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
...
11
12
[
13
]
14
15
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
354174 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #240 on:
02/01/2014 13:00:04 »
So time dilations exist, as soon as you can measure them, locally defined. There's no reason to assume that accelerations/decelerations is the culprit for this, in my eyes. More than you need to introduce them to get back to a origin, now ignoring the idea of some 'spherical universe'. And why I ignore that one should be obvious from the rest of my ideas.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #241 on:
02/01/2014 13:19:30 »
So what gives us a arrow?
Decoherence too?
Don't know. It's somewhat of a local property to me, that I call 'time'. But I do assume that we get to a arrow by this property interacting, finding relations, in a similar way that decoherence is thought to work from probabilities microscopically to predictabilities macroscopically.
=
You most definitely need to introduce scales, and so 'frames of reference' to see my reasoning here.
«
Last Edit: 02/01/2014 13:22:57 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #242 on:
02/01/2014 14:25:43 »
Why accelerations and decelerations are assumed to be a reason for a 'real' twin experiments age difference, I foremost relate to the idea of 'dimensions' as a container, containing us, and everything else we can measure. It's that one that defined most of what we think is 'real', and also that one that makes people doubt relativity most. The idea of different observers observing different 'times', and not only that but also different 'universes'. It's a hard one to accept from a container model, if I may call it that. But as soon as you turn it around, defining observer dependencies from your local definition, then it makes sense. But you need those constants for it. and you need them to exist everywhere, locally the same (equivalent).
«
Last Edit: 02/01/2014 14:34:50 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #243 on:
02/01/2014 14:31:19 »
Either there is a rhythm to a universe, as defined by 'c', or the rhythm comes to be macroscopically. Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #244 on:
02/01/2014 14:41:37 »
And Einsteins ideas must still be valid, but you no longer need to look for where that 'tension', relativistic mass, should be able to be measured, using different uniform motions defining it. If it all is a question of relations then the relations creates it as needed, in a collision for example. Not unlike a computer model over objects colliding, presenting a kinetic energy, the programming defining how it will behave. The 'programming' here should be constants, properties and principles.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #245 on:
02/01/2014 14:46:39 »
What can 'bump' (collide) here is matter aka restmass. As far as I know, there is no experiment proving radiation able to 'bump' with radiation. Radiation, treated as waves, can reinforce and quench each other, but not 'bump' into each other.
=
But it interacts with matter (rest mass)
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #246 on:
02/01/2014 16:44:09 »
"Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes."
Well, that's relativity isn't it? 'two interacting', and symmetry breaks.
Eh, and 'observer dependencies'
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #247 on:
03/01/2014 12:38:11 »
How about this then
Assume that you need 'two frames of reference' to get to a interaction. Well, now I think you've defined a 'clock'. A 'clock' is a relation between two states. The one that fires the 'emission' and the one that does not. Very simplified naturally, but that is what I like, I'll freely admit.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #248 on:
03/01/2014 12:42:02 »
All oscillations are 'clocks'. They 'tick' and they need to be observed to exist, do they not? Or can we assume a universe where they 'tick' even without observations? If we define a observation as one frame of reference interacting with another we get to a 'system' in where the frames confirm each others existence. Quite nice, and very meta physical.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #249 on:
03/01/2014 12:42:58 »
Before you laugh, define entanglements, and tunnelings.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #250 on:
03/01/2014 12:45:50 »
When a oscillation falls into a 'low state', passing a 'peak', that's where we think a tunneling can take place.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #251 on:
03/01/2014 19:47:22 »
What is Time? a Arrow? Arrows? Oscillations?
Locally it is one single time keeper, equivalent to 'c'.
There is no confusion to that statement.
The confusion arrives when you treat this from a common universe, containing us all and all we measure.
So what is more right? The common universe one assume one self to exist in, shared with every-one and '-thing' else. Or the local definition of 'c'? I'll go with 'c'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #252 on:
03/01/2014 19:54:40 »
So what connects 'locality'?
We arrive to relativity in comparing frames of reference, using a local definition. We assume the physics of this 'universe' to be the same everywhere. Now, that is my definition of a 'locality' too. Is that to complicated
I don't think so.
Then I assume this locality to be governed by relations, relative all other 'localities', that I then call 'points'. What I do not presume though is a 'container' of it. I define the 'dimensions' we define to be created from 'points' connecting and interacting. That means that it's our inability to pass whatever local constants, properties and principles we have equivalently, that will define a 'commonly shared universe'.
=
It give us a background of constants properties and principles, but it doesn't state from where they come. You might assume this to be a symmetry break though, which is what I do. And a temperature craves interactions between frames of reference. Radiation/matter.
«
Last Edit: 03/01/2014 21:22:36 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #253 on:
03/01/2014 19:57:54 »
That way it is simple. Then we have all complementary effects. It's like we stand on one side of a mirror, to suddenly find us on the other side. Alice, that's me, and now you're in wonderland
Or maybe that was where you was, before reading me.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #254 on:
03/01/2014 20:02:19 »
No need to get stuck on time dilations, as long as we agree on that ones local definition of a arrow never change. The problem left is to define what a local arrow should mean. Can I scale a world down to one frame of reference? Not practically, and as I'm starting to suspect then, neither theoretically?
I really wish I could though..
As that would join relativity with our need of something 'tangible'. We like it that way, we've always had I think. And it's hard letting that one go.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #255 on:
03/01/2014 20:08:55 »
'c' is a 'local background', one point and all points, becoming local observers interacting over frames of reference, defining a universe and dimensions. A common local principle and constant, governing information.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #256 on:
03/01/2014 20:12:37 »
That's where we arrive at 'symmetry breaks' to me. Because when defining one singular frame of reference there is no outcomes, and that is a indifferentiated place I can't really describe, nothing happens 'locally' there so what would there be to describe? You need a symmetry breaking before we get to a arrow, and interactions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #257 on:
03/01/2014 20:17:21 »
But, when assuming all points locally equivalently the same, impossible to differentiate from each other, any ideas of a distance lose its meaning. And as soon as you measure you introduce frames of reference.
=
Let me rephrase the last.
As soon as you measure you introduce 'frames of reference', and scaling.
«
Last Edit: 03/01/2014 20:41:48 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #258 on:
03/01/2014 20:37:52 »
Expressed otherwise, introduce a observer and you must define a arrow, frames of reference, and 'distance'. Motion though? Let's see, that involves a distance doesn't it? And a arrow? And matter, or radiation? And then you can split distance with time to find displacements. We define a distance relative a clock, 'intuitively internal' or external, and then use displacements in a 'space', to define a motion. And motion is weird. Uniform motion ('relative' motion) versus constant uniform acceleration, relative non uniform, non constant, accelerations, all treated differently in relativity, and with right.
It's not that we can't agree on a 'space' existing, it's just that it is observer defined, as I see it 'locally defined'. In a way one could presume this 'background of locality' to also become some sort of 'frame of reference', possibly? Although I don't see how that would be provable, as there won't be any 'outcome', unless we introduce something more, interactions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64710
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #259 on:
03/01/2014 20:47:21 »
Scaling becomes a distance too in my thoughts, and the only way we have to get close to what I think governs this universe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
11
12
[
13
]
14
15
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...