# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199151 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #800 on: 27/03/2014 00:09:50 »
to see my ideal definition you just need to make 'c' equivalent to a clock, ticking away as a locally even and constant speed. Then assume that there is a limit to how far we can spit light into even chunks. That limit, or scale, at where light no longer is found to propagate is my definition of a frame of reference.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #801 on: 27/03/2014 00:12:31 »
and that frame of reference is the closest I can get to a 'bit'. It does not state that 'reality' stops there, just that the physics we have should break down, as I presume. and Plack scale is a very nice foundation for it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #802 on: 27/03/2014 00:14:34 »
And there I see it as you have a 'reality' in where light does not 'propagate', co-existing with your macroscopic reality. Neither one lying. All a matter of scales.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #803 on: 27/03/2014 00:21:56 »
So what do I mean? Without a arrow, where is the logic? Heh :)

I did say "If I would presume a logic unnecessary, I also would invalidate the need for a arrow. Because 'c' gives us a logic."

Yep, but I can still presume a logic without a arrow. That one is possible, but the one in where we assume there to be no logic, and so no need for a arrow, our 'magical universe', shouldn't be possible.

I mean, If it would be, I most definitely will arrive to a monumental headache.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #804 on: 27/03/2014 00:30:28 »
So what do we need for a universe, at all scales?
A arrow?

Not as I think. We may not need 'action and reaction' but we do need a logic, that makes it explainable. Changes is what define us macroscopically, but considering my view, we're also 'time less'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #805 on: 27/03/2014 00:31:42 »
Well, I'm sure I've told I'm weird :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #806 on: 27/03/2014 00:42:57 »
It's like you have a canvas on which a 'SpaceTime' builds itself, or get filled, with 'information'. The information uses constants as 'c', adding properties and principles, to join that information into a useful linearly describable universe. But I think we do need to presume principles for it, as chaos mathematics for example, entropy? It's a universe using information, not dimensions, and it goes from simplicity to complexity. The 'degrees of freedom' I think of those days seems more than spatial to me

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #807 on: 27/03/2014 00:51:58 »
You can also think of it as a symmetry between the measurable and the not-measurable. The not-measurable is 'one frame of reference' in where you are forced to superimpose the observer on the observed. We can't do that, we always have a local clock. The symmetry is the 'universe' to me :) and we're the ones confirming its existence. Well, you might prefer some less mystical description, but to me the last question becomes 'what's the use of it'?

The universe observes itself.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #808 on: 27/03/2014 00:53:33 »
And if you accept the idea of information being what the universe consists of, organizing itself into ever more complex patterns, you better accept ethics.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #809 on: 27/03/2014 00:54:44 »
Because what we ultimately becomes in such a universe is, as I think, a question of our ethics.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #810 on: 27/03/2014 01:17:26 »
But that arrow then, where does it come from? Well, I see it as coming from 'c'. And 'c' is the distance measured in time that light 'propagates' in a vacuum. Around 300 000 km per second. And all agreeable on for us all, locally measured. To propagate it must cross those frames of reference I'm discussing as 'local bits'. So we need frames of reference communicating, and behind that a principle. 'c' is what makes it happen but the principle, looked at from just one frame of reference, needs to exist there too. So 'time' is a local property, in my universe that is :) with a arrow becoming a result of frames of reference interacting.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #811 on: 27/03/2014 01:23:41 »
To assume it otherwise would to me crave a magical universe, one without logic. Frames of reference exist measurably, although they becomes a ideal definition as you scrutinize their 'location'. We measure between them, and we see the results of our measurements, validating the concept. So your local clock and ruler is what defines those repeatable experiments physics builds on.

#### petm1

• Full Member
• Posts: 52
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #812 on: 27/03/2014 02:00:15 »
As an observer I exist as a one second frame of reference.  This co-moving frame is centered in time with my body's center of mass.  This co-moving frame also appears to have motion even when I stand still because my consciousness is co-moving with the photons while my mass is co-moving with the earth.  If emission only happens in the present then I as a receiver, observer, only see the past.  Our minds trick us into thinking we see emission with a pseudo-emission point within our eyes but make no mistake we all sense the past not the present.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #813 on: 27/03/2014 10:25:44 »
A kind of poetry Petm :)

not sure what the mind would be moving with, but 'c' seems as a limit, and it's correct that information carriers must obey it as useful information. and yes, you can only see the 'past', when thinking. Every instant you make conscious have already passed. On the other tentacle, without a present existing, how would we get to a past?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #814 on: 27/03/2014 10:35:25 »
That's a damn good question actually, if you think of it from a point of view in where a arrow becomes a result of frames of reference interacting. That's what your brain consist of, frames of reference communicating, just as all other objects you can find. Those that are defined as 'dimension less' is slightly different as I find it hard to define a frame to them. Need to think about that one :)
=

Nah, they're definable too, if we define dimensions from connections. In that universe we will use scales for defining a limit, not dimensions. We don't need them there, they're a artifact and archetype, an idea created from the things we touch. It's because that would be a universe of information, and you can't split useful information. A stone is a piece of useful information too. And without dimensions upholding our 'reality' we're living in a dream, of sorts :)

Hard to take, that one :)
First we made 'time' into a illusion, then we looked at distances aka Lorentz contractions, and made those into a illusion. Now we're going one step further and questioning dimensions.

But it is still a universe following a logic, with clear limits as described from a inside.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2014 10:48:36 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #815 on: 27/03/2014 16:38:08 »
the point of it is that we're always just as close to that 'surface' where there is no arrow, no 'c', and where light doesn't propagate. It's a co-existence, and there must be a dependence to create our SpaceTime.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #816 on: 27/03/2014 16:40:00 »
And as a arrow disappear there, dimensions does to. You can't define what's at such a scale from your clock and ruler, because you're using the wrong tools.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #817 on: 27/03/2014 16:44:53 »
And to get back to the past, present, and the future. Frames of reference, using them as what creates ones local arrow, can it contain a present? I'm not sure, I don't think it can actually.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #818 on: 27/03/2014 16:46:59 »
Ideally we can define a present naturally. Just as we can define 'one frame of reference' as needed to exist, for us to get to ones local clock and ruler. But practically?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #819 on: 27/03/2014 16:49:59 »
Thinking of a consciousness as a 'dimension less' focus, then that focus can be said to always be in the 'present'. Thinking of it as information needing frames of reference to create a arrow, that becomes a lie.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #820 on: 27/03/2014 16:51:49 »
Or we can get it both ways. As long as you're not thinking you're in the 'present' :) Use your mind and you slip away from it into a constant 'past' :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #821 on: 28/03/2014 05:54:25 »
Let's turn it about. If I would assume that there is a scale at where the arrow, and everything else that needs it, disappear. How would the place we exist in look from there? Would you be able to split it in a past, a present, and a future? I don't think so, and to be stricter, I'm not sure we can do it from here either. What we have is choices, and change, steered by properties, laws, rules, principles. A probability of something doesn't come from God :) given to us Earthlings, it's coming from our experiences of how things usually behave, at least the way I look at it. So, if you like, and I think I do, you should be able to refer to a probability of something as belonging to laws too.

Spin up or Spin down is a excellent example of something with a even probability (50/50) of behaving one way or another. But if we use my definition that still isn't a question of a free choice, it's a law somewhere, a 'hidden variable'. Now you might want to question that one, but if we can agree on that there is no way for us to untangle what law(s) that defines it, then it won't matter what we call it. Although, defining it this way it's not a equivalence to a 'free choice', in my eyes.

The point here is that maybe it's useless to try to define a free choice? In the end we get to a question if there are laws defining a universe, a logic. What would we call a logic that doesn't have underlying principles for how it behaves? I would call it magic. And looked at from that angle, all physics building on a idea of laws principles etc etc, would become a lie. Because if we assume that there is no laws and principles, then there shouldn't be it further away from some 'lawless origin' either. The red spot on Jupiter is not there by chance, although, it is :) I's a principle expressing itself, if not there, then somewhere else. You need properties, principles and laws if you want a order.

Would you call probability a law?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #822 on: 28/03/2014 06:00:38 »
Or maybe I'm wrong? Maybe Spin up/Spin down is a excellent choice of what 'free will' is?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #823 on: 28/03/2014 06:21:54 »
It also depends on what you mean by a hidden variable. What I mean by using it is that there must be properties, similar to the idea of spin, defining it. It won't come from nowhere. I do not mean that there is a 'hidden mechanism' defining the way a spin must be. There's a subtle difference in which way you look at that. The older meaning of a hidden variable is just such a mechanism 'deciding', and it fits the Newtonian era perfectly. My use of a 'hidden variable' is a assumption of there being properties laws and principles defining probability, nothing more than that. But it is still a 'hidden variable' in its cleanest form.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #824 on: 28/03/2014 06:26:32 »
And so it comes down to a question of free will. Is that spin a excellent example of free will, or not? Do you expect that there needs to be a linearly existing consciousness to have a free will, making a free choice? Or would you accept this as a example of free will too?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #824 on: 28/03/2014 06:26:32 »

Login
Login with username, password and session length