# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199525 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 #850 on: 18/04/2014 12:34:52 »
But after reading this guy I started to think about photons, as caught on a photographic frame. I could assume that a photon has a limit (Planck scale preferably:). I then could imagine photons propagating as such 'frames' reaching the photographers device, getting measured (caught) as a photograph. So, where should such a description break down?

And what do you need for it?

Time, right? A arrow. You have those 'frames' propagating. Assuming that there is a limit for exposure, giving you a coherent image on the photographers photo. Where does this limit exist?

#### 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 #851 on: 18/04/2014 12:38:35 »
But I still don't think that the 'energy' in those photons propagating will be enough to explain the image you observe. And that gets me to a point :) Photons are locality, waves are descriptions over frames 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 #852 on: 18/04/2014 12:43:37 »
Using this I would now want us all to ponder 'from simplicity to complexity', and what scaling really is?
=

Pompous me middlename :) Nevertheless, just think about it. If dimensions are frames of reference interacting. If arrow(s) defining your SpaceTime comes from frames of reference interacting with your local 'constant' 'c', which also is your, and mine, definition of a time keeping.

What is scaling?
« Last Edit: 18/04/2014 12:52:45 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 #853 on: 18/04/2014 12:56:39 »
So photon's doesn't propagate, waves does though. Well, in my universe that is :). Now you can argue that you have a device letting of singular photons propagating. But, I don't think you really need that argument. Photons are always local 'excitations', no matter how you reach their existence. But the idea of a wave must cross 'frames of reference' to exist.
« Last Edit: 18/04/2014 13:05:26 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 #854 on: 18/04/2014 13:11:36 »
To get to a commonly described universe, or SpaceTime, from reasoning like this I must accept the idea of there being co-existing descriptions, both as valid. The simplest one, I think, is lights duality. And if you accept this you do not need pilot waves, or an aether. The only thing you need is a explanation what joins frames of reference. And 'c' is a description of the limits for that joining, but not the reason why they coexist.

#### 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 #855 on: 21/04/2014 00:28:17 »
I think there is a additional element to the question how we can see. If we imagine a photon annihilating at/in my eye. then the original annihilation, as well as the subsequent, all should take place at 'c', don't you agree? The electrochemical processes will take longer as the information is transfered and processed. So we have a element of time involved here. The 'local arrow' as it is. And a wave should to my thinking be a representation over frames of reference, and so I would like to describe that arrow, as a result of frames of reference interacting. Let's get back to those frames of photons 'moving' towards the photographers plate.

#### 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 #856 on: 21/04/2014 00:37:36 »
Is there a possibility of using two values, in this case 'energy' and 'momentum', creating a grid, to be processed into a image having colors? The momentum is reliant on the energy, so in reality we have representations of energy only, but of varying discrete energies, right? How do you get to colors from that?
=

Could I define a color from one photon? Wouldn't that be a interesting experiment? It's a question of your local arrow to me. No matter if photons propagate, or not. They still 'tick' at 'c'. As the shutter of your camera, delivering you photographic plate after photographic plate at 'c', processed by you electrochemically at a much slower rate 'consciously'. As if your eye would become a grid, constantly filled with new discrete energies.

A really weird thought? The arrow, could photons arrangement (energies) in time result in me also defining colors to them? That doesn't seem very probable, does it? Different types of receptors see different wavelengths, so photons can't be the answer, can they?
=

Ouch, maybe it is possible? After all, photons are adapted to the receptors, and vice versa :)
Weird idea this one. Two ways then, either I can define a color to one singular photon, or I can't. If I can't I still have receptors adapted to specific types of photons energies, right? So, assuming this we can get past the question of different wavelengths (frequency's) for different eyes. But how would it create colors? A combination of energies over some specified time slots, as processed by my brain? Weirder and weirder said Alice. (afraid this has became a double post as it originally belongs to that other guys question, but it's pretty interesting to me)
« Last Edit: 21/04/2014 01:25:08 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 #857 on: 21/04/2014 14:45:58 »
There's a really nice experiment in where you look at a photo on a computer screen. Each time you blink, and we all do that, something is taken away from it. A tree, a buss etc. Asked if something have changed in this photo, most all says no. Why?

It has to do with the way the brain process information from the eye, right?

#### 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 #858 on: 21/04/2014 14:54:39 »
Then you have taste. Taste is a geometry, translated by your brain into sweet, sour, etc etc. You have receptors in your mouth having different 'fits' to the small particles giving you a taste. So the taste you experience is a result of the brain processing a geometry, as far as I can see.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2014 15:10:17 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 #859 on: 21/04/2014 15:01:19 »
But it doesn't change the fact that we can agree on a color, or a taste. I think I can go anywhere in the world? And find people agreeing on that sugar is sweet, or that the night is black, blood is red. How much of it is archetype, and how much of it is real?

Da*'d if I know :)

#### 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 #860 on: 21/04/2014 15:04:37 »
It doesn't really matter as long as we can agree on what we see as being a same color, does it? Even if my 'red' isn't yours processing, as long as we both call it 'red' we agree.

#### 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 #861 on: 21/04/2014 15:06:52 »
So, we can agree on things, all over the world. Colors is one of those things, although, if you're a painter you might disagree :) But let's presume we can.

#### 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 #862 on: 21/04/2014 15:46:14 »
Let us assume that taste and colors have much in common. They are then a expression of complexity, created by, and in, your brain, answering to some simple original blueprints, as the geometry relative your receptor.

#### 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 #863 on: 21/04/2014 15:49:50 »
And with different energies, treating my eye as a grid with excitations, over a time period I must get to a image(processed and synthesized by my brain). But how do I get to a color? How can the brain differ there?

#### 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 #864 on: 21/04/2014 15:54:22 »
We have the spin too, naturally. A very weird thing spin, everything spins. Integer spin particles are bosons like our photon, following Bose-Einstein statistics (taking no place), while half integer spins are called Fermions like electrons, following Fermi-Dirac statistics (they take a 'place').

#### 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 #865 on: 21/04/2014 16:09:03 »
Take a look at the explanation for Why don’t “cheats” ever work on the uncertainty principle? Particularly to how it explains polarization, because that is a spin as far as I know.

#### 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 #866 on: 21/04/2014 16:25:37 »
Then look at What is “spin” in particle physics? Why is it different from just ordinary rotation?

Then I got interested in something called  Thomas precession, as it seemed integral to the idea of some sort of modern equivalence between ordinary angular momentum (i.e a carousel spinning), and the idea of a atomic, or otherwise, microscopic spin.

That finally lead me to look at Regarding Llewellyn Thomas’s paper of 1927 and the “hidden momentum” of a magnetic dipole in an electric ﬁeld

You can read it, without solving the equations.

#### 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 #867 on: 21/04/2014 16:31:50 »
So?

Can we use spin?

#### 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 #868 on: 21/04/2014 16:49:09 »
Actually the question if there is a real equivalence between spin and classical angular momentum, or not, is something of a sidetrack to that question. Never been that good on walking the straight line :) But I got interested, and so I had to see what I could understand from it. And if you read it I'm sure you're interested too.

#### 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 #869 on: 21/04/2014 16:58:19 »
The most important part of a polarization, or spin, I find to be given in Why don’t “cheats” ever work on the uncertainty principle? for this question at least. It's a mindtwist of sorts, a way to describe a polarization as a result of matter interaction with light, giving it 'two directions'.

#### 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 #870 on: 21/04/2014 17:16:37 »
I had a really concise description of interference combined with Feynman's approach to 'sum over paths', that actually presented interference as a way light must act. As usual I can't find it when I need it :) but it connects strongly to the link above, in my mind. You need both I think, to twist your mind the right way. This one take you through a longer journey than the one I had in mind, but at a first look it is very similar in its final conclusions. Just allow it some time, and thought. Reality Is—The Feynman Path Integral.
==

I'll throw in this one for free, just because I've always liked mathpages. They have some really good descriptions, and history lessons, there. Feynman’s Ants.

Still haven't found the one I was thinking of though :(
===

And no. I don't really care whether it can be explained by photons solely. Even if it can be done it does not invalidate a wave picture, it's just me being curious, wanting to see if it could be done? :) You live in a universe populated by a lot more than just you, and to me that is 'frames of reference' interacting. So waves is just as good as photons for describing it. And if you think of it, locality can not even be you. Practically speaking, using scaling, you're just too big, and no diet will help there.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2014 18:00:30 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 #871 on: 21/04/2014 18:58:02 »
So what is reality? If your taste is a geometry, and your sight? When you look at a astronomical photo they're often in colors, representing different types of mass, as a gas etc. But it's not space as you would see it yourself. It's like using sonar to help blind persons get a new 'sight', and the question if they then also will gain a ability to differ colors through it. What will they see? if we take a new born, getting, and adapting, to this possibility of sight, as he grows up?

#### 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 #872 on: 21/04/2014 19:12:26 »
The miracle here, isn't whatever underlying simplicity we will find through physics. The real miracle is the way we process and 'reconstruct' our reality into a ever growing complexity. Because we can do more complex things, the more we learn about nature. And your brain is the source from where it all comes, if there is any 'magic' to this world I would definitely place it inside the way a brain process information. :) Not in nature by itself, broken down into its smallest parts.

#### 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 #873 on: 21/04/2014 19:29:43 »
As a afterthought, considering how we reconstruct our environment, what would a quantum computer see? Just consider it a supplementary study, no time limit.

#### 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 #874 on: 28/04/2014 17:20:56 »
One thing I'm wondering about, is whether spin can be considered equivalent to a angular momentum, or if we're looking at it backwards. Meaning, if a angular momentum comes from an idea of spin :) In one case we have common very old knowledge that we connect to a new to explain it. In the other we have new knowledge that then tells us that we know very little about what we though was old common knowledge.

So, which one is it?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #874 on: 28/04/2014 17:20:56 »