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
2
[
3
]
4
5
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356501 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #40 on:
10/10/2013 12:01:09 »
If you think of a field from such a reasoning, then the field should be those principles that equivalently holds true for all local points, painting up your local definition of a universe, communicating through 'c'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #41 on:
10/10/2013 12:08:51 »
And those principles we have common does not have the limitations we define inside our 'common universe', They are not dependent on distances, and although we found 'c' measuring displacements over time, the principle itself has nothing to do with that sort of definition, at least not to me. It's a much deeper connection to me, defining communication between points, not stating how it communicates, although we have our definition, defined from an idea of dimensions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #42 on:
10/10/2013 12:44:45 »
It's very hard disconnecting consciousness from a universe. Either you define it as 'everything measures on everything', then the universe get a independent reality from consciousness. Or you define it as without consciousness, there can be no measurements. The later opens for interpretations of your reality, in where consciousness is the redeemer of that reality. But if we can agree on that there must be principles, or rules, defining the universe you see, we already have moved away from consciousness. and there a adjacent question becomes what those principles states, another way to consciousness, or not? Consciousness is easy to define if we use the limitations of a arrow to define it with, and doing so we also move consciousness to a question of 'free will' is what defines it, as it seems to me. Because living under a 'linear arrow', being conscious, we also have a opportunity to choose.
The principles defining local points though, do they choose? Take interference, Feynman's description, if I remember it right, of how a ultimate (quantum logic) answer becomes, through quenching and reinforcing. Would that be a choice, or is it just some 'cosmic principle'. If the answer to a identical question always becomes the same, is there a 'free will' involved?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #43 on:
10/10/2013 14:15:55 »
There is the argument that there are no choice, everything being predestined. Against that you can set the difference between a 'quantum answer' always being the same (as a presumption), relative ones ability to make a 'wrong choice'. If the universe is defined by some answers being more correct than others then those choices you make may not be the correct ones, the perfect answers as it may be. That is what free will implies, the possibility of me making a mistake, presuming there is a better answer, although you can imagine a universe under arrow with no answer being 'ultimate', or all being it, depending on circumstances. Quantum logic on the other hand presumes that one optimal answer must exist as I read it, as in the idea of a quantum computer. So there we find a definition in where there is one correct answer to any well defined question.
Assuming predestination, meaning that it won't matter what choice I make, be it bad or good, as there is no other choice than the one I made, no matter how I think of free will, it still exist a difference in that the quantum computer 'must' present me with the 'perfect answer' to any well defined question, whereas my own answer might be quite far from it, comparing. So, do you think there are principles defining a universe? Do you think there can be several of different credibility, 'ultimate answers', to a well defined question?
I don't think so. I think principles exist, and that it is those defining our universe. And that's also one reason to question predestination as an idea.
«
Last Edit: 10/10/2013 15:11:08 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #44 on:
10/10/2013 14:33:24 »
You can keep predestination, although in a limited sense though. Imagine a universe defined by outcomes, all possible outcomes, depending on choices, all together in a 'timeless block universe'. That universe would then be representation of all choices possible, timelessly together. It allows for 'free will' to take any route it want through that universe, defining it using a arrow. Under a arrow it should be able redefine what we see, at the same time as it would allow predestination as being some non-measurable, ultimate, 'reality'.
=
That one still demands principles existing though, and those other, not realized, possibilities in my universe, depending on my choice, can then either be presumed to exist in alternative universes, or you are free to define it such as it is what you measure that exist, leaving those unrealized possibilities be as they do not exist after my choice becoming a outcome.
«
Last Edit: 10/10/2013 15:12:50 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #45 on:
13/10/2013 16:05:15 »
Dimensions contra degrees of freedom. Damned if I know how to define this. We live in a four dimensional SpaceTime, right. We use parameters defining where you are, relative some agreed on grid. The grid consist of the degrees of freedom something can have. Physically (not strictly mathematically now) a test particle should be defined by three degrees of freedom spatially and one temporal. Meaning your position in the room as well as the time. To that there might be other parameters you can add, as 'energy' 'spin' etc, but for a point particle that you want to place the first four should be enough.
Then we have Phasespace.
"In mathematics and physics, a phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. For mechanical systems, the phase space usually consists of all possible values of position and momentum variables....
In a phase space, every degree of freedom or parameter of the system is represented as an axis of a multidimensional space; a one-dimensional system is called a phase line, while a two-dimensional system is called a phase plane. For every possible state of the system, or allowed combination of values of the system's parameters, a point is included in the multidimensional space. The system's evolving state over time traces a path (a phase space trajectory for the system) through the high-dimensional space. The phase space trajectory represents the set of states compatible with starting from one particular initial condition, located in the full phase space that represents the set of states compatible with starting from any initial condition.
As a whole, the phase diagram represents all that the system can be, and its shape can easily elucidate qualities of the system that might not be obvious otherwise. A phase space may contain a great many dimensions. For instance, a gas containing many molecules may require a separate dimension for each particle's x, y and z positions and momenta as well as any number of other properties." from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
Mathematically it becomes even weirder. A circle can mathematically be defined as having three degrees of freedom, its radius being one, and two center coordinates. A angle has four degrees of freedom, two coordinates of its vertex and the slopes of its rays.
So what is it? What is a dimension, and what is a degree of freedom? I like degrees of freedom, and naively i would define those as the possible ways something can move in a dimensional system, from an idea of physics. We better take a look at dimensions too.
"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.
Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line).
A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude).
The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_%28mathematics_and_physics%29
One might find dimensions easier to comprehend, as a description of the universe you can 'touch'. But I find degrees of freedom better. And why is just because I'm questioning what it means.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #46 on:
13/10/2013 16:23:11 »
But both build on a ideal as I see it, the assumption that there is a global definition of a 'space', from where you can lift out parameters defining somethings position. If you split the definition into two parts, you get to a similar but yet different resolution.
What I measure locally, relative what you measure locally. Where we agree on local measurements we ultimately define repeatable experiments. But measuring over frames of reference, introducing mass energy and motion we will not agree.
Either you find this to be the universe adapting to your local parameters, as your mass, relative 'speed' etc etc, or you don't? Although, there is very little logic in me assuming that my futile,and very finite adjustments of a speed, would be able to contract a whole universe, to me.
But if you define it as a commonly same SpaceTime, that's exactly what you do.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #47 on:
13/10/2013 17:00:58 »
The universe as a illusion.
Well, if it is, it's still very real to me, measuring, and to you too, isn't it?
The problem is twofold, at the very least. There is a universe locally measured, you exist in it as I exist, we both agree on that from our local measurements. We can communicate. At the same time as my very real universe, isn't the exact same as yours. What would you need to question to make it fit?
If you want to make a time dilation into a illusion you need to do the same with a Lorenz contraction. They must be complementary. If you as me define it such as 'c' and your local arrow is equivalent as a clock, then I don't see how to avoid finding time dilations and Lorentz contractions existing, being as real as measurably can be.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #48 on:
13/10/2013 17:12:47 »
You could try to define 'c' as a variable, but that's not what experiments tell us. Questioning motion, as well as distances, or you could ask yourself if there is some other way to define how a universe comes to be behold, in local measurements. If there is a way for communication to define dimensions, and 'degrees of freedom'. There is a difference between a illusion and a emergence I think, in that a emergence is measurable, a illusion should be able to be proven false.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #49 on:
13/10/2013 17:26:07 »
And now we come back to degrees of freedom. Isn't it those that will define dimensions? Take a point, give it parameters. Let some parameters define a room geometry, giving us distances, a arrow, as well as speeds. Then take a parameter defining a limit, as 'c'. Either define it as one point, making all points
or fall back on the idea of some 'plane' or 'strings'. It's the one with one point making all points that I don't find the words for, because we don't have either words, or a logic, for it that I know. But if you look at what parameters you would need for a point, being the exact equivalent to any other, then use communication to define a dimensionality the question seems to become how many points do you need? It's a pretty weird idea
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #50 on:
13/10/2013 19:19:52 »
Relativity is about measuring between points, you at A, me at B. When we compare our results we can agree on parameters explaining differences in measurements, as Lorentz transformations. Those parameters are not part of your local reality, neither of mine. Our local reality is the exact same as what our respective measurements will tell it to be. So where is the commonality? In a mathematical space?
Alternatively you use local definitions as your stepping stone, then use what is shared 'globally' (principles being equivalent) to define a commonality. Doing so you either try to keep a 'common space', or you don't. The later is simplest, let that space go. What you then have is your local definition of a space, but a space that due to communication also includes me. If I find a way to communicate rules for finding me in your space, also assuming that 'being at rest with' and sharing a same frame of reference is approximately true practically, and ideally a absolute truth. Then we come back to the space we have. the difference being that it is no container anymore, rather ways 'things' connect. The container gets its shape through the connections.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #51 on:
13/10/2013 21:03:03 »
That one is crucial to how I'm staring to think. If we are defined from sharing some same local rules, those rules enabling us to connect, then that is a total different universe from one that is defined from some global point of view. In a 'global universe' containing us, dimensions and degrees of freedom being how we can behave inside it, we are fishes inside a fishbowl. In a universe constantly created and updated through information/communication the fishbowl is a construct. It's like everything else, a matter of where you stand and look at it.
but it can treat a universe expressing Lorentz transformations and time dilations better than the one in where we live in a fishbowl.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #52 on:
13/10/2013 21:11:37 »
And as it is defined through principles that must be true in each local definition, as 'c' and as I think, as a arrow equivalent to the way we define lights speed in a vacuum, for any frame of reference. And I'm including accelerations for this, because if the arrow have a equivalence to 'c', then I need to include a acceleration in it too.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #53 on:
13/10/2013 21:13:02 »
So it should be easy to disprove
Just prove that 'c' isn't.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #54 on:
14/10/2013 23:48:23 »
There are interesting possibilities to such a approach. One is hierarchy's, as in 'layers' upon 'layers' using scales to define it.
"In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:
decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s."
There is no set scale that I know of that limit a quantum approach from a 'classical'. But we see the results of a 'classical answer' in easily defined outcomes daily. And then we have consciousness, what would you refer that to? Is it a classical phenomena or a quantum logical? Or a little of both?
In a universe built on communication/information, assuming everything to be 'in touch' constantly, a hierarchy becomes a theoretical construct. In it a universe will be a construct from communication, creating definitions we use of dimensions, as well as of 'degrees of freedom'. Scaling as such is one logic way we find to probe this construction. another question becomes what 'local' should mean in such a universe as it is just information that are being exchanged.
from the universe's side communication should be communication as I think. It should not differ between hierarchies, and so could be seen as a 'flat network' of nodes communicating, the hierarchy/ies we find arising from the way the information is handled, meaning all measurements. Another way of expressing communication is that 'everything measures on everything' as I think. 'Locality' in that definition should then be a definition of what nodes communicate with what nodes under a experiment. And a hierarchy would be the way we define it to become, building a mental logical construction, either using a arrow, or not.
It's locality in the old way as it assumes that nodes 'close' to each other are those that communicate, now using a arrow for the definition. But it's locality in a new way as it does not use a definition of a dimension, distance etc, limiting it. The universe built from its communication, and our experiments, as it may be. In it, a definition of something being 'close' to something else, is resting on what experiments tells you, not on what its (the universes) 'dimensions' tell you.
=
Think of it this way. The experiment will define 'closeness'. Using the arrow, as I do, is related to outcomes as measuring in our classical way. The arrow ticks, everywhere, and its outcomes define a universe. But the experiment will define what is 'close', not an idea of dimensions.
A measurement is a outcome. Can't get around that, 'weak measurements' must also give you a outcome to draw a conclusion.
«
Last Edit: 15/10/2013 01:12:31 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #55 on:
15/10/2013 00:00:08 »
I want to keep a arrow, locally defined, and I use 'c' for it. Then you have a locally equivalent definition valid for each 'point' in a 'universe'. It's primary a theoretical definition as it under our ordinary paradigm today then must, for being 'measurable', be able to be related to some scale or other. And I am using 'points' for it, am I not? It's been a headache to me, trying to imagine how one should define some smallest common nominator for such a 'point', holding equivalent properties in itself, valid 'everywhere in a universe'.
But you don't need points for it, you can use a field. Although a 'point like particle' is one without dimensions a field is easier to relate to, possibly. You just need to treat it, scaling it down, to some common principles defining it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #56 on:
15/10/2013 00:05:53 »
A field have another excellent property to me
There is no set 'size' defining it, as in finding 'bits' at some ultimate scale. More than possibly the idea of scaling down to its singular excitations, but that will then be a question of your interpretation of a excitation. That means that it is a smooth phenomena to me, although possible to translate into 'bits'. The 'common universe' we measure on have so far proven to be smooth, astronomically tested. and it makes sense if you think of it as emergences defining scales.
=
Because in a universe of emergence, scales are a construct too. Something that allows us to probe different logical frameworks. A very weird universe indeed
«
Last Edit: 15/10/2013 00:34:34 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #57 on:
15/10/2013 00:16:24 »
A field of equivalent 'time'/ 'c' (locally defined naturally, there is no other way you can measure) underlying the constructs we find
It's a nice thought to me. the arrow exist.
«
Last Edit: 15/10/2013 00:18:35 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #58 on:
15/10/2013 00:43:12 »
One has to remember that I differ emergences from illusions. Time is no illusion, neither is the arrow, its' the structure on where you will find outcomes resting. Time dilations are emergences, not illusions, as they are measurable. The same goes for a Lorentz contraction. In a universe of communication dimensions are one way to describe what we observe, degrees of freedom another (as I think better) although dimensions are easier to understand in that it very well describes all objects in our 'common universe'.
A illusion must be able to prove wrong, a emergence though should be a measurable thing.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65411
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #59 on:
29/10/2013 20:25:55 »
So why would I want to exchange dimensions and degrees of freedom as the dimensional canvas in where we move to some weird idea in where the connections is what makes us perceive dimensions? For me it's following 'locality' to where it should come from. 'Locality' is to me an idea of some scale in where we should find a arrow of time, and 'c', locally equivalent. It is a question of scales to me, possibly also without limits. If what makes dimensions can be related to some smallest meaningful points, and those related to equivalent properties, as 'c' and its equivalent arrow may make. Then those becomes a sort of nodes, defining relations interacting and so creating dimensions to us consisting of them.
Just think of it as principles defining what we see and measure on. What I call scales here then becomes the background from where a universe constantly becomes and gets affirmed through interactions. But it does not state that this is all there is. It just state that it is from those principles we find our ways to measure and communicate in the way we do. To me that seems to suggest that you might have several 'co-existing' realities, each one finding itself 'alone', having its own definition of what 'dimensions' and 'degrees of freedom' must mean.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
2
[
3
]
4
5
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...