The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199449 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #75 on: 01/11/2013 09:23:37 »
It's quite nice, isn't it? Just consider how things connect to things, consider 'forces'. The forces we talk about, at a small scale, create a form macroscopically. It's not about some universal container inside where we find mass and radiation, it's about connections, communication, and how it can create a measurable universe. We 'talk' with that universe constantly, through those forces, defining ourselves relative it, with the universe defining itself relative us. And we connect in so many ways simultaneously, communication existing as an abstract reality, as with speech.

And yes, I think simultaneously exist, locally defined :) The problem being defining what locally should mean there. Is it a question of some smallest scale? Or is it locally shared properties, principles and constants? Would you say a constant have a scale?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #76 on: 01/11/2013 10:22:23 »
There is a problem with it, there always is. The question if what we see as forces must be what defines everything? And by everything I mean all possible connections, those that are measurable as well as those that might not be measurable. Assuming that quantum computer can exist, assuming that it reach a outcome 'instantly', would you say this involve a arrow? Logically some questions would take too long to answer normally, or be just impossible, but we do expect a quantum computer to be able to crack them. As asymmetric encryption.

So, did it 'think' about it? Did it 'test' for all possibilities?

What is 'energy'? Is it only those forces we find that defines it? Simplest solution is to define it as what we measure is what exist.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #77 on: 01/11/2013 10:31:49 »
But if I define a arrow to 'c', then you might be able to argue that a quantum computer set this principle aside, as it reaches its outcome 'instantly'. If that is so, then I'm either wrong in finding the arrow equivalent to 'c' (locally defined) or it should be a indication of there existing possibilities outside our definition of a linearly timed universe, following different principles.

What would 'energy' be without a arrow?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #78 on: 08/11/2013 17:34:58 »
And then we have 'c' itself. The speed of light in a vacuum, as locally measured, is the same everywhere. Doesn't matter what velocity you may define a object too, a light beam leaving that object should be at 'c', as measured from your frame, or any other non accelerating frame. And that light has a momentum is not synonymous with it having a rest mass, there exist no 'rest frame' for light in where you can measure a mass.

And 'c builds on two assumptions, one is a arrow of time existing, locally equivalent everywhere. The other is our definition of a distance, as locally measured. The really interesting thing with both local time and a distance are that, no matter time dilations and Lorentz contractions, they implicitly are assumed to have equivalent values locally measured. And, assuming they aren't, we can't prove any repeatable experiments anymore, unless you have a way to superimpose their 'frames of reference' upon each other, them becoming exact replicas, as 'one and the same'. And that really mean they have to be the exact same, inseparable from each other.

So we build science, and repeatable experiment, on a arrow of time, locally equivalent for all of us. You want to retract that arrow, you also retract our definition of a repeatable experiment
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #79 on: 08/11/2013 17:55:13 »
A 'virtual particle' is a 'possible particle'. Its definition rest on HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). The idea is that as its actual 'existence' is so short, it finds itself able to express a wide variance of energy levels (time versus energy, or, position versus momentum). What the duration should be for such a particle I don't know, but presuming its existence it should be of interest to define it. One Planck time is the time it takes for light to propagate one Plank length, so maybe you could find it around there?

The interesting idea here is the assumption that we can reach a 'end' of our arrow, scale wise. We scale it down and as we do another vista opens itself, free from our constraints. You can also ignore the idea of virtual particles for it I think, instead using indeterminacy for pointing out a same phenomena.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #80 on: 08/11/2013 18:08:33 »
So, what do you think?

You expect us to be able to split the arrow? Is it a 'smooth phenomena', or can we treat it as 'bits'?
Both?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #81 on: 08/11/2013 18:12:20 »
The arrow and 'c'.

They are equivalent, locally defined. So, you split the arrow, you split 'c'. You scale it down. What if what builds it up from Planck scale, also builds our universe? Including what dimensions and degrees of freedom we find?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #82 on: 08/11/2013 18:17:15 »
Try to use that way of looking at it, imaginatively 'rushing up' from Planck scale into the macroscopic world, creating a arrow and 'c'. ( You are now traveling 'faster than light' :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #83 on: 08/11/2013 18:38:36 »
Alternatively think of it as every point having its own stress, relative all other points, or tension, like being inside one part of a infinite amount of soap bubbles, from where we apply forces (tensions stress) on 'membranes'. Those membranes relating to distance and arrow relative other membranes, depending on local manipulation of forces. It's two ways to look at it, as a 'sideway communication' in a macroscopic universe at the same time as it is about how scales communicate a universe, and 'c', and a equivalent arrow. ( It's not a very good description I'm afraid, hopefully I'll find a better :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #84 on: 08/11/2013 23:01:44 »
And yep, alike a SF :)
Isn't it?

Then again, it fits Lorentz contractions better than a 'container', and so time dilations. That is, if you accept them? And it allows for a local representation of constants, at the same time as those becomes 'universally same' allowing for a repeatable experiment. It actually depends on defining local constants, principles, as what gives us that 'common universe' we observe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #85 on: 17/11/2013 12:46:18 »
Would you say that 'c' is a constant? A local constant, although shared by all (and in all) 'points'? If you now scale it down to Planck scale, is what you meet there a static field of 'c'? And that static 'field' if so, what would you call it? We're made up from it, aren't we? And if 'c' is equivalent to a arrow, then, as you scale it down that arrow 'diminish' does it not? Or better expressed, 'disappear' at Planck scale, locally defined. Now, if it was so, what would you expect to exist under Planck scale? A 'negative expression' of a SpaceTime? Negative 'time'? Or is that where it end, Planck scale?
« Last Edit: 17/11/2013 12:52:36 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #86 on: 20/11/2013 15:44:37 »
Now, in a universe regulating communication through a local 'c', assuming a equivalence to a local arrow of time, you can't have superluminary speeds (FTL). What you instead have is question about what a vacuum and a 'room' is. If you define it as communication, created (and received) relative your local constants. And if you define it as your local measurements does not lie. Then a room isn't a 'set container', well, not 'globally defined' at least. It may very well be so that your measurements give you a locally set 'container', in which local constants and principles defines your limits, but there are no such thing as a commonly same universe. Instead we have to fall back on what limits, principles and constants we share. Those define the 'locally measured' room and time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #87 on: 20/11/2013 15:51:52 »
What I mean is that although you might want to define the 'traveling twin' to do ftl, from your frame of reference, (ignoring time dilations) that one will be about comparing one frame (yours), to another (his), then calling the one you're not sharing 'ftl', using your local measurements to prove it.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #88 on: 20/11/2013 15:56:36 »
But we all can share a frame of reference. Not easily :) as we would need to super imposed, but macroscopically we all have one frame of reference that we are at rest relative, Earth. When we share that frame our arrow of time 'synchronizes'. That it is able to do so should tell you something.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #89 on: 20/11/2013 16:01:13 »
And it doesn't matter what speed or mass you define to a frame of reference. When we join it, we will all share in it, equally. It's 'c', locally defined, a 'arrow of time', locally defined. And it won't change for you, you can't fool it, or your lifespan. It will be the same locally defined wherever you go, however fast.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #90 on: 20/11/2013 16:06:52 »
What it tells me is that what really is 'global' is constants and principles. They are the same for all frames of reference possible in this 'universe'. If you would find a local representation of 'c' becoming different, so also locally 'elongating' your lifespan. Then I would say 'you're out'a this world' :) Because that one doesn't belong to the universe we see. And that makes it easy for me. I have a definition of 'c' and a 'arrow'. And anyone claiming that this is wrong :) well, 'you're out'a this world' ::))
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #91 on: 20/11/2013 16:11:02 »
And to then imagine a universe as a 'container' filled with time dilations and Lorentz contractions, as some do, actually craves a near infinite, possibly infinite, amount of universes. If you trust relativity? Because your measurements ain't mine. And those local measurements is what gives us science, and repeatable experiments, and 'global constants'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #92 on: 20/11/2013 16:15:46 »
Well, they are equivalent, the measurements I mean. But only when defined locally, as 'c'. Any comparison between different frames of reference will prove the statement made before though. That your measurements, ain't mine.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #93 on: 20/11/2013 16:19:09 »
So we have two definitions, you can measure something from a same frame of reference, or you can use (for simplicity) uniform motion and from there locally define 'c', as well as what a distance should be, as using lights wavelength relative some arrow of time passing for you. It's all local though.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #94 on: 20/11/2013 16:23:04 »
So where is the 'illusion'. Would you call a locally measured 'c' a illusion? And if a arrow of time is locally equivalent to that (and it is). Is that a 'illusion'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #95 on: 20/11/2013 16:26:13 »
Is it a 'illusion' that we all, by joining a same frame of reference, will come to a equivalent definition of distance, as well as of time. No time dilations comparing between us, and no Lorentz contractions.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #96 on: 20/11/2013 16:28:00 »
What is the mystery here, is frames of reference.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #97 on: 20/11/2013 16:30:55 »
It is 'frames of reference' that gives us 'scales'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #98 on: 20/11/2013 16:41:25 »
And it is when you scale something down you meet the foundations for quantum mechanics. "In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition.

One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:

decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary."

It's a tricky point this one. But if we define a single 'frame of reference' as something in a superposition, ideally. We get pretty close.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #99 on: 20/11/2013 16:45:38 »
And Planck scale. I would say that this is a limit, for the observable 'universe'. It's a border to me.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #99 on: 20/11/2013 16:45:38 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums