The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 199314 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #950 on: 29/05/2014 21:00:13 »
The point may be. Either you can face death, without hiding behind some belief, or you are unable?

And it doesn't really matter what your protection is called here.

Are you a man?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #951 on: 29/05/2014 21:06:00 »
One more thing, you came here without a protection, and you made it just fine. why do you think you need it to leave?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #952 on: 29/05/2014 21:11:59 »
To put into simplicity :)

Be unto others as you want them to be unto you.

Nobody seems to get that one, do they?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #953 on: 29/05/2014 21:25:31 »
The thing is, I don't need a reward in heaven to realize why the above is a sane approach.
Can you see why it makes me wonder about us?

Are we that behavioristic as a species? We won't do anything unless we get a reward? Be it ugly or good. Yeah, physics is pretty simple, compared to humanity
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #954 on: 27/06/2014 11:55:11 »
Anyone read "Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem_WIA-Conclusions-summary"  you can find it here

Anyway, made me wonder about us again. We associate the 'free market' with democracy, self interests with justice, and believe that money is what shows the way forward. And it's not just western democracies that does this, the old USSR consisted of a blatant elite society, with only a few having access to real privileges, and let's not start on discussing China.

what do we get from this type of philosophy?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #955 on: 27/06/2014 11:59:55 »
Find me a real democracy.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #956 on: 27/06/2014 12:10:04 »
The worst thing about this kind of reports are that they almost invariably tend to be considered belonging to some fringe group, not needed to be taken seriously. We can see it even when it comes to global warming. And those fighting for a status quo, advertising their views in all kinds of ways, what have they to lose by taking it seriously?

Money.

and what have we as a species to lose?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #957 on: 27/06/2014 12:24:14 »
Modern society's are built on bureaucracies. Ideally presumed incorruptible, practically adapting to diverse influences, be it political, monetary, as well as the opinions and beliefs shared by their peers. They are supposed to be governed by the people, the same way as politicians are supposed to be instruments of the people, doing the peoples will.

Then again, there exist no democracies, but there exist representative democracies.
It's a big difference.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #958 on: 27/06/2014 12:34:28 »
And still we have democracy in reach, if we tried. We have the Internet, we have asymmetric encryption, guaranteeing the individual voting. So what do we do with this Internet? Well, we corrupt international open standards, we start to collect all information there is, storing it indefinitley just in case.

Some people think that they are 'small fishes in a big ocean'. Not any longer, there are no fishes too small to be noticed, using algorithms. you can design them to 'fish' for whatever your little heart decide, and information, that's real power.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #959 on: 27/06/2014 12:36:24 »
And then we have those that say they have nothing to hide :)
Well, there might be a few saints amongst us, but I'm not one, and neither are you.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #960 on: 27/06/2014 12:43:04 »
Yep, physics is easier.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #961 on: 01/07/2014 08:09:22 »
This one is interesting to me. Not that, as I understands, that this is the only incompatibility between QM and GR?

A Conflict Between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

It's about my ideas in a way, as I define the arrow to be a local constant, equivalent to 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #962 on: 01/07/2014 08:20:34 »
What would a field be from my ideas on 'locality'?

I think it should be the 'gizmo' that connects frames of reference :) If you can tell me how one local frame connects to another, creating both this geometry as well as fermions and bosons. (not just lifting up 'photons', virtual or not, and 'c', which actually tells me very little) Then I single handedly will force the Nobel Committee to award you, and I'm a Swede :) So I have to know them, don't I?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #963 on: 01/07/2014 08:31:55 »
you have to turn your head to see it my way. I define a constant but exclusively local. On the other tentacle, prove me a 'universal constant' that isn't experimentally defined locally? I will state that a lot of the confusion rests on our preconceptions of this 'universe' we define, this 'container'. Looked at from any 'container' idea, containing us as well as everything else, time becomes a mystery. But defined from locality it's a constant. So you have to go the other way, from locality towards what unites, and that then will become a very weird problem, both for defining dimensions and for defining this universe we so seamlessly exist in.

time is not a problem.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #964 on: 01/07/2014 08:39:49 »
And 'excitations in a field' gets a new meaning as there is no ordinary field existing in my view. It's not about a container model at all. Although, to us it is.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #965 on: 01/07/2014 08:48:25 »
And the same then should be for a Lorentz contraction. I view them as complementary to time dilations, observer dependent. You get two for the price of one, so to speak :) And they are not a problem either, if you leave this 'common container universe' you define yourself to exist in. They should then be a result of whatever principle that connects frames of reference relative 'speeds' and 'mass' ('energy')

Neither do I need to place this 'energy' geometrically, as it is 'potential' between whatever you define to 'move' relative what. If I would want to define the kinetic energy created in two objects colliding, then it is the sum of their relative motion (and mass naturally), versus each other, but not intrinsic to any of them experimentally. I don't need to define 'where' this 'energy' is stored. To me it becomes a result of rules, properties and principles, for how frames of reference connects instead.

And it doesn't really matter if you define something to accelerate or not, unless you expect 'gravity' to be 'pure energy'? Well, I don't think it does, for now :) at least. But we can look at it from relative motion to keep it simple.

and there you will have no way to experimentally prove a intrinsic energy stored due to different uniform motion, unless in a interaction as a collision. When you see light blue-shift or red-shift, then that is a interaction too, even a expansion should be one.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 09:00:02 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #966 on: 01/07/2014 09:05:27 »
The point is that locally the 'mass energy' of Earth won't change with a higher uniform motion. In a collision we will see a higher kinetic energy expressed but locally there will be no experimental evidence for it. Now, thinking of this fact from a container model you then have to define this 'energy' to somewhere, don't you? :) I don't need to.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #967 on: 01/07/2014 09:09:26 »
That's also why I'm questioning what a vacuum is.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #968 on: 01/07/2014 09:16:06 »
A wave theory wants a vacuum to consist of bosons (waves) and energy states (Mexican hat for example). And so it questions 'nothing'. It becomes a question if a 'nothing' can exist? In my view a nothing can exist, it's what we call a perfect vacuum. And I think (well hopefully so:) it has to be a result of frames of reference creating a geometry.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #969 on: 01/07/2014 11:56:39 »
Einstein wrote about us being 'inside' a universe. That is how we observe. The 'eye of a God' doesn't exist for us as far as I know, even though we sometimes use it theoretically, trying to describe a universe. But it's also so that we all assume this universe to be something in its own right, it's really hard not to do that btw, defined by dimensions and some possible size, from unlimited to ? What really defines the size is how far we can look out, that means the age of the farthest light reaching us now.

If we use the idea of a inflation/expansion having no center then it doesn't matter where you place yourself, You won't meet a end of this universe, in a way you're taking the 'center of the universe' with you as you move to see further in some direction. 13.7 billion light years of possible sight, wherever you place yourself.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 11:58:10 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #970 on: 01/07/2014 12:01:41 »
Those 13.7 billion lightyears is the time it has existed since the Big Bang, approximately. So even if the universe is 'unlimited' in one way, it still have a beginning astronomically, time wise.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #971 on: 01/07/2014 12:04:27 »
So, no matter what QM might contrast as a ideal time keeping, versus relativity. It builds on a misunderstanding of what a proper time is, according to me then :) Einsteins proper time, the one measured by your wristwatch, is my definition of a local constant.

And it's 'universal' :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #972 on: 01/07/2014 12:10:20 »
Can you see how my idea of what should be called 'universal' differ? From ones normal conception of what universal means? The things/constants universal are simply those locally equivalent wherever you go. It's not a field of evenness, it's not the geometry that needs to present it, it's when we can agree on experiments giving us a equivalent result, that will gives us 'universal constants', and allow this universe its logic.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #973 on: 01/07/2014 12:14:18 »
If you use this logic it becomes easier to see how we can have a constant arrow, locally defined, that is valid throughout a universe, yet enabling time dilations and Lorentz contractions when comparing your clock (time) and ruler against some other.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #974 on: 01/07/2014 12:19:41 »
And time dilations is not isolated to accelerations. I've tried to make them so as it would make for a simpler definition, but I can't. It is as involved in uniform motions as it is in accelerations, and it's just like that 'potential energy' I discussed before. Either you want to localize it geometrically, as belonging to 'something/somewhere', or you can see it as a result of frames of reference communicating. That's what I do.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #974 on: 01/07/2014 12:19:41 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums