The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201263 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #725 on: 08/03/2014 19:17:21 »
Look at it this way. A field is communication, but what makes it useful to us is 'c'. 'c' also define your arrow, aka clock. When you communicate useful information then that is the limit for it, as I expect. So the field may use entanglements, but not for constructs we find meaningful. The type of information using information carriers belongs at and under 'c'. It's a result of the regime we exist in, the SpaceTime we find.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #726 on: 09/03/2014 13:56:47 »
It's hard for me to pinpoint what information really mean. Is your thoughts information? If it's not, why write them down? Does it matter what you think? Another example is that equation written on a cube of ice. Was it information, and where did it go as it melted? We used to use verbal recitations, and books, in digital format nowadays to store information, we use schools to share it with new generations. And it changes the world we live in. Is thoughts useful information?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #727 on: 09/03/2014 13:58:28 »
We are information carriers too, aren't we.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #728 on: 09/03/2014 14:04:33 »
Maybe the universe is a quantum entity. Maybe all information existing already is stored, us mining it under out local arrow. If it is so, would that give us a reason to exist? You as a individual is a information carrier in several senses, biologically, information wise as from your thoughts and experiences, all of it has to be counted in.

Why would the universe do it this way, if all the information already exist?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #729 on: 09/03/2014 14:05:23 »
What would venture into the unknown mean :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #730 on: 09/03/2014 14:10:31 »
A free will, is that what HUP is? A wider description would be indeterminacy. And to get to a outcome from those we need a observable. those make outcomes. What defines those outcomes? We need a arrow stringing outcomes up, don't we? I think we do. How about free will then? Do we need that?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #731 on: 09/03/2014 14:12:03 »

 Is thoughts useful information?
The simplest way to define information is the equation. At it's basic level, all information can be expressed with math. If we ask the question; "Are thoughts useful information?", one could say yes if they understand the thought process to be mathematical in nature. Our minds are computing devices and computers define reality using the logic of math.

In my opinion, thoughts are useful in that they are constructs in mathematical logic.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #732 on: 09/03/2014 14:15:40 »
Maybe.

If I give you a circle and a pen, and tell you to draw one line, from its center to its circumference, is that finished product you deliver a example of free will? After all, there's a lot of choices of how to draw that line inside the circle.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #733 on: 09/03/2014 14:16:22 »
A free will, is that what HUP is? A wider description would be indeterminacy. And to get to a outcome from those we need a observable. those make outcomes. What defines those outcomes? We need a arrow stringing outcomes up, don't we? I think we do. How about free will then? Do we need that?
My own feelings about free will are that it is very limited indeed.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #734 on: 09/03/2014 14:25:15 »
I would probably want to define it as logic being what we build from, and what creates our mathematics. That, and experience (repeatable experiments). All of it following a linear universe, meaning ones local arrow. I don't know Ethos, as with so many other things free will becomes a question from where you describe it. From a quantum entity's view there should be no 'new information' as all information already is stored in it. From a individual point of view, under a arrow, every new instant brings you to a place new and unique for you. And if we to that individual add the possibility of making choices then those choices must matter.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #735 on: 09/03/2014 14:36:57 »

 And if we to that individual add the possibility of making choices then those choices must matter.
One must also ask themselves, how these choices are made. The brain is a chemical computer and we view our decisions as personal and of choice. But if that is true, we must at some level be controlling the function of the brain from somewhere outside of it's realm. If free will is determined from somewhere outside the mind, where would that be?

I believe the chemical processes in the brain are controlled there and free will is an illusion constructed by the brain to express it's sovereignty over the material world. This view is, of course, a bit far out there but one must concede the purely chemical nature of the mind. If not, then we are forced into the spiritual realm of our reality and that view can't be dealt with scientifically.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #736 on: 09/03/2014 14:46:50 »
:)

Everything is more, or less, possible Ethos. Myself I prefer a universe, in wherever you are, the distance to the microscopic is the same, down there finding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and indeterminacy, up here, individual choices.

Let's turn it around. How about a magical universe. No laws, no logic. Nothing, more than choices. Those choices becoming 'laws' that exist 'momentarily'. And with no arrow under which to find linear outcomes. Would that then be a 'ideal free will'?

What I'm asking is what do we need to be able to define examples of what free will is?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #737 on: 09/03/2014 15:04:39 »
:)

Everything is more, or less, possible Ethos. Myself I prefer a universe, in wherever you are, the distance to the microscopic is the same, down there finding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and indeterminacy, up here, individual choices.

Let's turn it around. How about a magical universe. No laws, no logic. Nothing, more than choices. Those choices becoming 'laws' that exist 'momentarily'. And with no arrow under which to find linear outcomes. Would that then be a 'ideal free will'?

What I'm asking is what do we need to be able to define examples of what free will is?
Actually yor_on, I have a great deal of respect for you my friend. I've been watching this thread for some time now and have recognized the depth of thought you've been applying to it. I suppose if I were asked on what level I agree with your ideas, I would place that percentage at around 98 per cent. The other 2 per cent would have to placed there because I'm rather unsure about many things myself. In any case, I do like the way you think and am convinced that you are sincere about the search for truth. And truth for many of our cookie cutter scientists seems to be only what they feel comfortable with when rubbing elbows with their peers.

My point about free will is really focused on the issue of the spiritual. And we both know that such a topic is not very welcome here at NSF. In all truth, contemporary science has evolved to a point now where it is moving very close to the boundary lying very close to the spiritual. Take quantum mechanics for an example. How are we expected to believe in the old concept of cause and effect when quantum interactions defy the logic. Maybe we've reached the limit of logical science and find ourselves moving ever closer to the mystical explanations for reality? What ever the future holds for rational explanations about reality, it appears to be far from the logical view science used to hold.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2014 15:10:03 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #738 on: 09/03/2014 15:58:03 »
I think it's a question that one need to define too Ethos. After all, it's information. The 'spiritual point' is no different from any other question of information to me. We all know, to some degree, that we're going to die. And it would be a strange individual that never have wondered about what it means. That you disappear? All experience gone? Never to be retrieved unless it's been stored for later generations? And then we have society, living its own 'life', consisting of us individuals. The individual disappear but I think we have to presume that society continue to exist even without us. To do otherwise would draw the continuum very near a magical expression, in where I become all there is. But it's a hard thing to quantify, and even harder to define what importance my existence have. I guess that's where from some of the doubts about 'free will' comes too, looking around you and seeing that things and ideas somehow refuse change, no matter how wrong one might find the present situation. But it has changed, and we are evolving. And the values we are choosing are 'spiritual' as I see it, belonging to ethics and questions about what a civilized society should consist of. People often use behavioral science today, also wanting to believe that it's solely logic that defines it. But I would say that those developing experiments, those days, have defined their goals ethically, although perhaps not consciously. It comes down to ethics to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #739 on: 09/03/2014 16:21:49 »
Better say, 'most of those developing experiments, those days, have defined their goals ethically, although perhaps not consciously." The ministry of defense for example may have different goals and values than a university. It's about being conscious, and making choices to me, adapting to what we are. But we're evolving, although ever so slowly.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #740 on: 19/03/2014 14:47:14 »
Ever wondered how a inflation can be ftl? That depends on your definitions, we only have a 'inside' from where we can measure. Doing so ftl becomes very strange if we look at it from action and reaction, the idea of 'information carriers' propagating in a space. Exchange it for a SpaceTime in where 'information carriers' also becomes our dimensions, not meaning that what's outside of this definition isn't here, instead define those as unmeasurable and we might get an idea of how SpaceTime both can become a 'instant symmetry break' as well as having a inflation 'faster than the speed of light in a vacuum'. If SpaceTime is a 'regime', then that regime we can measure is just one part of it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #741 on: 19/03/2014 15:07:32 »
And another thing, this indeterminism we see at a quantum level, does it disappear at a macroscopic level? Also a question of how you define it. If we assume action and reaction for it, as 'information carriers' interacting from a quantum level up to our macroscopic 'reality', then there is no 'split' between the quantum mechanical behavior and the macroscopic. We're still 'indeterministic' :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #742 on: 19/03/2014 15:13:24 »
Can you see why scaling is weird, seen through my eyes? Ones ideas of distances becomes strange from a view in where the distance always is the same, equivalent, when it comes to scaling. A 'dimension' of its own, well sort of :) equivalent in 'distance' everywhere.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #743 on: 19/03/2014 15:29:28 »
Think of it as QM surface of sorts, on which a SpaceTime becomes projected. And us as something created together with this SpaceTime, measuring it the only way we can, 'inside' as defined by its 'information carriers'. That does not define a outside, because it does not give 'dimensions' a objective existence, except as measured from that inside.
=

As locally measured, from that inside, is more correct. And why we then find a Lorentz contraction and a complementary time dilation is also a result information carriers, obeying 'c'. It's important to understand where the limits come from, and for me that is 'c'. If there is a limit that is inexplainable by itself, then 'c' got to be it.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 15:38:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #744 on: 19/03/2014 15:44:15 »
Probably it ('c' and SpaceTime) is more explainable from an idea of symmetries? But a symmetry between what is measurable and what is not also seem to become a circular argument, as a cat chasing its own tail. Each side explaining the other. You might say that this kind of explanation has no beginning, and no end. A new sort of thinking to us, as we're used to measure in time, using a local arrow.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #745 on: 19/03/2014 15:51:32 »
But to get to a consistency for that SpaceTime projection we need to assume a 'equivalence' of 'QM surface'. Laws, properties, rules, constants all being equivalent in that origin. We do not need to assume that what we find to be a distance must have its exact counterpart in that minuscule milieu though. That's also why I sometime think of it as a cone, with its point resting on this absolute QM surface, defining SpaceTime properties and laws. After all, distance is a local definition even macroscopically.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #746 on: 19/03/2014 16:38:36 »
Alternatively one could assume it to be a balance, dynamically changing. But that should then also crave a arrow existing on both 'sides', as I think. Can't see how to make it work otherwise? What I mean is that if a arrow disappear, locally defined, at some QM scale then there is no 'linear time' to discuss from a symmetry. Only as measured inside SpaceTime. And the problem is also that a assumption of our arrow being a macroscopic phenomena is very hard to proof, as all experiments we can do will use a local arrow (the experimenters), no matter what scale we measure on.

What I'm trying to get to is that locally defined there is no 'size' to that scale where QM exist. We define size from distance, we define distance from our ruler, as measured in time. Without a arrow a distance becomes a meaningless definition.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #747 on: 19/03/2014 16:53:53 »
If you think of it you must find just as me that the arrow is no illusion. But also that it is a local definition. The next step is then to ask yourself if there is a proof for all 'local arrows' being of a same origin. And that we have in joining frames of reference, superimposing them. There one arrow will be the exact same as the other. So yes, all arrows are locally equivalent. And the step after is to ask yourself, equivalent to what? and there you will find 'c'. This is assuming that 'c' will be consistent in a acceleration too, which is the view I have. But I don't need to have it, as long as I can prove a 'balance' between aging, the arrow, and acceleration, relative aging, the arrow, and uniform motion. So you're free to define it any which way, but the most consistent is to give 'c' the status of a local constant through all motion, and your local arrow a equivalence to 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #748 on: 19/03/2014 17:03:25 »
But that then defines a relationship that seems unchanging, doesn't it? 'c' and your local arrow (aging) being equivalent? Where then does a twin experiment come from? Why do the twins find a different biological age? Would then 'c' have to change as I move?

Not locally defined.
And that is the only way I can see to define it, practically and experimentally. Puts an awful lot of emphasis on local definitions, don't you agree? As compared to the older 'global definitions' we're used too. As one universe of one unchanging time ticking away, containing us all. Here it all becomes a local reality.

But where this local reality is shared, as in 'repeatable experiments', we now can find a new definition of what 'global' should mean.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #749 on: 19/03/2014 17:13:18 »
So yes, we're definitively 'indeterministic' :) Think of it, the 'global definition' is actually existing in a collective mind space, although the repeatable experiments we do to prove that 'global reality' does not, all made locally. But, it is also so that your measurements of the universe you exist in have  a fit to my definition, as when using Lorentz transformations. But assuming time dilation and Lorentz contractions at uniform motion too, there is no 'frame of reference' more true than another. What gives us a minimalistic common nominator is actually the idea of superimposing 'frames of reference', finding them to become 'one same frame'. And, as I think of it then, when using scaling.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #749 on: 19/03/2014 17:13:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length