The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201485 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 #525 on: 13/01/2014 18:24:39 »
In a comparison between two frames of reference. You on Earth measuring some comets uniform motion for example, you are free to state the comet to be standing still, or Earth, standing still, it's a equivalence of sorts in uniform motions. If one of you was accelerating through the vacuum though, there would be a locally measurable change, for the one accelerating.
 

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 #526 on: 13/01/2014 18:27:05 »
So Earth is constantly uniformly accelerating at one Gravity. But you can double its uniform motion, without adding to a gravity.
 

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 #527 on: 13/01/2014 18:30:27 »
Gravity is not relativistic mass, that we can see. If it was, then doubling Earths uniform motion should change your weight on that scale. But uniform motion must contain a relativistic mass, otherwise you can cheat the relativistic book keeping.
 

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 #528 on: 13/01/2014 20:00:24 »
So how does the Higgs work?

It uses an idea of densities I would say. It defines different attachments or properties to different 'stable particles', then defines something we can't measure on, except by inductive logic, giving a probability of it existing, when measuring interactions at very high energies. It's ghosts passing you through acting on some of your particles, but only as you accelerate, giving you a inertial reaction equivalent to a gravity, if we then use the equivalence principle to define it.

in a way not so different from my own idea of inertia becoming gravity, but to me it presumes a container universe. You could argue that if observer dependencies are real, and if we exist, then this problem is no problem as we do exist and consist of densities, particles, fermions and bosons. I think this is what the Higgs theory will argue, finally backed into a corner. That is not sufficient, and it is not physics. New physics should answer old questions, and give new questions to ask. It seems for example that the Higgs boson is though to change the chirality, "Having a handedness or helicity, not having mirror symmetry" of particles, lefthandedness to righthandednes, and back, each time they interact. But this seems not to be true with neutrinos, that has been found to have a mass. So where does this mass come from?

So what is observer dependencies from a Higgs field'?
 

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 #529 on: 13/01/2014 20:09:55 »
I can transform away the observer dependencies :) By stipulating that this universe always is locally defined. And to do so I just erase the container model. I do not stipulate any defined dimensions, more than using a sheet for describing the fractals I think a universe should be made of. Observer dependencies are very hard to understand from the idea of a defined four dimensional container, that also is observer dependent. If you instead assume connections, relations, creating a universe then all relations you ever will measure on will be defined by you, locally. And instead of dimensions we have the degrees of freedom we find something to have, which are four macroscopically.
 

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 #530 on: 16/01/2014 22:58:37 »
Was discussing the idea that when you measure a entanglement you also inject it with a energy that must be duplicated at the receiving end. I said that either you then have to assume the energy to get split in two,(1 becoming .5) or you need to lend the far end of the entanglements 'energy', preferably then from a vacuum. Assuming entanglements to exist spontaneously, or as utilized by us, this should lead to a vacuum getting 'depleted of energy'.

Then again, assuming my own ideas of scaling a entanglement should be special relation, allowing it to presented at two 'points' in a positional SpaceTime, both having 1, without any 'lending' being involved in it, if it is correct.
=

Spelling and words :)

btw. That would then mean that you can get 'free energy', if the injection is found to work? So maybe I'm wrong with that one? Although you might also see it as them being the same photon, doubly represented? The arrow is after all a local definition (defined over frames of reference). Ouch, don't know how to think of that one :)
« Last Edit: 16/01/2014 23:14:30 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 #531 on: 16/01/2014 23:18:58 »
The important point (Well, I think?:) there is if it is correct assuming that you can 'inject' a annihilating photon with energy, just because it's entangled? Can 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 #532 on: 16/01/2014 23:23:45 »
Whatever you inject it with should 'propagate' at 'c', as it seems to me? For example, photons should be able to annihilate in a sun, and assuming them able to get entangled in there this should lead to a excess of energy, either 'lent' from a vacuum, or 'split the injection' in two.  I think we can rule out a 'injection' as lending from a vacuum at the 'far end', 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 #533 on: 16/01/2014 23:30:44 »
Maybe the first question should be.

Can the sun act as a beam splitter?
 

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 #534 on: 17/01/2014 08:23:00 »
I don't see how a sun can avoid entanglements, for both photons/waves and electrons? And if you now assume that a annihilation inject a energy at both sides we get to a proposition in where the sun lends energy from a 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 #535 on: 17/01/2014 23:04:59 »
I know, this has very little to do with relativity, but if you imagine relativity scaled down to meet QM, which it properly done should be able to then I guess everything has a relevance relative relativity, I'm very pleased with the last sentence there, by the way.. Quietly imposing, sort of :)

And it has bugged for quite some while, the idea of a injection in a entanglement, and still does btw, it's all assumptions I make, can't go into the sun and present a experiment proving it one way or 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 #536 on: 17/01/2014 23:14:00 »
On the other hand, I look at a entanglement as something 'whole' in both ends, and then make it fit my proposition from scales, that you will lose a arrow, locally as you get down there. The first problem with my proposition is that you, to measure on it, use a local clock and ruler. As well as we have this fuzzyness and HUP scaling down. Then again, if relativity is an idea of frames of reference interacting, defined by a local clock and ruler. Then QM is an idea of a local definition also being possible, best expressed through the expectation of quanta. If quanta (qbits etc) exist, then they should be a very local definition, even though you are involved too, with that local clock and ruler.
 

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 #537 on: 17/01/2014 23:23:26 »
Then we come to the original definition of a locality, that one is you throwing a stone in a pond watching the rings spread and interact. I don't think of it in that way, although I do :) The stone you throw in, is you scaling something down, the pond that stone scaling down meet should lose its arrow. And if there is no arrow (always strictly locally defined, remember) then our ideas of motion distance etc, disappear. And there is one more difference introduced through this idea, it allows for a entanglement. So you have our macroscopic reality, and 'under it' a microscopic ending in something unmeasurable. Someone wrote that Black Holes was 'censured' by the cosmos, I would say the same for scaling, you should meet infinites there 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 #538 on: 17/01/2014 23:25:50 »
And that makes constants the most interesting idea you can have. What is a constant, and what is not?
 

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 #539 on: 17/01/2014 23:34:20 »
Because that is what you have left. Constants, properties, and principles, creating a macroscopic universe. And it is made from a local definition of a ideal clock and ruler, everything else defined relative it. And that ideally defined clock and ruler must become a constant in 'my universe' :) as well as in Einsteins relativity. If I give 'c' a equivalence to the clock, then I will do the same for the ruler. And I need to lock it down somehow, that's Plank scale to me.
 

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 #540 on: 17/01/2014 23:43:37 »
That's also why I hold out on defining what a vacuum really, really, is. Energy exist, we see it transformations, although on its own it becomes non measurable, as with objects in uniform motion. There is no extra measurable energy locally in those objects, it's all about relations between frames of reference creating the energy you find in incoming light for example. And a vacuum 'on its own' does not make for a definition of dimensions, and neither do I think it will give degrees of freedom. You need mass.
 

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 #541 on: 17/01/2014 23:50:05 »
A vacuum is a form-able thing in my thoughts, proper mass giving us the dimensions we define. And it goes back to the idea of relations, locally defined by you, defining a universe. Just as a inflation and expansion has no defined 'origin' so it should be with 'locality', it's as valid everywhere, and now you can define that 'sidereal universe' you act on, that acts on 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 #542 on: 17/01/2014 23:53:18 »
So dimensions are questionable things to me. Degrees of freedom is not, they are exactly what they are defined as, the degrees of freedom you find something to have, measured locally. So, to me, they becomes a better definition of how a universe acts than dimensions, because you can apply that same point of view at any 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 #543 on: 17/01/2014 23:58:54 »
And then a idea of inertia fits in so well, because a inertia is a unwillingness of motion, a 'resistance' to motion. If you are able to accept the idea of Earth gravitationally accelerating, as locally measured by a accelerator (scale). then you can split it in inertia and a arrow, giving you 'gravity'.
 

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 #544 on: 18/01/2014 00:01:17 »
That makes Inertia into a constant too, I think? You could define it as a property of mass, but the way I think of it, I think it should behave as a constant, like 'c'.
 

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 #545 on: 18/01/2014 00:06:16 »
And it seems correct if you assume that we are continuously connected to that scaled down 'time less' reality. That's also what I mean by assuming that we always are as close, (loosely, and locally, defined now) to Planck scale. Doesn't matter where you are.
 

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 #546 on: 18/01/2014 00:07:44 »
And down there the rules change.
 

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 #547 on: 18/01/2014 00:13:14 »
So gravity and the arrow disappear, but 'time' and 'inertia' should be able to exist, as constants.
 

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 #548 on: 18/01/2014 00:19:08 »
The arrow and the ruler, would then be a phenomena similar to the idea of decoherence. Always locally defined, and locally equivalent everywhere. The arrow and the ruler being equivalent to 'c', which we then define to 'propagate' at a set speed in a vacuum, equivalent for all frames of reference. At least as I see 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 #549 on: 18/01/2014 13:01:50 »
Let us do it this way. You have two things. 'Yin and yang' :)

The soft and the hard principle in life, as one way I think the Chinese thought of it. You can translate it to a cosmos too, although it becomes rather confusing to define which is which. You can also translate it into a description of frames of reference, acknowledging that relativity is described through two frames, yours, relative what you observe, comparing.

Not that hard to get to, is it? :)  You don't really need to use that idea though, as long as you acknowledge that we are not the first humans on this planet, wondering about it. The ancient Greeks did too, probably we can find that most all have thought and wondered about it, at some time.

So you have a vacuum, and proper mass. Fermions and bosons. Two objects, a sun and a planet interacting. Depending on their relative motion giving a planetary observer different definitions of that suns rays 'energy'.

The energy is correct, but where is it contained? It differs, you can measure on that, but is it contained in the vacuum? That would be a rather weird proposition, as I can add how many suns I like, in different relative motion versus Earth. Depending on what sun you measure on you know will find that this vacuum then should have different 'energy values'. Do you think that is true?

So where is that energy stored?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #549 on: 18/01/2014 13:01:50 »

 

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