# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199953 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #625 on: 31/01/2014 12:47:22 »
If you want you can see it as being 'here', happening all the time, all the way. Our arrow becoming a back ground scaled up into a macroscopic universe. and when you scale it the other way, finally reduced to constants, properties and principles, rules. So your background becomes 'time less', and this, your play for a audience.

Yeah, sounds good doesn't it :)
ahem

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #626 on: 31/01/2014 12:54:51 »
You can also relate it to information.

If you assume there being something striving for the concept of 'meaningful information', then we and the universe we agree on existing is 'it'. We're all meaningful information. but then we have information that's not 'set up', and that one you find as you scale down. Another way to express it would be from simplicity to complexity. What defines our universe is a need for logic, for 'meaningful information'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #627 on: 31/01/2014 13:02:02 »
What we can notice is that the idea of this other type of arrangements fails our logic. It breaks down as we close in on it. That's also what combine the idea of a event horizon to the idea of the very small where the mathematics becomes just as impossible without using renormalization. When we expect the inside of a event horizon to behave the same as its outside, we're doing a renormalization, based on the statistics we have of SpaceTime outside it. That all physics works the same, no matter where you are.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #628 on: 31/01/2014 13:06:36 »
So we can answer one question at least. Can mathematics describe everything?
No, if it could there would be no need for renormalization, and statistics.

Even if we would get the most elegant equation from using those two, describing a universe, it would leave us with the same dilemma as 'c' does. It explains it, but it doesn't explain it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #629 on: 31/01/2014 13:15:34 »
There is a catch to this though. It might be possible to create a mathematics truly explaining things, looking at what statistics and renormalization tells us to work. And so refute what I just said. But I'm not as interested in what might be possible as I am in what is possible. And there mathematics does not give us a tool that unerringly lead us to the right conclusions. If it did we would all become mathematicians :) Then again, maybe we all are? When you reach for something you mostly catch it too, don't you? Well, that's a pretty good intuitive mathematical computation you must have made, to arrive at that point in space and time.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #630 on: 31/01/2014 14:02:41 »
What do we call it when a baby learns to walk? Trial and error? A statistical approach to how to learn to walk? somewhere inside that baby there is something 'weighting' the results of all this trial and error, not only related to its brain but to muscles and tendons and ? All about relations. As Jung would have had it, the gestalt becoming something in its own, a 'ideal' and a 'synergy'. Epigenetics is a new field in genetics, or maybe not so new, but once more taken seriously. It's about much the same thing.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #631 on: 31/01/2014 16:24:53 »
Then we have this about what information should be. I differ it in meaningful information and useless information, from logics. Entanglements then becomes useless information, until someones proves that we inject energy, that can be taken out at 'the other end' of the entanglement. As an idea 'energy' is very interesting, and I would refer it to a interaction. So do you inject energy into a entanglement at 'both ends' as you measure? You should, and that's what makes that idea so phreakingly interesting, as well as confusing, to me :)

What the idea suggests, is not only that we inject 'energy' in all interactions, but it also allows you to collect a same amount at another SpaceTime position. If we now treat this as a photon hitting your retina (eye), does the retina inject energy into the photon?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #632 on: 31/01/2014 16:28:41 »
We can test this proposal by thinking of light passing a glass, does it lose or gain energy by doing so?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #633 on: 31/01/2014 16:40:22 »
Whatever else it does, I've never seen anyone arguing that it gains energy by passing through matter, or getting absorbed and re-emitted by the glass molecules, atoms, electron orbitals, etc. On the other hand, a often used argument to why HUP is so confusing is that you by probing something disturbs it, forces it into a state, but that is not the exact same thing as injecting a energy, is it? It's confusing ideas all of them I better admit. But I don't think it possible for the glass to inject energy into the light, passing it through. Because that should then cool a window in the sun, and it doesn't.
=

There's one more point to it. Photons doesn't 'interact' with 'photons', as far as I know, unless we refer to the 'energy' in a gamma gamma reaction where you might find short lived 'new' particles. But then we have waves too, in where they can reinforce as well as quench each other. It is confusing, isn't it :)
« Last Edit: 31/01/2014 16:47:28 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #634 on: 31/01/2014 17:15:22 »
Take a field of light. does it have a temperature?

Not as I know, it have a energy that can be expressed in temperature, but to do so you need to introduce matter, don't you? You won't find light interacting with light producing a temperature without matter. So what was the temperature in that primeval 'photon field', and, is that even a meaningful question?

I don't think it is.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #635 on: 31/01/2014 17:20:55 »
A better question then would be how 'energy' of a 'photon field' can produce stable matter, matter that will continue to exist as the temperature falls. Also why that matter doesn't break down, due to the immense temperature we can imagine it to be produced under. The same energy that creates matter, should as soon matter is 'produced', start to act on it as 'temperature', shouldn't it?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #636 on: 01/02/2014 01:08:30 »
Then we have this idea of gravity transferring energy. A photon is defined by a recoil at its origin, and its own annihilation arriving to its 'sink'. It's Newtons 'action and reaction', as well as a result of the conservation laws. A sun has a lot of photons leaving it constantly, they should then act on this sun in the classical way by recoils, dampening its 'motion', although that 'reaction' should even out over a spherical body, shouldn't it? You can apply the same idea to 'gravity' as it transfers 'energy', as Earths tidal forces. It seems as a good argument for something being transfered by the 'force' of gravity, doesn't it? Another way to view it should be that what we see as tidal forces are the geodesics defined for those spacetime positions, meaning that what rips you apart is not a force, but your body's particles diverging geodesics due to gravity. The 'forces' keeping those particles joined into you are split by gravity defining different geodesics for them.
=

(Hmm, not sure you can use 'action and reaction' for it? The recoil is explained through conservation of momentum, if I get it right, those days. It's about a symmetry needed, but action and reaction is about forces, and ? Demands a acceleration possibly? And a photon doesn't accelerate. I'm not sure, although I'm sure that Newton thought of action and reaction as a result of forces, making it inappropriate here any which way. So forget 'action and reaction', although it still fits somehow.)

Ok, back to black holes tidal forces :)
« Last Edit: 01/02/2014 01:39:17 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #637 on: 01/02/2014 01:13:47 »
You can view this as being a force too, but when those particles follow their separate geodesics there are no force acting on them, the same as there is no force acting on you in a free fall. It's when you're at rest with (and on) Earth there is a force acting on you, and you can measure that force by a scale. In a free fall the scale won't show you a thing.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2014 01:46:26 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #638 on: 01/02/2014 11:42:07 »
Forces are tricky, dimensions are tricky. That force can exist, acting on you, what does it mean? A stream acting on me, have I transformed away the stream by becoming at rest with it? Is it gone? Depends on how you define it I think. Locally it is gone, ideally defined. From a perspective of someone standing on a bank watching you, it's still there, just taking you with it.

But that is what relativity seems to state, that everything is frame related. Well, almost everything. A acceleration is not depending on what frame of reference you choose to accelerate in. A acceleration is always a local experience of inertia, and 'gravity'. Will gravity disappear as you scale something up? A piece of Earth you're standing on, 'magnifying' it, will gravity disappear? I don't think so, but it might become unmeasurable by your scale.

If you can't measure it, is it gone?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #639 on: 01/02/2014 11:50:36 »
I try to use a strict locality, I hope :) and then what ever experiments I know, for making my views on it. So, to me gravity is gone, if you can't measure it, just as that stream is gone, locally measured. Because this is the way the universe is fitted, it uses time dilations, Lorentz contractions, 'motion' and accelerations, and on it imposes limits that are local, not 'global', as standing on that bank might be seen as.

'c' is a local description. That we make it into a constant means that we accept locality. Otherwise it can't be a constant, as your 'motion' then would have to be taken into account, relative some arbitrarily defined frame of reference, as for example the cosmic background radiation.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #640 on: 01/02/2014 11:57:18 »
So, am I right in that if we take one perfectly spherical evenly distributed point mass, then try to define its 'gravitational direction' it will point inwards? And what happens as you scale it up?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #641 on: 01/02/2014 12:01:34 »
What will happen if we place two point masses aside each other in a formerly 'flat space'? Will they 'interact'? In what way? By force?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #642 on: 01/02/2014 13:10:36 »
It's strange isn't it? Whenever we get mass we find that 'gravity' final direction must be inwards, and what is it about this inflation we hear about? Directed 'outwards' is it? in each point? No origin to it, is there?

Is there a 'origin' to the directionality of gravity, ignoring mass :)

Nope, no 'origin', unless we use mass, and 'constant uniform accelerations'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #643 on: 01/02/2014 13:14:09 »
I leave energy aside, because I still don't know how to define that, and I probably never will.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #644 on: 01/02/2014 13:16:31 »
'Energy' makes sense to me from a 'container model', a container in which we can define some magnitude of 'energy'. But without a container, what is 'energy'? If the inside is the outside?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #645 on: 01/02/2014 13:26:09 »
So we have 'gravity', and then we have all other types of accelerations, becoming inertia. Which one covers the most? Gravity or inertia? If all types of gravity can be related to inertia, what would it make of Earths gravity? And what does Earths gravity need to exist? I think it needs mass, it needs a arrow, it needs a way of communicating over frames of reference. Is there anything I'm missing? Does it need a vacuum? Don't think so. And 'frames of reference' should be read as distances, measured locally.
=

Then again, a atom is 99.99 ~ vacuum?
I'm not sure I can ignore a vacuum for it?
« Last Edit: 01/02/2014 13:29:14 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #646 on: 01/02/2014 13:32:05 »
Why does mass consist of so much vacuum? Because the 'bits' we're made of doesn't have the ability to clump together? Or are those 'bits' excitations? If they are, what makes them continuous and consistent? Forces :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #647 on: 01/02/2014 13:41:10 »
That makes us into some sort of ghosts, doesn't it? Being  continuous coherent excitations in a field, dressed as 'matter' or fermions, using bosons. But a field demands a objective reality to me, a defined SpaceTime having limits, or you can let it build from local constants. If you do that you need to define how frames of reference comes to be, and 'dimensions'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #648 on: 01/02/2014 13:45:51 »
The point is that you can't have a 'objective' description of a Einsteinian SpaceTime. You can only have a local. If you do like me then you will define the local description as the 'objective', then it just becomes trying to see what is equivalent for all 'local' frames of reference. Constants, properties and principles/rules. That makes a field the result of information. Locally defined.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #649 on: 01/02/2014 13:53:41 »
The only 'displacements' existing for Earth uniform acceleration is in time, am I not right? And if we define a arrow the way I do, then it exist. Purely local definition, but so is all other definitions I've seen, making sense to me. So each point mass making up a earth, has one direction inwards to some 'center', even if unmeasurably so, and one timelike direction, using a local arrow.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #649 on: 01/02/2014 13:53:41 »