sense if you think of it as emergences defining scales.
=

Because in a universe of emergence, scales are a construct too. Something that allows us to probe different logical frameworks. A very weird universe indeed :)
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 00:34:34 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #57 on: 15/10/2013 00:16:24 »
A field of equivalent 'time'/ 'c' (locally defined naturally, there is no other way you can measure) underlying the constructs we find :) It's a nice thought to me. the arrow exist.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 00:18:35 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #58 on: 15/10/2013 00:43:12 »
One has to remember that I differ emergences from illusions. Time is no illusion, neither is the arrow, its' the structure on where you will find outcomes resting. Time dilations are emergences, not illusions, as they are measurable. The same goes for a Lorentz contraction. In a universe of communication dimensions are one way to describe what we observe, degrees of freedom another (as I think better) although dimensions are easier to understand in that it very well describes all objects in our 'common universe'.

A illusion must be able to prove wrong, a emergence though should be a measurable thing.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #59 on: 29/10/2013 20:25:55 »
So why would I want to exchange dimensions and degrees of freedom as the dimensional canvas in where we move to some weird idea in where the connections is what makes us perceive dimensions? For me it's following 'locality' to where it should come from. 'Locality' is to me an idea of some scale in where we should find a arrow of time, and 'c', locally equivalent. It is a question of scales to me, possibly also without limits. If what makes dimensions can be related to some smallest meaningful points, and those related to equivalent properties, as 'c' and its equivalent arrow may make. Then those becomes a sort of nodes, defining relations interacting and so creating dimensions to us consisting of them.

Just think of it as principles defining what we see and measure on. What I call scales here then becomes the background from where a universe constantly becomes and gets affirmed through interactions. But it does not state that this is all there is. It just state that it is from those principles we find our ways to measure and communicate in the way we do. To me that seems to suggest that you might have several 'co-existing' realities, each one finding itself 'alone', having its own definition of what 'dimensions' and 'degrees of freedom' must mean.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #60 on: 29/10/2013 20:35:47 »
Scales becomes something its own right there. In one way able to use as we normally use it, 'magnifying and shrinking', but also becoming an idea in where it is our limits of observation that defines what a scale means. As seen from the 'inside' of a 'universe', scales must exist. From the 'eye of a God', or 'outside' any such definition, scales should become an approximation of what a dimensional system contain, but a meaningless concept when described over 'it all'.

If it didn't presume dimensions, a canvas would be a good concept for describing it all.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #61 on: 31/10/2013 21:41:02 »
Let's consider it from temperature.

A temperature is 'vibrations' by matter. Motion of some sort. A 'perfect vacuum' is the absolute absence of matter at some geometrically defined 'space'. Does that 'space' exist? What about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) defining it such as you can't know both a particle's position and its momentum, exactly. Using that on a perfect vacuum, will that create particles? No, it won't.

"Virtual Particles

In many decays and annihilations, a particle decays into a very high-energy force-carrier particle, which almost immediately decays into low-energy particle. These high-energy, short-lived particles are virtual particles.

The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice.

The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed."

You need interactions by 'real particles' to define 'virtual particles'. But let us consider a vacuum as a 'fluid' then? Not good to me, it presumes that a vacuum has properties relating it to matter. Ever seen the statement that a vacuum can do ftl? If it can it must be a fluid, and of a extremely strange sort, as it then goes against relativity's statement that nothing surpass the speed of light, in a 'perfect vacuum'. In fact invalidating relativity, as we now have defined a 'absolute nothing' as possible to define a position in/to it, excepting any and all matter. Because that is what it state. That you can define a point in a universe consisting of a perfect vacuum, then follow its 'propagation' through that same vacuum, to find it 'move', and also move 'ftl'?

A temperature is matters motion, or interactions. So does a vacuum have a temperature? Not a perfect vacuum, unless you introduce mass, which is what you must do, to measure any possible temperature. You could imagine that a vacuum contain 'properties of matter' without creating it, unless you present it with real matter, such matter measurable over time as existing.

A 'motion' of matter is measurable displacements over time. A virtual particle is a displacement, not measurable over time, as I see it.

A perfect vacuum can not, in and by itself, be defined and constricted to displacements over time. All geometrical definitions of points need real matter, as your anchors, from where you define a motion of 'something', be it a 'hole' or a 'particle'.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 21:43:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #62 on: 31/10/2013 21:56:53 »
Maybe you can shorten this to the question: Does a perfect vacuum have properties, except geometrically? Can you scale a vacuum down? If you would, do you expect to reach some ultimate scale from where it can't be scaled down further? If you want 'bits', and if you want some common smallest nominator scale wise for both particles and 'vacuum', where do you expect it to exist? Planck scale?

Does a vacuum need to 'exist'? Matter exist, measurably so. Bosons and fermions exist, measurably so, a vacuum though? From a point of a universe, as a four dimensional container of it all, measuring from an 'inside' you might want to consider particles of all kinds as dancing on a 'energy' of the vacuum, defined through a arrow.

From a point of particles 'properties' creating the four dimensional universe we see, and measure on though? What would that vacuum become then?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #63 on: 31/10/2013 22:15:59 »
So, what is 'energy' :)

From a point of 'properties' defining a universe, creating dimensions, energy becomes understandable to me. It's fermions and bosons properties, defining 'my universe', observer dependently, although taking observer dependencies further than what we normally means. From a point of a 'cosmic container' it has no simple answer to me. You're free to define it as only consisting of 'one container' or 'several containers' co-existing, alternatively 'splitting' (many worlds) etc etc. And what the two definitions also differs in is the way they treat a arrow. The first one assumes a arrow as a property, equivalent to 'c', existing in all 'points'. The second one?

The first one defines a universe by measuring, locally.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #64 on: 31/10/2013 22:20:57 »
And constants then?

That should be the properties, shouldn't it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #65 on: 31/10/2013 22:35:08 »
What I mean saying "And what the two definitions also differs in is the way they treat a arrow. The first one assumes a arrow as a property, equivalent to 'c', existing in all 'points'. The second one?" Is that from the first definition a arrow must be what creates a measurable universe. We live inside a arrow of time, defining us and our measurements.

What you can't measure on won't exist for you. That's your 'container' of sorts, but not as seen from the normal point of view of a universal container, as that 'commonly shared universe' we think we observe. This universe is defined by what you can measure, possibly infinitely 'co-existing' with other definitions and properties we don't know how to, and possibly never can, measure. It takes on another aspect to me, 'co-existing', if you think of it as defined by measurements. And scales, as well as all other properties we might find a universe to consist of, then becomes a result of those properties. We becomes one emergence, of many.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #66 on: 31/10/2013 22:37:24 »
What it does is to simplify things for me, and I like it as simple as I can get it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #67 on: 31/10/2013 22:45:25 »
Then again, if 'energy' is bosons and fermions only, what would those other possibilities be? The ones 'co-existing' with us, although not measurable? I guess I would call that 'energy' too? That we can't measure energy by itself, only measure its transformations, supports that view, I think? 'Energy' is still a slippery thing, although as defined from inside a dimensional system perfectly simple, following the principles, constants, properties, defining transformations, which is what we measure.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #68 on: 31/10/2013 22:57:54 »
'c', and that equivalent, locally measured arrow? At what ultimate scale could I expect to pinpoint them? Light is without a 'dimension', can you see how that could be, from a view in where those 'particles' create those dimensions? Maybe 'dimensions' is just our construct.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #69 on: 31/10/2013 23:11:25 »
Because a scale needs dimensions, just as a fish needs water, ahem. One gets defined by the other so to speak :) If you are able to define a system, using whatever properties it have to decide a dimensionality, creating interactions following a arrow of time, defining degrees of freedom, then you have made a universe, and you should be able to scale it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #70 on: 31/10/2013 23:22:40 »
And such a universe explains Lorentz contractions better to me, because those are observer dependent, and there is no 'commonly same universe' as some fishbowl containing us all. What 'contains us' are shared principles, constants, and properties. And the same must then go for that complementary time dilation, as what we really share, isn't what we measure on, as that rocket at that black hole, 'standing still' to us, forever. What we share is 'locality'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #71 on: 31/10/2013 23:26:22 »
Not 'locality' as in 'action and reaction'. That's a classically valid definition, but not the one I'm referring to. I'm referring to the way we measure, always locally. I'm referring to shared principles, constants and properties. Those are in a sense not 'observer dependent', although they will define 'observer dependencies', as your locally defined arrow, and 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #72 on: 31/10/2013 23:56:28 »
So what about Hawking radiation, defined as a virtual particle pair created at the event horizon of a black hole, one part wandering inside annihilating some other particle inside it, the other then materializing inside a arrow, outside the event horizon, as needed by conservation of energy, creating that Hawking radiation?

Where was the matter involved there? If my definition of the procedure now is correct? It came about spontaneously, from a virtual pair production, didn't it? Doesn't that state that a vacuum must exist, as a real entity in itself?

Don't know, maybe? Or maybe you could define it as where particles 'energy' gets excited, due to properties as relative mass/ relative motion accelerations, rest mass gets created? All of it assuming that Hawking radiation exist. You can find a similar result in a cloud chamber, creating more particles than what went into the collision.

It's not that a vacuum isn't there, it's what it should consist of.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #73 on: 01/11/2013 00:47:54 »
The mass of a black hole has a proportion to its geometry, or better expressed, it's when the proportion breaks down you get to a black hole.

"The Chandrasekhar limit (named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar) is the maximum nonrotating mass which can be supported against gravitational collapse by electron degeneracy pressure. It is commonly given as being about 1.4 or 1.44 solar masses. Electron degeneracy pressure is a quantum-mechanical effect arising from the Pauli exclusion principle. Since electrons are fermions, no two electrons can be in the same state, so not all electrons can be in the minimum-energy level. Rather, electrons must occupy a band of energy levels.

Compression of the electron gas increases the number of electrons in a given volume and raises the maximum energy level in the occupied band. Therefore, the energy of the electrons will increase upon compression, so pressure must be exerted on the electron gas to compress it. This is the origin of electron degeneracy pressure."

Passing this you get a black hole, defined by all paths leading to the same place passing its event horizon, and it is at that event horizon we have this virtual particle formation. So there is an abundance of mass, creating those virtual particles, or/and depending on definition, energy.  And mass defines what vacuum, or 'space' you will find existing measuring.



 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #74 on: 01/11/2013 00:58:13 »
We get our forms from the 'relation' between mass and vacuum, don't we? Without a space no form. So? Energy?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #74 on: 01/11/2013 00:58:13 »

 

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