The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
27
28
[
29
]
30
31
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
357228 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #560 on:
18/01/2014 13:41:37 »
As soon as you introduce a proper mass, it start to interact with bosons. Using a mass closing in to gamma radiation, you should find a retardation of motion, as the photons create a pressure, through their momentum.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #561 on:
18/01/2014 13:43:37 »
What is a perfect vacuum?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #562 on:
18/01/2014 13:49:44 »
All would be good, possibly? If we had this container defining it, and naturally so 'dimensions'. But the container, and the dimensions, are observer dependent giving us locally defined 'multi verses' here, and now.
=
That's what Lorentz transformations is all about, translating observer dependencies.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #563 on:
18/01/2014 13:54:23 »
And if you want to connect 'energy' to different regimes, defined by temperatures, then that to the 'dimensionality'? Including that perfect vacuum?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #564 on:
18/01/2014 13:58:44 »
I would say ones definition of a perfect vacuum is a relation, to mass and motion, locally defined. What we may agree on is what we think defines a perfect vacuums 'property's'. And that is it containing degrees of freedom, as defined from a observer, and so distance(s). You can define it as having a relation to energy too, but I don't know what 'energy' is.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #565 on:
18/01/2014 14:06:56 »
light has a vector, doesn't it? We give it a source, then define a propagation and vectors for it (speed and direction). Then we define it to have a momentum, giving it a pressure on mass, acting in the direction of its propagation.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #566 on:
18/01/2014 14:08:25 »
That's a pretty robust argument for lights propagation, isn't it?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #567 on:
19/01/2014 14:44:28 »
My universe becomes pretty weird, doesn't it? It assumes that as soon as a arrow is gone, and that you do by scaling, every 'direction' must point to a 'center'. And as there is no arrow, any definition of distance, so splitting that center into 'points', must lose their meaning. If something is perfectly homogeneous, equivalent in all aspects, without a arrow. How do you introduce it to get to the isotropy (distances and dimensions)?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #568 on:
19/01/2014 14:45:50 »
It's a 'sidereal universe' we live in. There is no up or down to it, ignoring gravity. Any direction is as good as any other.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #569 on:
19/01/2014 14:47:33 »
And what makes it possible to define a distance is a arrow. So how do we introduce that arrow?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #570 on:
19/01/2014 14:51:34 »
The observer, isn't it
From relativity's point of view you must have a observer. You can replace that for needing two frames of reference, one frame defining the other, from its local clock and ruler.
That's your 'time' in a sidereal universe, becoming your arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #571 on:
19/01/2014 14:56:33 »
Decoherence becomes really interesting to me, for defining it. It's what 'evens out' QM ,becoming the laws of Newton and Einstein macroscopically. Decoherence needs a arrow, and the arrow becomes decoherence.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #572 on:
19/01/2014 15:05:21 »
Then we have this assumption that laws are time invariant, meaning that you can play the movie backwards. I think it is correct, but I also define it such as it is a logic you must find, if you want a universe such as ours. I do not jump from there to a definition in which as a shadow creeps forward on a sun dial, it will be as true to say it also should be able to creep the opposite way. I differ between a needed logic, giving us repeatable experiment, and a presumption that you should be able to use that logic for reversing your arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #573 on:
19/01/2014 15:09:03 »
What I suspect I'm saying here is that I would expect 'time' to have a direction, a property of time, or possibly as a result from properties interacting becoming a arrow. Mathematics can prove all sorts of things, depending on your system of logic.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #574 on:
19/01/2014 15:15:57 »
Can you see why 'time travels' becomes impossible from such a definition?
It's about a whole universe played backwards, from using an idea of decoherence. You can't lift yourself out of the fractal.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #575 on:
19/01/2014 15:20:01 »
Consciousness and linear logic is also a result of a arrow. To define this 'consciousness' without thoughts you may experience meditating you actually need to get out of it, starting to think again, don't you
No way to define it being there.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #576 on:
19/01/2014 15:21:03 »
so what you define belongs to the arrow, never mind what you would like to call it. We use a arrow, always.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #577 on:
19/01/2014 15:28:09 »
It's the exact same experience as you will get from realizing that we only can define something from a 'inside'. Every thought you had, every experience you know, is defined from a inside of this universe. It does not tell you that there is a 'outside' though. That presumption comes from our definitions of 'dimensions' inside this universe. From there it is easy to assume that as a box has a inside as well as a outside, so must every 'inside' contain a possibility of a outside. But that is a fallacy of logic. Define a universe from relations defining 'dimensions' and the outside becomes the inside, what we call 'inside' defined by measurements, and repeatable experiments.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #578 on:
19/01/2014 15:34:52 »
But light has a vector, doesn't it? And a pressure? so it must 'propagate'?
So the universe is as I see it intuitively, looking out at the stars at night. Nah, it's not.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #579 on:
19/01/2014 15:35:43 »
At least not from where I stand
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
27
28
[
29
]
30
31
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...