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
...
15
16
[
17
]
18
19
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
355778 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 #320 on:
06/01/2014 20:14:18 »
So, how many dimensions do you relate to a perfect 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 #321 on:
06/01/2014 20:17:57 »
See why I like degrees of freedom? The ways something can 'move'. How many degrees of freedom do we find inside our universe? 1, 2, 3, 4, right? A two dimensional lattice is ok to me from a definition of locality, a four dimensional SpaceTime is also okay from a container model. It all depends on how you define it.
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 #322 on:
06/01/2014 20:24:21 »
But there is a important difference, the idea of dimensions are 'global' descriptions to me. The idea of 'degrees of freedom' are always local descriptions. It goes out from what you observe, relative a local clock and ruler. Although now we are discussing how things seem to 'move', not what time we measure.
=
And so a observation of two dimensional interactions in a lattice becomes acceptable to me. It's about degrees of freedom, not about what 'dimensions' you expect this to happen in.
«
Last Edit: 06/01/2014 20:28:47 by yor_on
»
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 #323 on:
06/01/2014 20:32:00 »
I'll make a slightly disturbed jump now and propose a vacuum as 'non dimensional/one dimensional/two dimensional/three dimensional/four dimensional" up to whatever you can prove by experiments. In fact, I won't define anything there, but I think I would like to use a vacuum as a layer.
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 #324 on:
06/01/2014 20:42:50 »
Because that is how I think of a inflation, before we get to three dimensional matter. It's a layer, a sheet, a plane. Its 'degrees of freedom' is in a plane. Crazy stuff
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 #325 on:
07/01/2014 11:57:56 »
Ever wondered why you can't tell which spin you will measure on a entanglement? Mostly it is presented as it either is a 'hidden variable', or as QM demands it to be this way, just using probabilities which in this case is 50% up and 50% down. The next thing should be to wonder what is 'entangled', right? Everything, now and here? Or at a inflation/Big Bang, then disappearing when things start to bump? Or each bump representing some sort of 'new' entanglement?
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 #326 on:
07/01/2014 12:20:32 »
If you define things bumping into each other as observers of each other then? Does that change the relationship? And what is a entanglement? Then time, again
In my eyes time is a local property, a arrow locally equivalent to 'c'. Local connections and relations defining what 'dimensionality' you will find, and so 'universe'. The arrow may be able to be scaled down into a 'standstill', but 'time' must be there for this idea to make sense. I do not believe that you can get to change by stipulating that 'change is the origin of change'. That's a circular argument leading nowhere.
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 #327 on:
07/01/2014 12:29:22 »
So I have two ways of treating arrows 'standing still'. One is describing it over frames of reference, classical Einstein. The other is a local description, assuming that as you scale something down you also home in on what defines this 'locality'. And I can use a sheet this way too, layer, plane whatever. Which ever one you prefer, it doesn't matter.
But if I can get a arrow to disappear, and I assume it will, locally defined, totally ignoring the 'observer question' for this. Then all ideas we use to define this dimensionality also disappear. Distance disappear, and without a distance, where is a displacement?
«
Last Edit: 09/01/2014 14:19:07 by yor_on
»
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 #328 on:
07/01/2014 12:32:41 »
Same goes for dimensions. I don't need to define what a vacuum is. In fact I can define it any way I like. It's our experiments that define the degrees of freedom something have.
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 #329 on:
07/01/2014 12:34:02 »
So what would a entanglement be from this point of view?
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 #330 on:
07/01/2014 12:36:33 »
The observer question have no place in a strict defined locality. As soon as you want to describe something the observer is there naturally. But for this one you must ignore it. A strict local definition has no observer in it. Without a arrow, how do you observe?
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 #331 on:
07/01/2014 12:39:54 »
people ignore this one, string theory too. All assume observers, string 'vibrate' etc. All of this presumes the possibility of observing something. Can you see why I think indeterminacy is a better description than virtual particles, taking this view?
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 #332 on:
07/01/2014 12:51:49 »
You can also consider my idea of 'Planck steps' as way of defining 'discrete bits', equivalent 'everywhere'. Everywhere as the whole idea of 'commonly same universe defined by dimensions' disappear down there. There is no defined dimensionality for this universe, or, there is
Defined then by what constants, properties and principles resting inside each 'point', we locally find, measuring over frames of reference. But what exist scaling down would then be something 'equivalent' and without a 'arrow' as I think.
«
Last Edit: 07/01/2014 12:58:09 by yor_on
»
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 #333 on:
07/01/2014 12:56:39 »
But we need a property creating frames of reference. 'c' describes it, and also defines meaningful communication. But to me there must be another way, possibly also being 'c'. And that one stymies me. Because that demands me to define why 'c' is 'c'. But there has to be a way, if we want a logic that's not circular. One way might be symmetries though?
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 #334 on:
07/01/2014 13:06:51 »
So, think of constants etc, as a 'background'. That 'background' contain entanglements, 'c' and whatever constants you are able to define as a 'origin', not resting on 'c'. Which ones would that be? Or you can take another approach to it and use all 'constants' you expect necessary, ignoring which might 'come first' from an idea of a arrow..
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 #335 on:
07/01/2014 13:12:58 »
Looked at it from a process of scaling it down 'c' is a local arrow disappearing. So taken as a 'constant', that 'constant' merge with something locally indescribable in my thoughts, although we have quantum computing etc. But Quantum computing is observer dependent, it assumes a 'outcome', and the outcome demands frames of reference, interacting.
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 #336 on:
07/01/2014 13:15:42 »
Frames of reference interacting demands a arrow.
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 #337 on:
09/01/2014 12:47:59 »
So what about a time asymmetry in my thought up universe then? In my definition you should be able to get it both ways. You have 'time' as a property, and you should be able to see that express itself, even when measuring over frames of reference. The observer always have his local clock to measure by, but as we all know some weird things do happen as you scale down, using quantum mechanics. A time asymmetry is just the way we find a arrow to always keep one direction, into the 'future' as it might be. And that one should, in my mind, relate to the idea of
decoherence
. My reasons being expecting interactions to disappear as you scale something down, until you meet a state in where no interactions are observable, assuming perfect measurements/instruments. And I go by measurements as far as possible. I think I can argue it otherwise too, for example using a definition of any interaction craving 'observers' interacting, but it also puts a lot of expectation on us macroscopically measuring, as we then represent that local 'clock' by which we find something to interact.
Either you can think it to be 'patterns/sheets', 'moved' by 'c', according to us measuring. That's to my eyes a 'God given' view of in, not unlike the one we normally use, thinking of this universe. Or you use a strict local definition in where nothing 'moves', unless we introduce 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 #338 on:
09/01/2014 13:01:33 »
I think you can simplify the idea of a observer, as being one local 'frame of reference'. The whole idea of a frame of reference builds on a locally usable clock and ruler, but always as related to another frame of reference. Defined strict locally though, that clock is non-existent, only coming to exist measuring over frames of reference interacting. And that's time dilations, Lorentz contractions and relativity.
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 #339 on:
09/01/2014 13:04:12 »
Expressed another way. The 'clock' is interactions, oscillations. What makes our 'common universe tick'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
15
16
[
17
]
18
19
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...