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
...
25
26
[
27
]
28
29
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
357137 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 #520 on:
13/01/2014 17:52:58 »
Not in space, measurably so. Not in the rocket, at least not as defined from a uniform motion. And even though we find a blue/red shift inside that accelerating rocket you can move that light bulb anywhere you want inside it, to find a same effect. And remember that the relativistic mass is a definition relative a velocity/speed. Doesn't matter if you stop the acceleration for an hour, no resistance to a geodesic, no loss of velocity/speed in a perfect vacuum. The relativistic mass as you start to displace the rocket doesn't become less just because you stopped accelerating for a little while.
If it was so that you could cheat the relativistic book keeping that way, you should be able to reach (close to) 'c' expending a lot less 'energy' than when constantly uniformly accelerating.
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 #521 on:
13/01/2014 17:56:25 »
So, where is it stored?
In time?
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 #522 on:
13/01/2014 17:59:08 »
Relativistic mass must exist, all collisions are defined from velocities (speeds are without defined directions) and mass.
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 #523 on:
13/01/2014 18:05:03 »
So what does relative motion mean, in what manner are they all equal?
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 #524 on:
13/01/2014 18:10:43 »
They are equal locally measured. As for example relative a local scale that you stand on. You do not gain weight by doubling Earths uniform motion. And that weight scale and you are then loosely defined as being 'at rest' with Earth. Using distant suns the incoming light, meeting Earths motion, will become measurably blue shifted though.
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 #525 on:
13/01/2014 18:24:39 »
In a comparison between two frames of reference. You on Earth measuring some comets uniform motion for example, you are free to state the comet to be standing still, or Earth, standing still, it's a equivalence of sorts in uniform motions. If one of you was accelerating through the vacuum though, there would be a locally measurable change, for the one accelerating.
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 #526 on:
13/01/2014 18:27:05 »
So Earth is constantly uniformly accelerating at one Gravity. But you can double its uniform motion, without adding to a gravity.
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 #527 on:
13/01/2014 18:30:27 »
Gravity is not relativistic mass, that we can see. If it was, then doubling Earths uniform motion should change your weight on that scale. But uniform motion must contain a relativistic mass, otherwise you can cheat the relativistic book keeping.
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 #528 on:
13/01/2014 20:00:24 »
So how does the Higgs work?
It uses an idea of densities I would say. It defines different attachments or properties to different 'stable particles', then defines something we can't measure on, except by inductive logic, giving a probability of it existing, when measuring interactions at very high energies. It's ghosts passing you through acting on some of your particles, but only as you accelerate, giving you a inertial reaction equivalent to a gravity, if we then use the equivalence principle to define it.
in a way not so different from my own idea of inertia becoming gravity, but to me it presumes a container universe. You could argue that if observer dependencies are real, and if we exist, then this problem is no problem as we do exist and consist of densities, particles, fermions and bosons. I think this is what the Higgs theory will argue, finally backed into a corner. That is not sufficient, and it is not physics. New physics should answer old questions, and give new questions to ask. It seems for example that the Higgs boson is though to change the chirality, "Having a handedness or helicity, not having mirror symmetry" of particles, lefthandedness to righthandednes, and back, each time they interact. But this seems not to be true with neutrinos, that has been found to have a mass. So where does this mass come from?
So what is observer dependencies from a Higgs field'?
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 #529 on:
13/01/2014 20:09:55 »
I can transform away the observer dependencies
By stipulating that this universe always is locally defined. And to do so I just erase the container model. I do not stipulate any defined dimensions, more than using a sheet for describing the fractals I think a universe should be made of. Observer dependencies are very hard to understand from the idea of a defined four dimensional container, that also is observer dependent. If you instead assume connections, relations, creating a universe then all relations you ever will measure on will be defined by you, locally. And instead of dimensions we have the degrees of freedom we find something to have, which are four macroscopically.
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 #530 on:
16/01/2014 22:58:37 »
Was discussing the idea that when you measure a entanglement you also inject it with a energy that must be duplicated at the receiving end. I said that either you then have to assume the energy to get split in two,(1 becoming .5) or you need to lend the far end of the entanglements 'energy', preferably then from a vacuum. Assuming entanglements to exist spontaneously, or as utilized by us, this should lead to a vacuum getting 'depleted of energy'.
Then again, assuming my own ideas of scaling a entanglement should be special relation, allowing it to presented at two 'points' in a positional SpaceTime, both having 1, without any 'lending' being involved in it, if it is correct.
=
Spelling and words
btw. That would then mean that you can get 'free energy', if the injection is found to work? So maybe I'm wrong with that one? Although you might also see it as them being the same photon, doubly represented? The arrow is after all a local definition (defined over frames of reference). Ouch, don't know how to think of that one
«
Last Edit: 16/01/2014 23:14:30 by yor_on
»
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 #531 on:
16/01/2014 23:18:58 »
The important point (Well, I think?
there is if it is correct assuming that you can 'inject' a annihilating photon with energy, just because it's entangled? Can you?
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 #532 on:
16/01/2014 23:23:45 »
Whatever you inject it with should 'propagate' at 'c', as it seems to me? For example, photons should be able to annihilate in a sun, and assuming them able to get entangled in there this should lead to a excess of energy, either 'lent' from a vacuum, or 'split the injection' in two. I think we can rule out a 'injection' as lending from a vacuum at the 'far end', don't you?
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 #533 on:
16/01/2014 23:30:44 »
Maybe the first question should be.
Can the sun act as a beam splitter?
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 #534 on:
17/01/2014 08:23:00 »
I don't see how a sun can avoid entanglements, for both photons/waves and electrons? And if you now assume that a annihilation inject a energy at both sides we get to a proposition in where the sun lends energy from a 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 #535 on:
17/01/2014 23:04:59 »
I know, this has very little to do with relativity, but if you imagine relativity scaled down to meet QM, which it properly done should be able to then I guess everything has a relevance relative relativity, I'm very pleased with the last sentence there, by the way.. Quietly imposing, sort of
And it has bugged for quite some while, the idea of a injection in a entanglement, and still does btw, it's all assumptions I make, can't go into the sun and present a experiment proving it one way or another.
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 #536 on:
17/01/2014 23:14:00 »
On the other hand, I look at a entanglement as something 'whole' in both ends, and then make it fit my proposition from scales, that you will lose a arrow, locally as you get down there. The first problem with my proposition is that you, to measure on it, use a local clock and ruler. As well as we have this fuzzyness and HUP scaling down. Then again, if relativity is an idea of frames of reference interacting, defined by a local clock and ruler. Then QM is an idea of a local definition also being possible, best expressed through the expectation of quanta. If quanta (qbits etc) exist, then they should be a very local definition, even though you are involved too, with that local clock and ruler.
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 #537 on:
17/01/2014 23:23:26 »
Then we come to the original definition of a locality, that one is you throwing a stone in a pond watching the rings spread and interact. I don't think of it in that way, although I do
The stone you throw in, is you scaling something down, the pond that stone scaling down meet should lose its arrow. And if there is no arrow (always strictly locally defined, remember) then our ideas of motion distance etc, disappear. And there is one more difference introduced through this idea, it allows for a entanglement. So you have our macroscopic reality, and 'under it' a microscopic ending in something unmeasurable. Someone wrote that Black Holes was 'censured' by the cosmos, I would say the same for scaling, you should meet infinites there too.
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 #538 on:
17/01/2014 23:25:50 »
And that makes constants the most interesting idea you can have. What is a constant, and what is 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 #539 on:
17/01/2014 23:34:20 »
Because that is what you have left. Constants, properties, and principles, creating a macroscopic universe. And it is made from a local definition of a ideal clock and ruler, everything else defined relative it. And that ideally defined clock and ruler must become a constant in 'my universe'
as well as in Einsteins relativity. If I give 'c' a equivalence to the clock, then I will do the same for the ruler. And I need to lock it down somehow, that's Plank scale to me.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
25
26
[
27
]
28
29
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...