The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199315 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 #575 on: 19/01/2014 15:20:01 »
Consciousness and linear logic is also a result of a arrow. To define this 'consciousness' without thoughts you may experience meditating you actually need to get out of it, starting to think again, don't you :) No way to define it being there.
 

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 #576 on: 19/01/2014 15:21:03 »
so what you define belongs to the arrow, never mind what you would like to call it. We use a arrow, always.
 

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 #577 on: 19/01/2014 15:28:09 »
It's the exact same experience as you will get from realizing that we only can define something from a 'inside'. Every thought you had, every experience you know, is defined from a inside of this universe. It does not tell you that there is a 'outside' though. That presumption comes from our definitions of 'dimensions' inside this universe. From there it is easy to assume that as a box has a inside as well as a outside, so must every 'inside' contain a possibility of a outside. But that is a fallacy of logic. Define a universe from relations defining 'dimensions' and the outside becomes the inside, what we call 'inside' defined by measurements, and repeatable experiments. 
 

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 #578 on: 19/01/2014 15:34:52 »
But light has a vector, doesn't it? And a pressure? so it must 'propagate'?

So the universe is as I see it intuitively, looking out at the stars at night. Nah, it's not.
 

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 #579 on: 19/01/2014 15:35:43 »
At least not from where I stand :)
 

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 #580 on: 19/01/2014 15:48:19 »
Using relations you will get to a definition of a universe, as being a linear logic, definable through a arrow and what repeatable experiments you find setting its limits. The relations becomes it all actually, dissolve decoherence (as a probable) and the universe should disappear.
 

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 #581 on: 19/01/2014 15:54:13 »
It also becomes meaningless arguing what 'reality' is. We define ours from a inside, and it is as real as it ever can be from that inside. When you die you die, you are no longer 'inside' unless you want to count in 'energy' as a countable. Your consciousness, your definition of yourself, needs a arrow. That doesn't state that there can't be anything more to it though, but whatever that would be it won't use this 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 #582 on: 19/01/2014 16:06:48 »
A slight release, isn't it :) Getting away from oneself I mean, the last and biggest adventure you'll ever make. If we use fractals for defining how simple becomes complex, then the universe should be a mathematical fractal to my mind. A fractal that is described as evolving by a arrow, defined by decoherence, and constants. Properties and principles arising from it interacting.
 

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 #583 on: 19/01/2014 16:10:49 »
And free will then, well, what is HUP?
 

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 #584 on: 19/01/2014 16:13:09 »
All of it defined locally naturally, over frames of reference.
 

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 #585 on: 19/01/2014 16:17:16 »
So what 'glues' one frame of reference to another? Forces? Constants, properties and principles? I prefer the last.
 

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 #586 on: 19/01/2014 16:21:12 »
But it depends on from where you look at it. Forces exist, gravity acts not only as a point like experience, having one direction 'down wards' into some center. It acts on you and you act on it, which allows us to define why our solar system hang together. EM is the same way, you can exchange frames of reference there too, defining it differently.
 

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 #587 on: 19/01/2014 21:33:06 »
So, we have us a universe in 3-D, with a local arrow giving us four dimensions, but I suspect you can add one local direction downwards to it. Doesn't matter where you are either. Five 'dimensions' if you like :) the most important being the one you get to, scaling it down.
==

All depending on definitions naturally.
 

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 #588 on: 19/01/2014 21:40:45 »
Or two?

If you imagine it as a plane, then scaling down that plane gets a direction of its own. I don't like dimensions that much. I think it's better to define it from what a observer, locally defined, can measure over frames of reference. Then it should be the behavior you find that define the degrees of freedom something have. And so we find four macroscopically but a microscopic lattice might be defined to have two. And going further down, how many degrees of freedom can there be?
 

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 #589 on: 19/01/2014 21:44:19 »
Can you define a dimensionality in where there is no possibility of scaling? Should a string be impossible to scale?
 

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 #590 on: 19/01/2014 21:48:33 »
The point to it is that a string is below any measurements, but if you truly think them to exist, then there is no reason I see why you can't imagining them able to scale, down and up. Scaling becomes a direction of its own to me, although part of the three dimensional space we define macroscopically.
 

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 #591 on: 29/01/2014 12:56:15 »
How different does a universe becomes if you disallow dimensions, instead using degrees of freedom? For example, a orbital, can you describe that in 'degrees of freedom'? Well, you can describe it as a result of how the atoms are organized, as in a lattice. It becomes a statement much alike the argument Einstein presented. Relativity being frames of reference interacting, having the addition of the importance of the 'observer', meaning that the observer always has to define it locally, using a locally defined clock and ruler for measuring in comparing between frames.
 

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 #592 on: 29/01/2014 12:58:39 »
Then we have the idea of being at rest with something. Assume that gravity in 'reality' will come down to just one direction. The direction shown by a singular 'point mass', inwards.

That gives us one degree of freedom, doesn't 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 #593 on: 29/01/2014 13:03:02 »
And a lattice then? Two degrees of freedom?

And to that you need to add observer dependencies, but I can't see how that could influence the degrees of freedom you find something to have? Maybe it can though? As in imagining myself 'speeding relativistically', very close to lights speed, trying to define the degrees of freedom for suns, moving relative me in the vacuum. Would they be found to move?
 

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 #594 on: 29/01/2014 13:06:19 »
We have two ways to define reality. One is through observer dependencies, and experiments of course, the other is from a thought up 'objective standpoint' in where I apply what I call the eyes of a God to a universe, and so a imaginary 'outside'. Is there a outside, if you only have degrees of freedom to define it from?
 

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 #595 on: 29/01/2014 13:14:13 »
I think that a field picture is acceptable from a definition in where we use local constants combined with the degrees of freedom we can prove, as defined by the observer. When different observers agree on each others observations, and their 'equal setups' we come to a definition of a 'commonality' in this universe, and 'repeatable experiments'. Those then must define the 'common universe' we agree to exist. But there will be no outside to it, unless you define it such as only what we directly can measure is 'inside' it. Which in this case should disallow a Higgs boson/field.
 

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 #596 on: 29/01/2014 13:18:04 »
So what is then degrees of freedom, and where do they end? Can you scale them away?
 

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 #597 on: 29/01/2014 13:23:33 »
If you use a local representation, ignoring dimensions, how many degrees of freedom do exist? We use four dimensions in relativity, three room dimensions, and one 'time' dimension. That becomes the container from where I define the degrees of freedom to that lattice. Would we be able to see more degrees of freedom than the ones defining the container? Doesn't seem possible, does it? If we could the container would be differently 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 #598 on: 29/01/2014 13:29:46 »
There is no size to this universe, but there seem to be a scale. You can scale it down, and according to my thoughts then, the 'distance traversed' in scaling down should be approximately the same everywhere. You could also define it from observer dependencies as mass, gravity, motion, energy density etc. But I'm using the prerogative of applying 'eyes of a God' for this :) And so I expect the 'distance traversed' to be equal, everywhere.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 13:31:17 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 #599 on: 29/01/2014 13:34:50 »
It's a different universe than the one we see. We see it without including observer dependencies, and we assume that what 'I see is what you see too'. That makes applying the eyes of God real easy, and thinking of it as having a inside and a outside real easy too.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #599 on: 29/01/2014 13:34:50 »

 

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