# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 189649 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #700 on: 19/02/2014 16:01:09 »
How do we get it together? forgetting 'individuality' for this entanglement, yet defining it observer dependently, locally?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #701 on: 19/02/2014 16:06:15 »
you have to give up 'space' as a distance traversable in a defined time, I think? It's about a suddenly ill defined 'locality' when described from the view point of a 'spatially instantaneous' entanglement, or outcome, isn't it? :)

so ordinary 'motion' becomes a very weird idea in this entangled universe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #702 on: 19/02/2014 16:07:56 »
And a 'Einsteinian' acceleration becomes even weirder, as it is applicable to both Earth and a uniformly constantly accelerating rocket. The equivalence principle.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #703 on: 19/02/2014 16:13:25 »
Gravity as accelerations stressing entanglements? But what about Earths gravity? uniform motion being no motion at all, locally defined. Matter then also must stress the entanglements if we were to argue such a relation.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #704 on: 19/02/2014 16:49:05 »
all frames of reference are equivalent, ideally and locally defined. We then scale 'upwards' from one frame, now finding a multitude of frames, interacting with my local definition(s), presenting me with time dilations and Lorentz contractions. We also find inertia and gravity.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #705 on: 19/02/2014 16:52:01 »
You could see a entanglement as something 'time less' maybe? If you like, representing a scale where a arrow disappear.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #706 on: 19/02/2014 16:55:58 »
From locality and a arrow disappearing, everything must be entangled. As it seems to me there can be no less than a total equivalence 'down there' at that place where distance disappear. Distance needs a arrow, and dimensions and degrees of freedom too. Without a arrow there is no degree of freedom.

So scaling?
How does it exist?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #707 on: 19/02/2014 17:11:36 »
Or maybe that's not correct, let us assume a equivalent ground at some minimalistic scale. A entanglement can be described as two 'separate' photons, each one existing in a indeterminate superposition as long as there is no measurement done. After measuring one you 'force' the superposition(s) to fall out in a definite outcome, characterized by those photons giving us a opposite spin. You break, or collapse, the wave function describing them, and the opposite spin we see is a result of conservation laws. In this case conservation law of angular momentum. A symmetry if you like.

so what is indeterminacy? Maybe we should define it as indeterminacy when a arrow disappear?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #708 on: 19/02/2014 17:20:21 »
This one is a pleasantly nice read Entanglement: From the information philosopher.

You read this one you start to see.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #709 on: 19/02/2014 17:42:36 »
You can think of it this way. A original photon is indeterministic, neither 'up' or 'down', existing in a indefinite state until measured. You pass it through a beam splitter, in where it gets split into two photons, each one of half the energy of 'its origin'. Both assumed to be in a same indeterministic state as we have no measurements made. The important point is that they both origin from this original 'indeterministic' photon, getting split, and to keep the equilibrium their spins now has to take themselves out, and so be found to be opposite. From such a point of view those two photons still are 'one original', just expressing itself localized differently spatially defined.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #710 on: 19/02/2014 17:57:34 »
So, 'meaningful information'? Does it obey 'c', or does it not? Until I see a experiment proving the concept of sending meaningful information through a entanglement I will expect what's meaningful to obey 'c'. Which then also either makes the idea of 'new energy' transfered through you probing a entanglement wrong, or defines 'energy' as being non meaningful information.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #711 on: 04/03/2014 03:55:58 »
The same idea that define  'c' as a constant, same for all of us measuring from a uniform motion, is also the very reason to why we get time dilations and Lorentz contractions. What parameters differing them is mass, speed, 'energy density', and those they acquire through frames of reference interacting, relative locally measured constants.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #712 on: 08/03/2014 13:03:40 »
How about this, define the universe as a clock, one dimensional :) Or, if you prefer (I do, I do:) having one degree of freedom to 'vibrate in'. That's where your local constants, as 'c', comes from. One degree of freedom does not define what this degree is 'free' in, and that one seems better to me than assuming 'preexisting dimensions', as some original in where things 'exist'.

Becoming a 'field' through frames of reference interacting, if you like. Then that is our 'global definition' of what makes 'repeatable experiments' come true. Still local though

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #713 on: 08/03/2014 13:18:20 »
Let's get back to entanglements. Injections of energy 'teleported' to another location. It has to be wrong, because if you destroy one 'side', the logical conclusion if it was right would be that the other side should be destroyed too, unless we assume some restrictions. Another way to use this example would then be to consider, if it is wrong, what it says about hidden parameters. If it is so that you by weak experiments on one can influence both, without destroying the entanglement, at the same time as we assume that injecting energy into one (measuring) does not carry over to the other? Weak experiments as an idea for communicating 'instantly' becomes questionable here, wouldn't you agree?

And what does it say about the possibility of there being a hidden parameter?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #714 on: 08/03/2014 13:21:58 »
This is using 'energy' as some minimalistic common nominator in all transformations. Also assuming that change costs.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #715 on: 08/03/2014 13:29:34 »
One more point to it. Assuming that it is right, and that you can inject energy, actually presumes a hidden parameter too, doesn't it? As it won't matter 'how' we destroy the original entanglement, the other 'side' of it must still exist, until measured. So if you want to 'inject energy' you now have to define why it won't destroy both sides. On the other hand, if the entanglement indeed are(is:) one entity, as is presumed by me, then? Forgot what I thought :) Getting senile here.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #716 on: 08/03/2014 13:37:16 »
Ah yes, maybe this? If we want it to be a result of hidden parameters, and we want, if we want to be able to inject energy in it, then we have to consider how those limits can come to be. It becomes some weird sort of 'degrees of freedom' too? To me that is :) Anything that express itself one unique way, not definable any other way, has somehow a unique degree of freedom to me. As not allowing the entanglement to disappear, by you measuring and so injecting a energy in it. That then craves a definition for why.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #717 on: 08/03/2014 13:46:03 »
The hidden parameter, in my universe, would then be rules, constants, properties and principles. The question becomes if you can take it any further than that? Why are there rules? How can 'spin' exist (QM). Why doesn't measuring a entanglement destroy 'both ends' of it. Does the rules consist of definite, arbitrarily set up, limits? Or are they expressions of something more fundamental, creating them?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #718 on: 08/03/2014 13:48:47 »
You might say that I'm questioning what indeterminism mean.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #719 on: 08/03/2014 13:57:09 »
Can you see how I think there? If 'weak experiments' are possible to influence a entanglement, allowing communication 'ftl'. Then 'injecting energy' should be possible too. If it is not, although the first still works we need to redefine what we mean by 'energy'. And that somehow splits this idea of 'energy' into two domains. One in where you can influence by weak experiments, another in where your measuring doesn't influence any 'energy levels' for the other end at all.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #720 on: 08/03/2014 14:59:52 »
alternatively it becomes a question of hidden parameters. On the whole I very much doubt this possibility of redefining a entanglements spin without collapsing it, then again, I don't know.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #721 on: 08/03/2014 15:21:50 »
There exist entanglement swapping though. Although that one is a very tough one to digest. "Taking a joint measurement on one photon in each pair (A1 and B1), these photons fall into an entangled state." Why? Do you by measuring then force them into a same spin?

Let's test the logic.

Assume that the universe consist of entanglements. Then we should have a 50/50 probability of spins up, and spins down, as 'it all' is entangled. I can now take any two of those incalculable entanglements in the universe and by forcing them into a same state by my measurement tell you that I now have entangled photons that never 'meet each other', as in first getting split by a beam splitter. I can further create experiments in where one of the original pairs photons, is 'gone', re-entangling the other with another pair through my measurement simultaneously destroying and measuring the first one.

Is the logic satisfying to you?
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 15:23:41 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #722 on: 08/03/2014 15:30:55 »
It's not to me, done this way there is nothing strange about it. What we know of a entanglement is that the subsequent measurement should be opposite the first, do you agree? If the first is 'spin up' the second in a entangled pair must be 'spin down'. If it isn't your entanglement is a failure, right :)

Heh.

That's a rule. And that rule allows what I wrote above to be true, The measurements do not 'teleport' any spins, although if you can force a 'known before' spin on a one part of a entanglement, then by necessity you have also made a measurement. To have it both ways, proclaiming that the entanglement is in a indeterministic 'unknowable state', before measured, at the same time proclaiming that I can force it into a known state without measuring, lack the most fundamental logic necessary to me.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #723 on: 08/03/2014 18:45:59 »
The point is simple. Either you can know a entanglements spin, or you can't. I say you can't, not without measuring. And if it is so then it won't matter how many generations of photons I use. And any time I make that measurement, destroying one side of that entanglement, 'collapsing the superimposed wave function', it's a measurement made, locking the other side. Because that is what defines a indeterministic state, that you do not know, until measuring. The other way, described by weak measurements, is to assume that there is some threshold for collapsing it, and that as long as I stay under it I can both eat the cake and keep it.

But it's not logic.
Indeterministic states that are known are no longer indeterministic.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #724 on: 08/03/2014 18:57:53 »
The second question is, does this matter? If now the universe is entangled or not? Well, it should if it can be used to send 'meaningful information' shouldn't it? That's what we use 'c' as a limit for, separating stuff that is usable from non usable. A entangled universe with the ability to communicate meaningful information would be a new thing. And thinking of it that way, the concept of injecting energy through your measurement, collapsing its wave function, do state something to me as it doesn't (collapse)/annihilate all of it, just the part you measure on.
=

This one is possible to take into absurdum too. You just need to imagine a universe of entanglements, obeying the principle of 'weak measurements'. What you now are left with is a universe probing itself constantly, and depending on how you define it, also 'changing' the other sides spin to fit whatever spin of the last probe, constantly. And as nothing then is 'indeterministic', as we just need a weak experiment to prove what spin there is? Plus that there will be nothing left indeterministic as this situation continuously involve both 'parts' in a entanglement, probing, and getting probed at the same time.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 19:06:03 by yor_on »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #724 on: 08/03/2014 18:57:53 »