# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199106 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #650 on: 01/02/2014 13:59:39 »
The 'sidereal universe' we define normally is a container. I don't think anyone will argue against that? A container containing regimes and forces. The reason I ignore that part is that I'm wanting to define locality, and that should be some ideal point mass when it comes to gravity. And I also want a universe to be built from locality, so the 'sidereal universe' we started from in physics is to me becoming more unreal, as I burrow myself down in locality :)

It would be a nice SF.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #651 on: 01/02/2014 14:02:57 »
It just needs a reason to how frames of reference can co-exist, to become 'real', doesn't it?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #652 on: 01/02/2014 14:08:16 »
A dimension is a archetype. You start from a archetype as a sheet or plane, then use it as a Lego, to build more dimensions from, you twist them against each other, somehow glue them together, to define three room dimensions. and to that we add a time dimension, or a local arrow. I've never liked archetypes, and I don't think this is the way dimensions comes to be. I think they are a result of local constants, communicating. Those constants, properties etc, create the dimensions we find. To me they become limits, just as as 'c' is another.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #653 on: 01/02/2014 14:10:09 »
But without a outside, it's a limitation of measuring that define what is real to us. The geometry too.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #654 on: 01/02/2014 14:14:12 »
heh, I don't like archetypes, do I? But I do like constants, don't I :)
Ah well, we need some rules, don't we?

Unless we want magic?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #655 on: 01/02/2014 14:21:29 »
If we apply this on strings, or loops, then we just move it one step further down in scale, don't we? Instead of a sheet, we use a string, or a loop. But, what if there is a background of constants, and what if there is no arrow to it? one equivalent local background, scaling up to a multitude of localities, communicating over frames of reference, and a local arrow, using 'c' for 'meaningful communication'. Information might be different, but meaningful communication should to me be everything obeying 'c'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #656 on: 01/02/2014 14:28:35 »
Your lifespan is a meaningful communication, isn't it? You can't change that one, doesn't matter if everybody rush past you time wise. Your life span will be the exact same relative your wristwatch. That's meaningful to me :) And if 'c' is a local definition, so is that lifespan.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #657 on: 01/02/2014 14:40:10 »
The closest to this concept might be loop quantum gravity. In it the quanta of the field builds 'spacetime', according to Carlo Rovelli. Well, where he speaks of quanta, I want to define a frame of reference :) Maybe it's all the same, a reductionary approach to locality, or maybe not? It depends on what you think exist there? A background, or loops?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #658 on: 01/02/2014 14:44:14 »
Without a arrow, I don't see how I can 'split' the extremely small into loops, or anything? To me it becomes 'dimension less' as a arrow is needed, and meaningful communication, to build that SpaceTime? So you got yourself a nice mystery in that something timeless, as I see it, creates a (local) arrow, and distance. And from that now is able to introduce 'relative motions', and accelerations.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #659 on: 01/02/2014 14:54:48 »
You could say that what consist of a background is whether you presume it to exist some blueprint for how things should behave or if it is the things themselves that become the blueprint. I use a blueprint of constants, that I define from a strict local outlook. That becomes a background of sorts, but as I also expect the local arrow and 'c', as I set them equivalent, to expire (disappear) around Planck scale, this 'Background' must become 'distance less' and so 'dimensionless'.

It's a matter of personal taste if that is a 'background' or not? I call it a background though.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #660 on: 01/02/2014 15:03:42 »
SpaceTime is 'Background independent', meaning that it is itself that creates it. It's about dimensions, three room and one time, defining geodesics that everything 'moves in'. The only way to break those, accelerating. Then there is frame dependencies defining what you observe, always locally made. But the concept seems still to be one of a 'container', to me, although you easily can redefine that as I do, using only local definitions. Einstein used both, local definitions and this idea of a SpaceTime as a 'entity' in its own right. When he spoke of the moon always existing I think he thought of SpaceTime as a entity, not from locality. but you can argue the same locally I think.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #661 on: 02/02/2014 13:34:06 »
Can't help wondering about regimes and temperatures. A gamma gamma universe, populated by energetic light/photons interacting how? A 'energy density' of what? As waves they quench and reinforce, would it then be when they reinforce each other? That they make matter? And why seems atoms to be time less? At least very long lived, how do they do it?

And another thing, if you think of two objects exchanging light signals in uniform motion, they both will define the speed they exchange it with 'c'. What a light clock shows is a 'twisted geometry' from the observer, induced by motion. It's not a result existing for the observer, locally measured. You might say? That the geometry change with somethings motion, as defined from the observer. The problem is that it is measurements we use to define what is correct, and they are always local. You might want to argue that the far away observers motion isn't only a motion, but also a distortion of the space you define him to be in, traveling.

If it was so, and we introduce different observers at different speeds, then that distorted space we find one to traverse is either a geometrical illusion, or it gets redefined, differently depending on observer.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #662 on: 02/02/2014 13:43:27 »
And that one goes directly back to the question of how we define a dimension, doesn't it? If everything would be planes, then what that light clock shows us, measuring it locally, indeed would be a changed geometry. Think of it as a sheet moving away from you, upon which light paints a picture of this light clock ,'ticking'. It would be the geometry that distorts the speed of those 'ticks'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #663 on: 02/02/2014 14:36:47 »
Actually, the sheet doesn't have to move at all, as I think. It's enough if everything you observe gives you a information consistent with 'motion'. But that's a very strange idea :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #664 on: 02/02/2014 15:07:53 »
You either could see the concept of light clocks a good proof of a vacuum containing three dimensions, or, you might ask yourself how it is this way, if it isn't three dimensions?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #665 on: 02/02/2014 16:21:02 »
Causality demands symmetries. It's a logic, in where you follow the 'dotted line', called a arrow. The arrow is 'time reversible' in that you find a symmetry of sorts, allowing you to play causality backwards, at times, also depending on what limits you set.  But I think of it more like a mirror (symmetry) to the way a arrow works, and from logic there must be a certain reversibility. Or do you know how to create a logic universe, using a arrow, without reversibility?
='

The fact is that I have never seen physics define a universe where we won't have a time reversibility existing, and still present us a logic. From pure logic that is one of the things what you need to prove, before giving this time reversibility its present status as a 'proof' of a arrow being a 'illusion'.

We better define what magic is too. It's not ' very advanced technology indistinguishable from 'magic' ', it's the opposite of logic. It won't make sense.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2014 12:27:45 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #666 on: 04/02/2014 11:53:17 »
So what do we have so far in my universe :)

A arrow equivalent to 'c'.
A definition of dimensions as coming from 'degrees of freedom', defining dimensional limits, always observed and defined  locally.
A argument about 'arrow' in where I state that you can't ignore your 'wrist watch', always giving you a 'time', even for things that is unchanging in themselves. This meaning that there is no way to prove anything, measured over frames of reference', to not having a arrow, that I can see?

I think the equivalence, and the way to define a dimensionality, is the ones I like most, this far :) Doesn't mean that there isn't dimensions, it's just back tracking them to what I think makes most sense from observer dependencies. And that is 'degrees of freedom' defined by the observer.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #667 on: 04/02/2014 11:55:44 »
Then we have gravity, in where I'm ignoring our sidereal universe, instead defining it from a point mass. That one fits right in, into a 'back ground' of sorts, that we can reach by scaling.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #668 on: 04/02/2014 11:59:13 »
Inertia should be gravity, expressed in accelerations. What is weird with this is what 'motion' becomes, in such a universe? From an idea of 'origins' of locality, gravity should be the 'original concept', inertia coming into existence through acceleration.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #669 on: 04/02/2014 12:02:47 »
So a 'motion' is no longer a 'motion'. A relative motion a equivalence to 'being still', and experimentally provable too. A acceleration becoming inertia, becoming a equivalence to gravity. What the he* is motion?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #670 on: 04/02/2014 12:06:43 »
All of it defined locally. Proving why I use locality by referring to the way we define 'repeatable experiments'. Always a local definition, also as a result demanding 'constants' to exist, and from that getting to our definition of physics being the same everywhere inside a SpaceTime, that we can communicate.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #671 on: 04/02/2014 12:09:56 »
And it's all local. Repeatable experiments proving that SpaceTime use a logic, as differing from 'magic'. Chaos can be a logic, but magic isn't.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #672 on: 04/02/2014 12:14:25 »
Which leads us to question how a frame of reference join another, and why they at all co-exist? I really don't know how that can be possible? For lack of better words, it seems like 'magic' :) to me, so far. We need something defining the 'observer dependent mosaic' a SpaceTime becomes from ideas like mine, and others.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #673 on: 04/02/2014 12:19:41 »
I have two arguments there. One in which there is no other definition than accepting that a single frame of reference can't exist, at least not experimentally. That one is Relativity.

Another in where we might assume that singular frames of reference do exist, as described by a loop, a string, a geometrical knot, or as a 'quanta/bit'

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #674 on: 04/02/2014 12:22:39 »
A outside third which then is some sort of projection, holographic or not. Maybe that one can join with any of the other two. A lot of it rests upon your definitions. Which is why I like the concept of 'meaningful information', and defines that to everything obeying 'c'. A entanglement may be information too, but it's not meaningful to us, obeying 'c'.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #674 on: 04/02/2014 12:22:39 »