# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 200878 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #925 on: 21/05/2014 17:27:00 »
You really need to understand this. It's what makes you die, no matter where you are, or how fast you go. If you miss out on this simple truth, then you will get lost in your forrest of facts, adapting to beliefs.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #926 on: 21/05/2014 17:33:46 »
Time is a constant, and all constants are locally defined, but not 'globally'. Globally described this universe you think yourself to exist in is fragmented by uncountable time dilations and Lorentz contractions, all 'locally' defined by each and every 'observer'. Can you see what I'm stating here?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #927 on: 21/05/2014 17:37:16 »
Ones physics, and mathematics, can only be as good as ones presumptions allows them to be. Locally there are no ambiguities, they do come into play, assuming this 'container' though.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #928 on: 22/05/2014 11:02:36 »
In a way it's like there 'somewhere' only exist one homogeneous 'point', that's locality, and constants. To that you then need to add communication over frames of reference, to get to distances and dimensions. The ideal equivalence of all frames of reference (locally defined constants) gives us the repeatable experiments on which we build physics. There is not one logic to it, it's more. You have those 'constants' giving you one logic, then you have communication over frames of reference creating a universe. Both are needed.

'c' is a constant, equivalent to your local time keeping, aka all ours 'local clock'. That clock is not a speed, neither is it ticking locally defined. As I see it the ticking , just as this constant 'speed' we find light to have both are results of communicating over frames of reference.

It their simplest terms they are a same (local) constant. And as we all share that same constant, with a absolute equivalence, how do we 'split' it? Same question as always, isn't it :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #929 on: 22/05/2014 11:07:08 »
A very simple proof of locality, is remembering that as soon as you and me both share a same frame of reference we will be indistinguishable from each other, you can think of it in terms of superimposing to make it more digestible. and this proof is applicable all over the universe, doesn't matter where you do the experiment.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #930 on: 28/05/2014 12:02:42 »
Just a question.

Does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tell us something about what 'time' is?

"a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philsophers.) Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them."

The observation is a function of time, isn't it? Everything we can observe is in a past tense, practically speaking. You can either define a 'momentum' or a 'place/position' to a particle, but not both simultaneously. From a past tense though, is there no possibility of defining both? And isn't it this kind of thinking that lead to 'weak experiments'?

We have a momentum but no position or a position but no momentum. In a world where we expect both to exist together, as part of each other macroscopically.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #931 on: 28/05/2014 12:34:53 »
The question here seems to become become one of what you think is  more real. Depending on your assumptions you can define both (position and momentum), accepting that there is no way to measure that can be said to exist in a present (now), or you define it such as the principle will hold. I don't think it is semantics to point out that there is no observation that actually exist 'now'. They must always be in a past tense, when observed.

A now, can it exist?
« Last Edit: 28/05/2014 12:37:12 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #932 on: 28/05/2014 12:42:22 »
It's like we're always a instant behind that 'now', isn't it? It becomes theoretical. The world I observe is past that now, and there is no way a outcome can be described as happening as I observe it, unless you want to define the observation to a consciousness perceiving it. All the same we have interactions all around us, as well as inside us, constantly happening following a defined direction we call time. and as they happen, shouldn't there be a now for when they actualize? No matter if I observe it or not?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #933 on: 28/05/2014 12:46:17 »
Does 'now' exist, or does it not? Is the past a function of my observation, or does it have a independent existence. The last one is more of a Newtonian universe to my thinking, one in which we can be certain of things 'existing', doing their thing with or without us.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2014 13:05:34 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #934 on: 28/05/2014 13:10:45 »
Think of it in terms of a field then. Does the particle we measure on then integrate in that field. Can you really give it a individual existence outside that field? And how will you define this particles limits? You know it is 'there', although always in a past tense. But if it is a expression of a field?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #935 on: 28/05/2014 13:13:15 »
You may want to think of it as observer dependent too. But we need to presume that behind the observer dependencies there is a origin, from where we can make this observer dependent observation. Without such a presumption you are free to assume that everything is a construct by your mind.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #936 on: 28/05/2014 13:17:43 »
In a larger sense, where would the limits for a field be? Assume the universe we measure on to be one consistent field, does it create the inside? Or does it exist in a inside?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #937 on: 28/05/2014 13:23:28 »
I think, although this is just my assumption, that Einstein would have preferred the first. It creates the inside. The field creates all that we measure on, including its dimensions.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #938 on: 28/05/2014 13:30:05 »
A field becomes like a plane in some way. That plane is about our constants. From a local perspective the fields origin must be constants, locally equivalently shared, everywhere in a measurable universe. That's what I think is a necessary assumption from where to start. Because it gives me a consistent logic.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #939 on: 29/05/2014 16:52:37 »
We're a special kind of people I think. We've looked at what people think important, but I don't think we agree? I don't.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #940 on: 29/05/2014 16:54:45 »
Or maybe It's just me, being mis-adjusted? Never mind, I sooner go the grave thinking my own way, than adopt to any dogma.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #941 on: 29/05/2014 18:04:11 »
I don't know. It might be single malt speaking here, but I remember me expecting the world to be understandable? Do you, really as by your self, find it it understandable? I mean, we see a logic, and I'm prepared to let me lead me wherever it like, but is it the world I grew up in? The world we're zooming in on is less than the world we thought ourselves to live in, but also infinite :)

If that doesn't give you a headache, well, it still gives me one

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #942 on: 29/05/2014 18:11:06 »
In the end, from the point of consciousness, it might all be about reproduction. It's easy to see how religions lift reproduction up as something holy, not to be trifled with. But as for one singular world, taking care of us all, it's a doomed proposition. then again, theres so much to admire with those of us wanting to protect. It's about emotions, feelings, bravery, against logic. Still, I expect logic to 'win', whatever that now means.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #943 on: 29/05/2014 18:15:59 »
That does not mean that I find logic to be the only answer. Live your dreams, but make them good ones, please.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #944 on: 29/05/2014 18:19:57 »
In the end you will walk alone. Just as the way you came in.

The rest is up to you

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #945 on: 29/05/2014 18:33:27 »
There are some truths about life. some things that makes it simpler.

don't lie.

If you can't tell the truth, keep quiet,

It's simple, but only a very few can make it hold.
are you one of them?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #946 on: 29/05/2014 18:44:45 »
Before all though.
Try to see how much of your truths that are true. That will change, with age and experience. You can either decide that logic will be your answer, or feelings. I prefer logic myself, but I don't think logic is all. When it comes to those things that touch me most, I don't really know? Some people think that love is the answer? I don't know there either?

You came alone, and you will leave alone.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #947 on: 29/05/2014 18:47:02 »
And yes, it's all about dying :)

Are you afraid?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #948 on: 29/05/2014 19:01:01 »
Can you see why democracy is a good thing?

not because it makes me bigger, just because it listen to us all.

Crazy isn't it? To expect us to consider others.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #949 on: 29/05/2014 19:11:36 »
I'm most probably boring here :)

Well, this is where it stops, and I'm getting old. Give me a reason why frames of reference communicate? Why does they? That's the next Nobel prize.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #949 on: 29/05/2014 19:11:36 »