# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201486 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #775 on: 23/03/2014 10:07:00 »
But in my universe the only correct definition is the local. I won't see the universe 'die', just by imagining my self at a event horizon, will I? The local is the correct one for me, then there is something more, the way it seamlessly join into the universe we all agree on, so we need a principle for how a strictly local definition can co-exist with another, split by Lorentz contraction and arrow. Because without this no universe would be here.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #776 on: 23/03/2014 10:08:49 »
And that principle is best described by repeatable experiments, and those constants.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #777 on: 23/03/2014 10:11:26 »
If you assume that a Lorentz contraction is complementary to a time dilation, then you get to a 'fractured' reality. Not only that 'illusionary time', but 'illusionary distances' too. And we can prove time dilations, here and now.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #778 on: 23/03/2014 10:20:42 »
So how big is that local anchor of 'reality', that defines your arrow, and 'distance'?
Dimension less?

Sure, why not? Alternatively, using Planck scale, defining you, as well as disappearing, at that scale where light is defined to take one 'Planck step' in one 'Planck time'. At that scale, if we define it this way, mathematics breaks down and 'light' stops 'propagating'. One step is no step at all as I see it, it's just a instant unmoving.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #779 on: 23/03/2014 10:23:30 »
What this mean is that the arrow is a result of frames of reference communicating.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #780 on: 23/03/2014 10:25:41 »
But it needs a arrow to communicate, doesn't it :)
A cat chasing its tail.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #781 on: 23/03/2014 10:28:36 »
If there exist a principle for explaining this, we have to look for it outside our arrow. And we have to question dimensions.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #782 on: 23/03/2014 10:36:59 »
It's a strange universe. Maybe it is a universe of information, forcing a measurably local, as well as commonly agreed on global, reality. I don't think it is 'walled in' though, unless you're describing it from a 'inside', in which case it must be.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #783 on: 23/03/2014 10:41:26 »
'Walled in' is referring to the limits that defines it, not if there is a physical wall defining it. It's perfectly acceptable to go out to the left, to then come in to the right, seamlessly, in such a universe. What decides it is connections.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #784 on: 23/03/2014 10:43:33 »
But it's not 'magical', it has laws, properties and rules. There's a logic to it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #785 on: 23/03/2014 11:08:07 »
There is one other possibility, assuming a whole universe, acting on each point of itself. The 'focus' of a whole universe, defined in each point, a sort of 'Mach'ian universe. But, as long as we agree on that we can super impose frames of reference on another, finding them absolutely equivalent, we still will find constants.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #786 on: 23/03/2014 11:13:02 »
The local definition is the simpler one though. Assuming a universe acting in a 'Mach'ian fashion does nothing for explaining where it comes from.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #787 on: 23/03/2014 11:19:27 »
It's rather possible, to me that is :) that the 'Mach'ian point of view can come to be from local principles also. I'm using scales for it, assuming that there is a equivalence at some very small scale, but that doesn't explain the differences, as time dilations and Lorentz contractions, and so 'c'. It's that principle I would like to see, the one defining how frames of reference can 'co-exist', creating a SpaceTime.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #788 on: 26/03/2014 22:40:16 »
You might say I want to do away with dimensions :) but keep degrees of freedom. This makes little sense from where we normally observe objects. They all have dimensions that we can measure and feel, and as they are objects they also have clearly defined limits. But going down to a very small scale this isn't as clear as it becomes macroscopically, down there everything smears out. What differs might be what we call a vacuum, a perfect vacuum should stay a vacuum no matter your magnification. Any way, it's easy to see why we think of dimensions the way we do.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #789 on: 26/03/2014 22:47:48 »
So what would a degree of freedom be? Only the way we can find it to 'move' spatially? Or is there more ideas to include in it?

"Almost by accident in the mid 1970s, theorists realized that they could obtain a quantum gravity theory by postulating that the fundamental building blocks of nature are not point particles, a traditional notion that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, but instead are tiny strands of string. These strings are not simply a smaller version of, say, our shoelaces. Rather, they are geometrical objects that represent a fundamentally different way of thinking about matter. This family of theories grew out of the physics of the strong interactions. In these theories, two quarks interacting strongly are connected by a stream of carriers of the strong force, which forms a "flux tube." The potential energy between the two quarks, therefore, grows linearly with the distance between the quarks" from http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=4&secNum=3

Now, what is the degree of freedom for this one, if it is correct?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #790 on: 26/03/2014 23:01:59 »
Well, I would like to add the idea of there being measurable, and non measurable degrees of freedom. With a addendum of not using dimensions for describing it. Dimensions is a archetype to me, it's about 'limits'. Well, I don't think there are any 'limits', probabilities sure, 'insides' too. But not 'dimensional sand boxes' containing us, with a 'outside'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #791 on: 26/03/2014 23:32:51 »
We define dimensions from a inside, assuming that we can have more, unmeasurable 'insides', coexisting, which I'm afraid I'm doing here, for now and this :) Also defining 'them' from some probability of existing, as measured from some 'inside'. Although, don't ask me to define how this 'probability' comes to be though. I'm just making a presumption of probability being the most correct way to describe it, just as I like to think of it as properties, principles, rules, creating those SpaceTimes. It makes for a very interesting universe at least :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #792 on: 26/03/2014 23:34:36 »
And now we stop light from 'propagating' too.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #793 on: 26/03/2014 23:36:33 »
But let's keep logic, and a arrow for it. you need both. If I would presume a logic unnecessary, I also would invalidate the need for a arrow. Because 'c' gives us a logic.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #794 on: 26/03/2014 23:40:47 »
A strictly local logic naturally, but one that we all can, and must, agree on. Without there are no repeatable experiments possible. And as I think of 'c', locally measured, as being my arrow, it narrows it down, scale-wise, doesn't it?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #795 on: 26/03/2014 23:46:10 »
So we stopped light from propagating. Now, where are those dimensions? Use my definition of locality and define them from that, I don't think you can.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #796 on: 26/03/2014 23:50:50 »
I can't do it any way. I can still find degrees of freedom though. And connections. Also called 'frames of reference', and to my eyes those are questions about scales, and the question interesting there is naturally the question if one 'frame of reference' exists? Does it? It must, if we're referring to the idea of ones local clock and ruler. Is that then a 'bit'?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #797 on: 26/03/2014 23:56:30 »
I can relate the idea of bits to a sheet, a 'plane' of some sort. Maybe we could call that a dimension if it wasn't for the fact that, at this extremely small local scale, the 'bit' might exist, in fact a 'ideal plane' to me, 'time' as something ('c') 'propagating' and so 'ticking' should disappear. Without a arrow, how do you measure?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #798 on: 27/03/2014 00:04:11 »
To measure locally at a extremely small scale you need to free yourself from your 'local clock' to fit my ideas of scaling. It can't be there as I see it. You would in fact need to superimpose yourself, the 'observer', on the observed. and doing so? Will there be a local arrow?

Your local arrow always exist as a macroscopic local complement to what you observe, we have no other way of defining it that I can see. But assuming a frame of reference to exist, magnified into a ideal configuration, you must accept it to be what defines that local clock you use to measure with.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #799 on: 27/03/2014 00:06:18 »
Weird isn't it? What makes that clock 'tick', doesn't 'tick' at all, ideally defined? So why do we think it 'ticks'? Because it does.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #799 on: 27/03/2014 00:06:18 »