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
...
52
53
[
54
]
55
56
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
355832 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1060 on:
12/07/2014 14:49:20 »
Let's see, you're constantly 'infalling'
, when using my definition of a expansion, remember? At the same time as you, standing on Earth, is accelerating constantly and uniformly, according to the equivalence principle, with gravity's arrow, defined from some ideal sphere of a even density in a flat space, pointing in the opposite direction from your 'acceleration'. I can see why a Newtonian outlook seems to make more sense
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1061 on:
12/07/2014 14:50:19 »
But relativity has hold all tests I've heard of.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1062 on:
12/07/2014 15:06:53 »
So where does my interpretation of Einsteins relativity differ? It's one word.
Locality.
And that one is about presumptions. I presume that it becomes simpler to explain as defined locally than presuming a container, and then try to explain it. Doing so frames of reference ability to communicate becomes the big mystery, presenting us the illusion of a seamlessly existing universe in where we all are 'contained'.
You use a container? Then time becomes a illusion. You use locality, then time becomes a (local naturally:) constant. Which one do you prefer, and which one fits your life?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1063 on:
12/07/2014 15:10:11 »
It's simpler because it unite your arrow with 'c'. It gives you a simple logic (although understanding why 'c' is 'c' still is a mystery) explaining why you will find yourself to age wherever you go, at whatever mass, and speed.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1064 on:
12/07/2014 15:13:35 »
And just as a expansion, and gravity, and constants, it's a local expression. What makes our seamless universe is the way they connect. And that is 'frames of reference'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1065 on:
12/07/2014 15:20:32 »
It's also dependent on what you want to call a 'illusion'. Reality, as far as I can see, is about communication. Connect frames of reference, enable it to communicate, and evolve, and you should have yourself a logic, a arrow, and a universe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1066 on:
12/07/2014 15:22:46 »
And from that you should be able to define 'force carrying particles' be they bosons or rest mass (fermions).
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1067 on:
12/07/2014 15:24:51 »
And our measurements will define dimensions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1068 on:
13/07/2014 16:08:12 »
Can a 'photon gas' have a temperature?
Not really, at least not from where I stand. But it will present us with a temperature as soon as it interacts. Photons do not interact with each other, normally defined. If they did we should see all kinds of interesting phenomena happening in a vacuum, as space, as I think. although to test it you really need to create a 'perfect vacuum'.
A BEC is consisting of particles obeying Bose-Einstein particle statistics, similar to bosons as photons, with Fermions (matter) obeying the Fermi-Dirac particle statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that you can't have identical properties for two particles of rest mass, normally. They each need to occupy a unique state. that's, as far as I get it, what builds our 'touchable' matter.
It also means that fermions can't share a identical ground state, in contrast to a bosonic BEC in where all particles, at extremely low temperature, will do so. Fermions are defined from their spin which are described as half-integrals (1/2 = half integer spin). Helium 3 is a atom of rest mass, consisting of two protons, one neutron and two electrons. It's particles adds up to an uneven number creating this atom, and therefore can not be made into a BEC. Bosons spin, on the other tentacle, is defined by whole numbers, integer spin, from zero and up. So, if you can find a atom with the correct number particles creating it, getting a integer net spin out from the 'gas' of atoms, you have the possibility of a BEC.
Helium 4 is such a atom, consisting of two protons, two neutrons and two electrons. Cooling an assemble of such atoms down will lead to them losing their individual identity, following Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP).
HUP is a statement about uncertainty. One explanation is that as you cool those atoms down the number of possible energy states existing for them drastically shrink. As a result of this their velocities becomes more definite, and with that follow that their positions must become more and more uncertain, in the end resulting in a BEC. Another partial explanation come from the QM statistics itself, stating that when treating bosons as a 'ideal gas' there will be a limit for the total number of particles moving at excited states (kinetic energy). And this allowed number shrink with the temperature shrinking. Passing the allowed limit will then start to force particles down to a zero-momentum ground state. Those not stopping their motion will not become the BEC, just those forced down.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1069 on:
13/07/2014 16:25:46 »
It's about that Big Bang, and temperatures, heat, and interactions actually
I can't be the only one wondering about what transitions you can expect 'pure energy' to be able to do? Or ignoring that, a 'photon/wave' universe?
If there are no interactions?
Then again, we have the idea of spontaneous particle creation to consider too. Although I find that one rather weak, and weird:) it is a possibility. Is gravity equivalent to energy? Also, are there proofs of virtual particles becoming real out of a vacuum?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1070 on:
13/07/2014 16:29:21 »
It's like temperatures, isn't it? To measure it you need to produce that thermometer. doing so you introduce a interaction between radiation and rest mass, that result in giving you a temperature. Radiation on its own does not have a temperature, unless extremely theoretical. Experimentally you need rest mass for producing it as I think?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1071 on:
13/07/2014 16:30:36 »
and to proof your 'virtual particles' you will need rest mass for it to interact with too.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1072 on:
13/07/2014 16:31:46 »
And it all goes back to what a Big Bang means? Well, except for the obvious
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1073 on:
13/07/2014 16:39:14 »
A simple definition of why I'm correct is to consider the vacuum existing. You have space just some tens of (swedish) miles away. Further out you have a sun. We assume that light propagates between that sun and here, constantly, unerringly
So, does it heat up the vacuum?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1074 on:
13/07/2014 16:42:10 »
Do that mysterious energy 'stored' in the vacuum interact with the suns radiation then?
N000Oooope
If it did we would notice.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1075 on:
13/07/2014 16:47:59 »
Any time you see a sun flare you see a interaction between radiation and matter, as far as I know. You need some type of rest mass. But a Big Bang, without rest mass? How did it ever get to producing it? From what type of reaction? Energy + energy = rest mass, can't be right. Radiation + energy then? Makes no more sense to me
Radiation + Radiation then. Really? And from where did we get that radiation?
Actually, the last one isn't that stupid. It just depends on how you define a universe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1076 on:
13/07/2014 16:54:22 »
Everything is possible to translate to the coin of exchange, 'energy'. But you have to be pretty mixed up if you define matter and photons, radiation, as one and the same. They are not the same.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1077 on:
13/07/2014 20:20:15 »
Yes, I know of waves interacting
quenching and reinforcing, as in a two slit experiment, and I will need to write about that too. But photons do not interact as far as I know. And you need to set it into my world view, in where locality is all, well, all I go out from that is. But I really need to write about waves too.
Another thing. I wrote that Higgs doesn't explain rest mass. that depends maybe. Assuming you believe in 'real' virtual particles, with a momentum discernible by a Higgs boson/field? And if we to that add that those imaginary directions take themselves out?
Well, curioser and curioser possibly, but who knows?
I just don't find it good enough.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1078 on:
13/07/2014 20:49:13 »
Alternatively, assume that everything 'vibrate'. Atoms, their particles, electron clouds, whatever rest mass you can think of. We need to impose the same restriction naturally, that those directions they may present 'vibrating', evens out. then you could possibly argue that a Higgs field react with it, creating a mass. Naturally we then need to assume that some bosons, as photons, shouldn't 'vibrate' too, as it (a photon) has no discernible rest mass. It can't have it, it's never 'at rest'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65329
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #1079 on:
13/07/2014 20:52:02 »
So, momentum or position
A Higgs would then 'see' what?
Why?
Thinking of HUP.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
52
53
[
54
]
55
56
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...