The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199179 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 #750 on: 19/03/2014 17:23:20 »
So, what do we need to get to 'meaningful information'?

'c'

equivalent to

A arrow.

You're free to exchange those two any way you like, they are each others mirrors.
 

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 #751 on: 19/03/2014 17:33:41 »
You need that arrow, but does it have to be 'c'?

Well, assume a equivalence locally between 'c' and your local arrow. But then also assume that there was no possibility of superimposing one frame of reference on another, finding them becoming equivalent. Now translate this into Lorentz transformations becoming impossible too. Then apply this on a Earth. That Earth can't exist, there would be no informations carriers keeping to any logic anymore. 'c' wouldn't be there, neither would it be possible to agree on a local arrow. And 'repeatable experiments' would lose all foundations.

In short, we've now created a magical universe.
=

heh, rereading myself I got confused :) Hope it makes more sense this time.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 17:53:10 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 #752 on: 19/03/2014 17:38:23 »
The universe has a logic, it is local. But it is also subtly 'global' in that repeatable experiments do exist, and that we can agree on them. They are the foundation of physics. But the 'global definition' of a SpaceTime is in fact existing in our minds, not as a objective reality. What is my reality, is what I measure.
 

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 #753 on: 19/03/2014 17:44:43 »
We can break down 'does it need to be 'c' ' into, yes, at least it need to be something equivalent to other definitions of what they call 'c', able to superimpose. It also need to present us with a even 'speed', to make it into a SpaceTime. What we then define that speed as is up to each one of us, although we have agreed on common definitions.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 18:10:03 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 #754 on: 19/03/2014 21:02:58 »
Then there is another thing. A universe built from connections, or if you like, Dimensions built from connections aka interactions, should be background independent. Same as there should be no 'outside' to it. You need a objective definition of 'dimensions' to reach to a 'outside'. Loops seem to define it similarly, as if the loops themselves create the universe we measure on. The difference between the older idea of time being a illusion here being that I take the local arrow very seriously, and give it a equivalence to all other locally measured arrows, connecting it to 'c'
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 21:05:34 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 #755 on: 20/03/2014 23:24:44 »
One way to describe it would be to say that this universe works on two planes. One is the local, your local reality. There we find what makes repeatable experiments exist, the way every point in this universe, locally defined, present you with a arrow and 'c'. 'c' is the information carriers between the particles making you up, and the information carriers enabling what I call meaningful or useful information between all sorts of particles. The other 'plane' (find no better word for it) is the one allowing one frame of reference to communicate with another, aka interactions. So instead of four dimensions, or adding to it depending on view, we find those two expressions coexisting, creating a universe. The local, and then something allowing local expressions to interact. That's what makes the dimensions we find, as I think. Freeing yourself from the idea of four 'objectively (globally agreeable on) existing' dimensions, allows you to look at scaling differently. It also allows for the idea that a local speed increase indeed can shrink a universe, not only shorten the time it takes you from A to B, but shrink it, locally measured.
 

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 #756 on: 20/03/2014 23:33:40 »
Because, and here I'm getting into very deep waters :) It's not 'energy', it's information. If it was a question of energy I see no way your local speed increase should be able to shrink a universe.
 

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 #757 on: 21/03/2014 16:43:11 »
Yeah I know, I use a lot of strange words. I'm not really interested in your wealth, that's a human joke. And I have dreams :) I'm sure you have it too. If you didn't you wouldn't bother to read this. Life is strange. And I'm finding that I like poetry too :) Not sure what is wrong with me. I mean, we're sheep's, right? Leaded by the Shepard into oblivion. The Shepard is the guy next to you, with a big mouth filled with certainty, telling you how 'it works'. F** him.
=

Ok I know. My English sux. Lead, not 'Leaded' :)
On the other tentacle, maybe it's middle English, belonging to the ages when we were free.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2014 16:52:40 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 #758 on: 21/03/2014 16:48:11 »
There is more to life than money. There's justice, not a popular subject. There's love, also  a weird idea. And there's trust. Today people seem to find a joy in abusing trust, and it's easy. We can all do it, nothing especially hard about fu*'ng someone up. I can do it, and so can you. Those that don't are the heroes of this age, in my eyes at last.
 

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 #759 on: 21/03/2014 16:55:22 »
Can you see what a injustice we're doing each other? Wanting to become more and more. the joke of the bible, 'populate the world'. And such a lot of us that never use their minds, unless it gives you that boost. It's a insult to them, and to us.
 

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 #760 on: 21/03/2014 17:40:39 »
Justice, does it exist?

Don't know. Then again, I use my mind, and I'm willing to see. It's nothing special about using your mind, but people tend to get bothered if you open your mouth :)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #761 on: 21/03/2014 17:59:51 »


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?

I do agree, and if we refine the idea of local definitions, we must move to the quantum realm. Nothing is more local than the Planck length, associated with Planck time. This of course is all determined by c, without this speed limit, these basic units would not have any significance at all.

But there remains one really important question for me about c. What is it about the nature of the cosmos that determines this speed limit? It's not about the energy involved because photons are produced with many variations of energies. There must exist a medium thru which the photon moves that limits it's speed. I suppose one could surmise that it could be the universal field but exactly what do we mean when we use this term; "Universal field" There are many different magnetic and electrical fields in space that vary to an extreme degree thru which light passes and c still remains constant in the vacuum.

If we remove all dust and gas, and all magnetic and electrical fields, light still passes thru the vacuum at c. In final analysis, it's the universal vacuum field that determines the speed of light. I think we need to uncover the true nature of this medium before we can truly understand c. When we do, I believe it will answer many questions about reality that remain hidden to us even yet.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #762 on: 21/03/2014 18:01:45 »
It's nothing special about using your mind, but people tend to get bothered if you open your mouth :)
I like that quote yor_on, I must try and remember 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 #763 on: 21/03/2014 18:13:04 »
Thanks Ethos :)

We're all here together, and we communicate. That's the really interesting thing about Internet, and the very thing those of small minds want to discredit.
 

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 #764 on: 21/03/2014 18:23:04 »
As for a medium Ethos? I don't know, I like to think of it as a game. The game is not about breaking the 'barriers' of physics, although that is a very essential part of it. It's about evolving into what we can be. And we're not trustful, are we? As a species we're defining things from our self interests. Then we try to see a pattern that explains the way we allow our interchanging self-interests to sway us :)

Well, maybe 'enlightened' behaviorism is one way, but in the end we're all living for love. Love of ourselves, and others.
 

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 #765 on: 21/03/2014 18:36:45 »
Let's make it easy. There is only two people left on this Earth, standing on a garbage heap, one dies the other says "I win". Or we have two people, both remembering loved ones, none of them wanting to be the last on a garbage heap.
 

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 #766 on: 21/03/2014 18:59:00 »
As for the physics you're perfectly correct. I'm using Planck scale for defining my thoughts. It's nothing special with Planck scale, although the mathematics we use breaks down around there, as I understands it. In a way you could use any limit you like. It's more about the limit, and assuming that where we meet it something different steps in. You could assume that 'time' is able to broken down in ever smaller pieces, never ending too. But I don't, although I differ between the idea, or 'property' of time, and a arrow. The property needs to be there.
 

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 #767 on: 22/03/2014 11:13:59 »
In a way it will seem as a 'bit' universe. discrete bits of 'time' creating a arrow. But 'time' becomes my property :) and that one you can't split. It's just a property making a local arrow able to exist. In a universe like mine the bigger mystery, at least as I think, is how those local representations can interact. This as I assume that it is those interactions that will define our dimensions. The other way might be to presume dimensions able to exist on their own, no interactions/connections needed. But it's not what I see.
 

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 #768 on: 22/03/2014 11:20:52 »
Another way to see it might be to think of it in forms of outcomes. Then 'time' is what doesn't use a outcome, the arrow we live in will though. That's what I mean by properties, 'laws' and rules, becoming a background for the ticking universe we live in. And I think it's easier to think of that as if we have a symmetry with something that we can't measure on. Us being a part of that, dependent on it. A symmetry break, defined by the breaks origin. And as I can't use a arrow there, then this symmetry break we live in should constantly be 'happening', as well as being 'gone' too. Outcomes define the 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 #769 on: 22/03/2014 11:35:17 »
Looking at it that way the universe we live in becomes one, set or defined through probability, possibly. It has a probability of existing, amongst any other uncountable amount of universes you ever can imagine. Each probability setting its own limits, defining what is possible 'inside' it, and nothing I see now hindering those probabilities from 'co-existing'. The only thing I'm assuming for this is that there is a logic existing, as some origin.
 

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 #770 on: 22/03/2014 11:59:38 »
I think we can let them co-exist if one define dimensions my way? The distances we measure on are valid inside, although that 'inside' becomes something different without a arrow defining 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 #771 on: 23/03/2014 09:49:51 »
Let's take a look on what a background dependence may be.

"Background-independence is a loosely defined property of a theory of physics. Roughly speaking, it limits the number of mathematical structures used to describe space and time that are put in place "by hand". Instead, these structures are the result of dynamical equations, such as Einstein field equations, so that one can determine from first principles what form they should take. Since the form of the metric determines the result of calculations, a theory with background independence is more predictive than a theory without it, since the theory requires fewer inputs to make its predictions. This is analogous to desiring fewer free parameters in a fundamental theory. So background-independence can be seen as extending the mathematical objects that should be predicted from theory to include not just the parameters, but also geometrical structures."

But, can there be a dynamic structure that 'solves itself', without a cause? Yes, and no. We use constants for defining what is our common origin. Those are constant properties, principles, laws and rules, defining every point in a SpaceTime. Without them we get another 'physics' where nothing is true, everything a 'locally valid solution' but not joining it into a 'common SpaceTime', in short a 'magical universe'. You need something, that will join this SpaceTime. And then we have measurements.

My clearly defined measurement is what defines the reality around me, when we find us agreeing on them we finally get to repeatable experiments. But to me it's a 'sandbox of logic', 'inside' of which we find those constants rules etc etc. You can either choose to imagine dimensions as something existing in their own right. A 'commonly same global' sandbox', then also able to exist without interactions, aka connections, needed. Or you can do as I'm trying and define dimensions, aka SpaceTime, as a result of interactions (connections).

But there is a 'background' as I think, although of a very weird sort. I think I would like to call it 'information, constants, principles, rules, physical laws.. Joining a local definition of a SpaceTime into a common. Repeatable experiments.
 

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 #772 on: 23/03/2014 09:52:43 »
All of those have a common origin, and we find it when scaling.
 

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 #773 on: 23/03/2014 09:57:30 »
So what makes our universe can be described as a 'dimension less' point, containing all information needed for the reality I find.
=

Eh, that's a strictly local definition though :)
The mystery to me, is how to get to this 'globally agreed on, commonly same' SpaceTime we expect us all to exist in. Because we do.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2014 09:59:44 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 #774 on: 23/03/2014 10:02:43 »
What joins it is interactions, regulated by information carriers. And that is 'c', locally defined.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #774 on: 23/03/2014 10:02:43 »

 

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