The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?  (Read 201339 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #975 on: 01/07/2014 12:24:30 »
But, it's very local this universe. And if you believe in discreteness, then you will try to find some smallest common nominator defining a 'grain' of time. And if you do as Einstein, you can get to both a 'flow' and discreteness, although that one is a hard idea to digest.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #976 on: 01/07/2014 12:28:00 »
Or maybe a grain of 'existence' :)

So QM is perfectly correct to use a ideal clock. Without it there would be no universe, at least not one like this. It has a local logic, that then somehow add up to the seamlessness we see when we look out at the stars at night, that unlimited line of sight, 13.7 billion lightyears back in time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #977 on: 01/07/2014 13:28:32 »
The wave universe has to be wrong. Anything trying to define a universe ignoring the duality is wrong. Your measurements setup will define the outcome as I see it. And it's a real duality.

Although :) Looking at it from shrinking my measurements, aka QM, to some ideal 'discrete bit', well, that's the 'photon' isn't it? And a wave is something undulating, to do so you need frames of reference. But that is the universe we see also, unlimited. So, it's a duality.

Thought Experiments in Einstein's work. By John Norton
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #978 on: 03/07/2014 03:02:51 »
What about a confinement for the Big Bang? If I would assume that the Big Bang somehow related to a proton, then you find that only a very tiny bit of it consist of rest mass, the rest is then 'energy' confined inside it, creating the equivalence to a mass. Can a confinement then represent a dimension? Pretty weird one.

It's this question about what dimensions are that's nagging at me again :) Either you need them to preexist, to confine this 'energy' that then presumably transform into real particles of rest mass, nota bene without the concept of heat and temperature involved in this first creation, as there is no matter existing initially. You need a assemblage of particles to interact with that 'energy' before you can define that way as I see it, and even then it is doubtful, although possibly possible :)  That as it demands me to come up with how this 'pure energy' then can interact at that initial state? The only thing I can come up with by this time, is this idea of 'confinements', as in a proton.

And if we then use the description from how there is no center to this universe  (inflation-expansion) you get to a multifaceted situation in where this initial state coexist 'everywhere' initially, as it seems to me? Or a assumed confinement of this energy has noting to do with dimensions? Or, the descriptions for dimensions are misleading, and confinements might be a better idea, although it doesn't answer how it can exist?
=

there's this alternative way to think of too, using locality. Then I might assume that confinements are the bits and ends of this universe :) And what then gives us dimensions are those confinements starting to communicate (under a locally equivalent arrow)?

That should make the vacuum into 'something'. Esthetically I don't find it that alluring, I much prefer to consider a vacuum a nothing. Hopefully I will argue my way out of this one somehow.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 03:09:56 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #979 on: 03/07/2014 03:23:23 »
Now, I'm not happy with 'virtual particles', also sometimes seemingly assumed to 'move' close to light speed, as I saw someone explain it for a protons mass to exist. If I think of a atom with electrons then they do not 'move' in any ordinary sense, they 'exist', and will give you (register) a momentum, or a position, but after your experiment has finalized. Thinking of that 'energy' confined inside a proton this way you should be able to get to a mass anyhow, without involving moving virtual particles.

If enough rest mass materialize, statistically and constantly, then you also should find it more massive, shouldn't you? Then again, is there no cost for this? What is that confinement?
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 03:25:04 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #980 on: 03/07/2014 03:29:57 »
To make it work we need to assume that this energy then spontaneously transform into rest mass, much alike the idea of virtual particles being able to become momentarily real to then disappear again. What allows this confinement to give us a mass is then the local arrow, as measured by the observer. As I like to treat it as a statistical phenomena, you must involve time. So back to the Big Bang, where did time come into the picture?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #981 on: 03/07/2014 03:32:35 »
There is another caveat to it though :)

Conservation of energy. 'the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time.'

So, a isolated system was it? Is a proton a isolated system?
How?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #982 on: 03/07/2014 03:38:09 »
The Big Bang or the proton :)

Both need to be isolated systems, both need conservation of energy. What differs is then that our proton under its life span constantly creates 'excitations' that to us measure up as part of its rest-mass? Is a proton a equivalence to what a Big Bang might have been?

Don't know :) Although, I don't think so. But they do seem to have something in common. This ability to create a measurable 'rest-mass'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #983 on: 03/07/2014 03:40:00 »
And that has to do with a confinement, energy 'transformation', and as always, that local arrow. You still want to call the arrow imaginary?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #984 on: 03/07/2014 03:48:09 »
Now, if you're like me, rambling around, you immediately starts to wonder about that protons life length. there are so many implications to what it could have to do with this. "Recent experiments at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan gave lower limits for proton half-life, at 90% confidence level, of 6.6×1033 years via antimuon decay and 8.2×1033 years via positron decay. Newer, preliminary results estimate a half-life of no less than 1.29×1034 years via positron decay."

 '(For comparison, the accepted figure for the current age of the universe is about 1.3x109 years.)' In other words, as a best guess the universe is somewhere around 13 billions year old.

Now isn't this interesting :)  A very long life, with constant rest-mass manifestations under this time, but no cost? If it decay we could assume that there is a cost to it naturally, Although this is still not proved experimentally. I would call it best guesses from guys who most probably started to look into it from theories that demanded a decay.
=

I'll add this too I think, there is no such thing as knowing too much, although with the addendum of espionage, and contra espionage existing, to prove a opposite. But, that's a human invention, not physics

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question28.html
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 04:13:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #985 on: 03/07/2014 04:19:14 »
Let's make it real simple. Time started 13.7 billion years ago.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #986 on: 03/07/2014 04:24:19 »
"What is a space time continuum?

In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not." from http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html  by Dr. Sten Odenwald.

Seems like a really nice description to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #987 on: 03/07/2014 04:29:41 »
You just need to understand that I think of the above as a description from the 'eye of a God' :) someone that 'sees' the universe as a unity, then find that to explain this universe as a 'common container' one also will need to consider observer dependencies relative 'time' and 'distance' (ruler and clock).

I go out from my locality, and there time is a constant.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #988 on: 03/07/2014 04:32:00 »
And instead of dimensions I need something to join frames of references. I practically presume that dimensions will be a result of that joining, imposing rules on the communication.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #989 on: 03/07/2014 04:34:44 »
It's closer to QM than one might think, relativity. If one treat the arrow as locally equivalent to 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #990 on: 03/07/2014 04:38:23 »
And then the smallest, locally measurable, length also must become a smallest 'clock tick', I presume :) If you like discreteness. If you like a flow? Well, what was before a Big Bang? I can use 'before' from inside this universe even though it might be a meaningless subject in some thought up opposite.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #991 on: 03/07/2014 04:44:32 »
Now, if I was to write a nice SF I could imagine a 'quantum universe', consisting of 'no time', in where I somehow create a four dimensional continuum or 'symmetry break', using three room dimensions and one time dimension. If I then want to let the mirror mirror the mirror, I further invent intelligent beings inside this four dimensional continuum, that in their turn, invent the concept of 'quantum computers' :) 

Disregarding the following headache, it would nice book to read, wouldn't it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #992 on: 03/07/2014 04:57:26 »

so, we're back at the Big Bang, where it all started. Rambling my middle name :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #993 on: 03/07/2014 05:04:35 »
We have those experiments from Lund though, 'photographing electrons' finding them to move. Well, in a way, they made a moving picture of their still images, but that doesn't necessary mean that this movie deliver a truth :) Or you can think of it as delivering several truths. It is a truth that the probability of where a particle will exist change with time, but it is also a truth that there is possible different paths, positions, etc, co-existing. Although the one(s) with the highest probability should be the one we find, usually.

So you can get to a 'moving picture'  from probability.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #994 on: 03/07/2014 12:34:07 »
Ever wondered how we can have a civilization? It's been on my mind for some time now. How is it possible? Well, how is it possible for ants to construct their 'ant-hill'? That's a pretty sophisticated work of engineering, isn't it? Do you think they sit down to plan it out before building a new one? We like to speak about ourselves as 'planning for the future', but? I don't know, the structures that has survived longest is the pyramids, and roman aqueducts possibly? And it's not a result of planning for the future, well, maybe the pyramids, and megalith stones? but to what purpose? As some memorial, that's the pyramids. As some scientific instrument? That's possibly Stonehenge.

What do you think would happen with the mono cultures we grow those days, and our modern infra structure, treating the globe as one place where from we get our food and sustainability, as Spain for vegetables? The second world war happened in a time when mono cultures of that scale didn't exist?

And if we use the ants again, do they really plan? Or do they just adapt to what is needed for the moment, trying to live their lives as good as they can? We call it instincts, don't we :) What about humans, do they have it too? What is that urge to reproduce? Are we that different from other animals really, or do we just 'dress it in'? So what about that politician telling you that he, or her, have a 'vision' for your future?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #995 on: 03/07/2014 12:41:13 »
Do politicians, and governments, plan, or do they just adapt to circumstances?

It's a really important question today, and it has direct connections to my question of how civilizations can exist, as complicated as ours. Because we need to turn our heads a little, we're not 'explorers' of infinite riches any more, and there is no 'white mans burden'. Industrialized countries worked because they were the first to exploit the earth 'whole sale', and that made a lot of things possible in Europe and USA. But if you use the same behavior today for developing countries? And they on their side look at you, telling you that what you did is what they are going to do too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #996 on: 03/07/2014 12:44:12 »
My own thesis there would be that we're really good at adapting, but we're actually pretty lousy on planning for longer than some decades, and consistently lousy on realizing why this is so much more important today, than it was yesterday.

It's a shrinking planet.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #997 on: 03/07/2014 12:47:03 »
We're on a collision course as I see it, with our old ideals and ways of thinking. This planet is your home, the best home you ever will get. Anyone fool enough to think of a man made spaceship as a human habitat is fool enough to make me happy to get rid of him :) Build it and be gone.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #998 on: 03/07/2014 12:48:55 »
You won't build a new Earth.

the only reasonable thing we can do, in my mind, is to try to take as good care as we can of the one we have.

We need to become caretakers.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #999 on: 03/07/2014 12:53:48 »
And that craves what we are so consistently lousy at doing, plans for the future. And it craves you to turn your own head, to realize that it really is a shrinking planet. We need new solutions, that are practical, but before that happens you need to understand in your bones that this is the only way forward.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #999 on: 03/07/2014 12:53:48 »

 

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