# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 189671 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #900 on: 06/05/2014 20:08:45 »
So we have a logic, chains of events making sense, linear time. It makes us 'real'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #901 on: 06/05/2014 20:13:08 »
That's where I once started my wanderings from. The idea of time being real, as it is. And everything I discuss is about this, linear time, the chain of events creating my universe, in communication with yours.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #902 on: 06/05/2014 20:19:38 »
So much of our concepts are pre-relativity to me. The whole idea of a commonly same universe for example. That one is the one making sense intuitively, locally practically. So we choose it as it describes most of what we ever will experience. Even though we know better, we still cling to it.

Dimensions?

Do we create them in our observation, are they there even without matter? We do create a lot of things, as you should know if you've read me.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #903 on: 06/05/2014 20:23:28 »
Your taste is a construct, does that makes it less real?

And, if we can agree on something being sweet, something else being sour, Isn't that a proof for the idea of your taste, as a local experience, shared by us all? Can you see what I'm asking there? Even though it is a geometry that transforms into a 'taste' by you. If we all agree on it, isn't it also as real as can be?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #904 on: 07/05/2014 16:27:00 »
The only logic that is accessible describing that 'shared space' we exist in, aka our universe, is local. Local logic creates the universe, local logic gives you repeatable experiments, local logic builds physics. As soon as you stray from that premise into something 'commonly existing, same for all, universe' you leave the experiments, going into hypothesis's.

So Astronomy is hypothes's. It assumes a consistent space, aka a box of some type, in where heavenly bodies move.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #905 on: 07/05/2014 16:28:06 »
Now, isn't the moon there when I don't look?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #906 on: 07/05/2014 16:29:37 »
That brings me to there being more ways than one to describe something. Because we are the proofs for it, as is astronomy.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #907 on: 07/05/2014 16:35:56 »
The motion of light is a hypothesis too. It's dependent on your premises, how you will look at it. From a local definition we have light quanta that annihilates, presenting your senses and physics with information. We do not have a wave, as a wave needs frames of reference. It's a very microscopic definition of a reality. What builds our macroscopic definition though is all about frames of reference, communicating and transforming into useful information.

A wave is a macroscopic description, depicting something having a constant uniform speed, propagating over frames of reference. A light quanta is a local annihilation.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #908 on: 07/05/2014 16:41:23 »
And a wave of radiation is not a observable in itself. It is what we find to be the closest analogue, equivalent to for example ocean waves. From a standpoint of experiments you only have the subsequent annihilation, and the recoil shown before that by matter, as energy (photons) disappear from it. It's not a rope undulating in a space.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #909 on: 07/05/2014 16:45:18 »
So how do you want to look at it, from a local point of view?

I don't look at it as a speed there, I think of it in terms of 'c' becoming a clock instead. As if there is a time setter, that keeps a logic between ? 'end points' maybe ? translating into a speed when described over frames of reference.

and that 'time setter' is the same for us all, locally defined. That's why you die.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #910 on: 07/05/2014 16:49:44 »
That's also why I expect there to be a limit, which then Planck scale present as one possibility. Because just as we find light quanta to be of a discrete energy, then, treating 'c' as 'clock ticks', I will want it to be of a discreteness. Can you see why?

But it does not mean that it stops there.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #911 on: 07/05/2014 16:52:30 »
If it stopped there a quantum computer wouldn't exist.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #912 on: 07/05/2014 16:56:37 »
The duality of light exist macroscopically, will it also exist microscopically? Assuming that there is a discreteness/limit?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #913 on: 07/05/2014 16:58:40 »
Alternatively, two modes presented as one universe. Photons and waves, lights duality. Lights duality is about frames of reference.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #914 on: 07/05/2014 17:01:09 »
Turn it around, think about it as probabilities of outcomes. Some 'space' in where everything coexist. the universe you believe in is a result of outcomes. The outcomes is a result of local constants, rules and principles, and properties.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #915 on: 07/05/2014 17:06:32 »
It's not as simple as saying that we found QM the same way we found the Newtonian universe, or even relativity. Newtonian universes are 'sane', the ball rolls down the slope, and we can count on it :) Relativity becomes a slightly twisted form of that, introducing frames of reference, and observer dependencies, with QM consisting of probabilities, and statistics, that we find from experiments, then build theoretical frameworks around to test further if they hold.

If you find Relativity to be weird, take a look at how we define QM.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #916 on: 07/05/2014 17:09:40 »
What we can assume though is that there should be some sort of logic binding the macroscopic to the microscopic. If that logic is holographic, or discrete, or 'smooth' all seem to depend on from where you look.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #917 on: 07/05/2014 17:11:08 »
Are waves smooth phenomena?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #918 on: 07/05/2014 17:17:51 »
If you and me agree on that something is locally repeatable, assuming a equivalent setup. Is that a repeatable experiment? What about us both tasting sugar? Finding it to be 'sweet'?

A repeatable experiment?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #919 on: 07/05/2014 17:47:00 »
Can you get any closer to a smooth reality than the idea of a space in where everything coexist, only having different probabilities of 'materializing', becoming a observable? Talking about a quantum computer in form of interference of waves is one approach to it, but it's not real. And calling it a space isn't very real either.

Why would it need a space? Only if assuming it to have a volume, area whatever, will you need a space. And interference builds from that mind concept, as does waves 'propagating', and interacting inside it. But there is no time to that space, it's outside of any discrete definition, just as a 'free will' must be.

If you think of people as automata, proper mass following definable logical physical processes, and transformations, where would that free will reside? It becomes a intangible to me assuming it to exist. And I do assume it to exist.

what about thoughts? "I think, therefore I am." Without that, who would know? Why are you able to think?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #920 on: 07/05/2014 17:51:07 »
What I'm wondering about here is whether what makes us think, and gives us that free will we so like to flaunt, is not the outcomes. We may be closer to QM than we think, eh, so to speak :)
« Last Edit: 07/05/2014 17:53:46 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #921 on: 07/05/2014 18:01:33 »
It becomes a weird and 'fragmented' universe, locally described. What defines it is those local values, constants as 'c', and our equivalent 'local clocks', shared by us all. What connects should be frames of reference interacting with each other.

And there is the mystery. How do frames of reference connect, microscopically defined? How would you describe it without waves? Without propagation? And possibly, from an 'instant' of an event, as that photon annihilating.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #922 on: 07/05/2014 18:06:12 »
What we use macroscopically to describe it fails there. The first thing I think I would need for describing it is a discreteness at some scale, 'grains'. Even then, assuming those grains to consist of equivalent constants and rules etc, how can I make them act as different particles, and how do I make those particles define a space to exist in :) Crazy, isn't it?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #923 on: 21/05/2014 17:09:43 »
Anyone seen this?

""It's breathtaking to think that things we thought are not connected, can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy, particles and light. Would we be able in the future to convert energy into time and vice versa?""

It's a comment to converting light into particles?

Energy is not 'time'. Locally defined your time will not care about the 'energy' it consists in. Locally measured your clock always give you a same time keeping. The only time, if I now may, that this isn't true is when you compare your local clock and ruler to someone else's, finding a time dilation and complementary Lorentz contraction.

and you don't need a infinite energy for this fact, you just need another frame of reference to compare yours to.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #924 on: 21/05/2014 17:16:03 »
The same old problem keeps coming back doesn't it? Even by highly educated physicists and mathematicians. The idea of 'this commonly shared container universe' in where we exist. Looked at from such a proposition the idea may make sense, but it's not about experiments when you think this way, it's about your beliefs.

If you use experiments, then they are local definitions.

When we share our experiments with each other, finding them agreeing, we get to a repeatable experiment. But nowhere does this state that the universe is our 'container' in any practical sense. It's communication that defines the universe we think us exist in, not the experiments.

« Last Edit: 21/05/2014 17:18:23 by yor_on »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #924 on: 21/05/2014 17:16:03 »