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
...
17
18
[
19
]
20
21
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
357396 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #360 on:
09/01/2014 15:31:24 »
Defined this way the fractal change itself, constantly updating the pattern, using all points representing it. That's a non linear description.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #361 on:
09/01/2014 15:37:13 »
We can't use a fractal as being one point, just as we can't describe the universe just using one frame of reference, as I see it. A fractal need something to start to 'move', to get frames of reference interacting. And that either is properties, constants and principles without a origin, although becoming a 'background' of sorts. Or you can define it at some linear process, needing 'opposites' from its very origin, frames of reference interacting inside a already existent arrow. Then again, according to my definitions, as soon as you have 'opposites' (frames of reference) you should have a arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #362 on:
09/01/2014 15:40:45 »
The description becomes non linear in that it should be impossible to define all points, as its pattern evolves in 'real local time'. Although if taken 'instant by instant' it becomes 'countable', not really though, just using that 'eye of a God' defining it now.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #363 on:
10/01/2014 18:43:37 »
It's strange isn't it, that I reach such different conclusions. Not accepting dimensions for example, although we all know they exist each time we open a box
Blame that on 'c', Einstein and relativity. You might say that strings and loops look at it in a similar manner though? See, if I'm right in that dimensions is a wrong concept then a lot of the definitions used becomes wrong too. And the reasons why Einstein never could find a mathematical way to describe this fifth dimension he thought to carry the four we observe becomes more understandable. He went out from a universe making sense, even though 'c' was there. And he went out from an idea of a universe 'containing us', so looking at the universe he found, time dilations and Lorentz contractions, he needed a construct in where there was no need to Lorentz transform anything.
I just run the opposite direction with his concept, assuming that we already had a universe without time dilations and Lorentz contractions
That's the 'strictly local' point of view. Problem with it is that it doesn't in-cooperate a clock, and there is no ruler to it. The clock and ruler comes into existence, interacting with other frames of reference. You could call it 'time less' if you like. But it's not where you are, is it? So Einstein was right, still is, one hundred years later.
We measure relative clock and a ruler. We define both locally idealized. To do it we must assume them to exist, even though we can't measure it. Any other way, and you have no more repeatable experiments.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #364 on:
10/01/2014 18:50:43 »
Time-less isn't the best way to put it though, as I differ between time as a property, and a 'arrow'. A arrow is what you meet interacting with frames of reference, time is what locality already has, a property of sorts, like spin, to me. What more is that in my eyes 'gravity' becomes a property too, idealized into one (local:) 'spherical point' of rest mass for example.
all property's, together with using your local arrow as equivalent to 'c'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #365 on:
10/01/2014 19:00:53 »
So what would a symmetry break be? I would say it is all we can measure. We measure this symmetry break in a arrow. Scaling it down we find it to transform, into something time-less, locally defined. That's not what a observer, usually does though. He goes out from frames of reference, finding a local clock and ruler to measure in. That's not, what I define as being 'locality'.
Looking at it my way the symmetry still exist, our universe more of a projection on it, than anything uniquely existing by itself. Now, if it would be this way, would that make us 'unreal?
Define reality.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #366 on:
10/01/2014 19:06:24 »
Outcomes?
'c'
oscillation?
'a spring'
a geometry?
degrees of freedom?
dimensions
time
arrows
consciousness?
please define what a reality need, I'm really interested in that one.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #367 on:
10/01/2014 19:20:06 »
Using my idea of a fractal, on a sheet, representing points interacting and updating this fractal behavior constantly it becomes a very non linear description very fast, assuming a arrow. And you definitely need a arrow, as well as frames of reference, for it. The 'sheet' it rest on are those 'local' constants and properties, giving us those repeatable experiments we define science and physics from. Without them we don't have a measurable logic. But we have one.
So reality needs logic?
Does it?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #368 on:
10/01/2014 19:21:35 »
this logic, does it remind you of something? A 'system' maybe? Something defined by your limits? Are the universe then a 'system' too
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #369 on:
10/01/2014 19:23:41 »
If it is, and I think it has a reasonable similarity to one, then degrees of freedom are so much more appropriate describing it, than any idea of dimensions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #370 on:
10/01/2014 19:29:20 »
Four degrees of measurable freedom is what we have, 'time' 'length' 'width' 'height'. And 'plastic' from a containing description. Our very own fish bowl. I don't think it is a fish bowl at all. On the other tentacle, described from a inside it is. And it makes us 'exist', crazy isn't it
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #371 on:
10/01/2014 19:58:57 »
To describe a universe, following different constants etc we then need to define how we would describe them, separated from ours. There is no arrow at the scale I'm thinking of, and so no distance, and so no 'dimensions'. Or how, if I would define this universe as 'point like' as that follows perfectly reasonable from this definition, I should be able to define how other 'point like' universes can exist, separated? Then again, looking at it that way, you also might have a possibility of allowing something 'super imposed' on our reality. Defined by other properties than ours.
although I can't define a outside to it as I don't find anything describing a outside, more than the way locality itself seem to exist, as some 'dimension less point'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #372 on:
10/01/2014 20:03:50 »
From a container idea you can, but the universe does not act as a container, what defines it to us are the limits of 'c', and mass.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #373 on:
10/01/2014 20:10:08 »
A reality like ours though, definitely need a linear logic. And we got 'c', and that local arrow defining it, don't we? What more do we need? Distances, which mean a space, defined from? a vacuum? Or rest mass?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #374 on:
10/01/2014 20:13:15 »
If I allow relations to build 'dimensions' I definitely need rest mass. And I use it to define the dimensions we see. But a vacuum becomes trickier to define.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #375 on:
10/01/2014 20:17:02 »
You can't stretch a vacuum. And you can't tell me you can compress it either. If I would to assume that a vacuum contain a energy, how do I prove it? The only thing I know of is the 'Casimir force'? And that one isn't that convincing to me as it contain combination of rest mass versus rest mass.
What is a vacuum?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #376 on:
10/01/2014 20:19:21 »
What you can do in a vacuum though, and prove, is to create a repeatable experiment. And that we all assume to be correct, anywhere.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #377 on:
10/01/2014 20:23:13 »
You have to look at it from 'frames of reference'. Would you say that a vacuum consist of one or several frames of reference? How would you then define it, if so? Using gravity? Gravity will disappear, scaling it down, isn't that a reasonable assumption? So what will you use, separating one patch from another?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #378 on:
10/01/2014 20:24:57 »
What I think I will agree on is that a vacuum contain the same constants, properties, and principles as rest mass.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65512
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #379 on:
10/01/2014 20:32:05 »
It's like the 'layer' unhidden, isn't it? Rest mass defines a vacuum. We measure a vacuum in distance, and as it exist all around, as well as inside, rest mass, it begets the same properties we define to a rest mass. Having three room dimensions with a complementary 'arrow', always locally defined.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
17
18
[
19
]
20
21
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...