# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 189362 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #600 on: 29/01/2014 13:39:21 »
So, what do you think?

Can you use the eyes of a God in a universe defined by the observers local measurements?
Only when defining it locally, then adding in other observers locally found constants.
Defining a commonly same universe from those repeatable experiments.

That should be 'the eye of a God'.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 13:42:31 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #601 on: 29/01/2014 13:48:43 »
To me the eyes of a God should be to look for what we otherwise won't notice, or recognize. A bare bones map to a universe, and the bare bones would then be constants, although you from them, or if ignoring those, might be able to argue that it is repeatable experiments that are those bare bones. But 'c' is a constant, and that constant creates observer dependencies, gravity is another, creating observer dependencies. Newton is right.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #602 on: 29/01/2014 13:51:58 »
None of this explains why we have frames of reference though. If now locality is where 'reality' stops.

What allows a frame to communicate with another frame of reference?
'c' is one answer, but it doesn't tell us how they exist.

Dimensions as some container is not a good answer from observer dependencies. Degrees of freedom doesn't tell it either?

So, what make one frame of reference able to 'co exist' with another?
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 14:02:50 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #603 on: 29/01/2014 14:08:17 »
The universe I think of is locally in-differentiable. At some ultimate scale 'smeared out' into a total sameness, and no arrow to it either. So you can't discuss that place from a macroscopic definition of clocks and distance. But somehow, scaling it up, we get to the universe we know?
=

Actually you just need to take the idea of constants to its logical conclusion to see that all points must be 'equal'.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 14:55:27 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #604 on: 29/01/2014 14:42:56 »
consider that you always bring in your 'ideal' local clock and ruler in everything you measure, over your frame of reference, no matter the scale you look at. There is always a arrow involved. And you can't use a definition in where motion 'vibrations' decides time, or rather, you first then need to prove that for example 'vibrations' measurably is 'its' arrow. That means a experiment. Meaning that just because what you observe won't change, you can't regard it as 'time less'.

As there is no experiment possible, without you involving your local arrow ?
How would you prove it?
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 14:49:13 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #605 on: 29/01/2014 15:16:39 »
To see why I think of all arrows as locally equivalent. Assume it gets its reality through interactions, frames of reference interacting. Scaling it up into a arrow. Can't we then also assume that depending on mass, gravity, speeds etc etc it must change, although being the same locally defined? Yes, maybe we can, or we can argue that as it decides your life span, and as that one never will change relative your wrist watch, the simpler approach is to define it as equivalent to 'c', a local constant.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #606 on: 29/01/2014 15:20:55 »
Now you just have to decide if 'c', locally measured, is equivalent everywhere in a uniform motion. What makes it differ will be inertia 'gravity' and accelerations.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #607 on: 29/01/2014 15:47:27 »
There seems a logical fallacy in assuming that uniform motion at different speeds will introduce different aging. As we now assume 'c' to be what we locally will measure, in both 'circumstances/places', when defining 'c' equivalent to a local arrow. Although we can see far away 'light clocks' ticking at different paces, depending on the speed of their uniform motion, relative ones own. If 'c' is equivalent to your arrow, then you can't have a 'twin' of another age, just by him having a different uniform motion, can you?

On the other hand, I take those light clocks seriously and find them to describe time dilations. As well as there is no way to test it, as you must introduce accelerations, to get to a different 'relative motion' between you.

And actually, as long as you think constants exist, then they must be locally equivalent in all circumstances, doesn't matter if you introduce accelerations in it. 'c' should still be 'c', strict locally, even though we can't do a 'one way experiment' to prove it. It's about frames of reference.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #608 on: 29/01/2014 15:55:49 »
The real reason for constants is simple. Without them there can't be a order, and without a order no causality, there just won't be a definable universe anymore.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #609 on: 29/01/2014 16:01:51 »
You need a structure, you need the 'bare bones' first, the rules and principles defining the game.
=

Or if you like, as we here are involved in a more deductive science. 'Backtracking' this universe you must arrive to rules, constants, properties and principles. Because if you ultimately fail in this, you shouldn't exist :)
==

Well, not logically exist anyway. A universe without ground rules is a universe without logic. Anything should be possible in such a universe, which would make it quite confusing, for us at least. We expect things to be the same tomorrow as today don't we? The ground under our feet, the sky above etc. And if I would want to apply a 'hidden logic' to it, I actually want to introduce 'order upon chaos', don't I :)

(wording sux bad at times here)
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 16:17:45 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #610 on: 29/01/2014 16:31:04 »
You could say that what I do here is to try to justify why I would like to define one frame of reference as equivalent to an idea of a constant. They go together (in my mind).

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #611 on: 30/01/2014 23:02:18 »
Why do I think 'c' is 'c' in all motion? One good reason is that motion is weird :) If you look at it classically motion is one thing, about displacements measured in time. But if you use relativity we get to several new conclusions. We have uniform motion, also described in relative motion, then we have constant uniform accelerations, and finally all other types of accelerations. Let's call it three types to start with.

But the first definition, uniform motion, also becomes a relative motion. Relative to what you measure against. And locally there is no proof of this first type of motion existing, you need to introduce frames of reference to prove it. That means that you need to pick something not locally to compare against, to get to a uniform motion. But we probably agree that as soon we have tree objects in different uniform motion we have a proof of different uniform motions existing. You can also use incoming lights blue and red shift, or the CBR, for defining the same.

But :) You're at rest in any uniform motion, and being at rest is translatable to still. So now we got four types. Where two is about the same type of motion, uniform 'relative' motion.

If we want to define 'c' to a arrow, I think we can do it two ways. One is a very strict definition of locality in where we can assume instants of displacements as being 'still' in any acceleration, connecting those instants to the idea of 'constants', and 'one frame of reference'. The other is different, and not as satisfying to me. In that one we also will use 'locality' but now define it as this local focal point 'frame of reference' can be transformed by motion, mass, energy etc. That means that this frame of reference still exist, but also should be locally adaptable to the relations around it, 'adapting' in some weird way. What talks against this one is the fact that you can introduce a accelerating rocket together with three uniformly moving objects, being at different uniform velocities. Each one of the uniformly moving will define different time dilations, and Lorentz contractions to the one accelerating.

You don't need a twin experiment, you just need to decide if you believe in different clocks measure over frames of reference, or not. And the choice isn't even there, NIST has already proven that one, conclusively here on Earth at decimeters.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #612 on: 30/01/2014 23:07:55 »
That does not take away the strangeness of Inertia though. Let us start with assuming that although we find different speeds existing in geodesics, all of those are also being 'still'. Because, according to inertia they all are, 'still' that is.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #613 on: 30/01/2014 23:11:14 »
You might want to look at that as another proof of uniform motion being without 'motion'. Relative motions are locally no motions, even though we can define different speeds to those, comparing over frames of reference.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #614 on: 30/01/2014 23:15:35 »
We define Earths relative motion versus other objects, existing in a vacuum. We define the vacuum as being of one equivalent piece, it together with mass creating a objective universe. We either need a container model existing doing so, or we need to understand how one frame of reference can connect with another. 'c' in no answer to that one, 'c' is a definition from locality, using a local interpretation of a container model, defining it as equivalent for all 'inertial' frames, aka uniform 'relative' motion.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #615 on: 30/01/2014 23:26:35 »
Now ask yourself, if Earth would accelerate to double its velocity, to then move uniformly again. Will it then cost you more fuel, to lift with your rocket in the direction of 'motion' we defined earth to have? Or we can ignore any added velocity, and just ask ourselves if we think there will be a higher cost to lift a rocket in the direction we define earth to move, as compared to lift from a opposite direction? The other side of Earth, where Earth 'disappear' from us, relative whatever velocity we defined earth to have.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #616 on: 30/01/2014 23:34:21 »
Then look at "'c' is a definition from locality, using a local interpretation of a container model, defining it as equivalent for all 'inertial' frames, aka uniform 'relative' motion."

The container model you use can not be mine. Not even in a uniform 'relative' motion.
How many 'containers' will that make?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #617 on: 30/01/2014 23:44:19 »
So what do we have that is constant there? 'c' is constant, your life span is constant too. It's a local definition naturally, but valid for all of those container models.

Then we have inertia.
accelerations

uniform constant accelerations.
gravity

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #618 on: 30/01/2014 23:56:03 »
In a nutshell. There is no 'absolute frame' that Earth moves relative, in its uniform 'relative' motion (geodesic). Therefore it is still, inertia got it correct. And for a uniform constant acceleration to perfectly equivalent with gravity, it must be able to be described as being directed 'inwards', which in that case place the direction from its acceleration, towards its stern. This is assuming the best direction to describe it from locally, as in a 'point mass', should be 'inwards'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #619 on: 31/01/2014 00:00:37 »
And defining it so, we find that Earth is 'still', but 'accelerating' at one measurable gravity. The other type of 'motion' we assume is not locally measurable, unless we define it comparing Earth to? Our Sun maybe? The Magellan cloud? The CBR? And that's relativity, comparing between frames of reference.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #620 on: 31/01/2014 11:58:00 »
I know, a lot of rambling around here :) But I'm slow, so I need it, this is actually a minimum of rambling so far. The point about how to define a frame of reference is rather important to me. because if you define it as 'unchanging' which is what I want to, then everything becomes a result of relativity. A relativity in where you won't be able to pin a change to any single frame of reference, only to them interacting. That gives us a static universe, and some form of 'bit', although 'bits' disappear if the arrow isn't there.

The other possibility is one in where there is no single frame of reference. That one is also relativity, but makes it very hard to define a existing focal point, as a singular frame of reference, as a 'bit'. If you think of that 'ideal local clock' we always use, where does it 'tick'? It all comes down to interactions creating the focal points, that we then define as 'bits'. And a frame of reference from this definition is just a result of interactions giving us opposites. I'm having a hard time with that one, as it would be a very different interpretation.

I don't know :)
« Last Edit: 31/01/2014 12:03:53 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #621 on: 31/01/2014 12:12:31 »
The other point I'm getting to is the one Higgs and those other guys found important. Inertia.
I'm in total agreement on inertia being important. And if we stop considering relative motion, just looks at what express inertia then we find accelerations.

Earth accelerates too. Without a 'motion', but it accelerates. So a reasonable question should be in what it accelerates?
There's only one thing it accelerates in, and that is a arrow.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #622 on: 31/01/2014 12:20:25 »
Time becomes a relation to mass. one point mass giving you one representation, and as you let them together into macroscopic pieces, them redefining that 'point mass' time, as related to other frames of reference. The point mass is still there, but in this piece of matter his relations to other frames of reference change.

Maybe focal points would be a giving subject? because you can give a point mass one focal point of 'time', a earth another, a neutron star a third. Locally defined they should be the same though, in my thoughts.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #623 on: 31/01/2014 12:27:46 »
Build it up from point masses. Let a arrow be a constant referable to 'c'. All point masses keeps this ideal definition and as we put them together we find a need for a ideal clocks. We have ideal clocks, everything has it, but as you break matter down you should reach something irreducible. A 'point mass' or ? A infinite center if we use a black hole for it. but there must be a back ground to it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #624 on: 31/01/2014 12:38:18 »
What is a illusion, in 'my universe'  that is, :) is not yours, or mine, local arrow. We need them to be equivalent to get to repeatable experiments, otherwise they won't exist. But the idea of a macroscopic even flow of time is incorrect. And that idea comes from the way we perceive the universe, 'commonly same' to us all. The universe is a mosaic, 'interactions/relations' between pieces giving us time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But it does not change the fact that we all locally have a equivalent arrow.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #624 on: 31/01/2014 12:38:18 »