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
...
30
31
[
32
]
33
34
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356973 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 #620 on:
31/01/2014 11:58:00 »
I know, a lot of rambling around here
But I'm slow, so I need it, this is actually a minimum of rambling so far. The point about how to define a frame of reference is rather important to me. because if you define it as 'unchanging' which is what I want to, then everything becomes a result of relativity. A relativity in where you won't be able to pin a change to any single frame of reference, only to them interacting. That gives us a static universe, and some form of 'bit', although 'bits' disappear if the arrow isn't there.
The other possibility is one in where there is no single frame of reference. That one is also relativity, but makes it very hard to define a existing focal point, as a singular frame of reference, as a 'bit'. If you think of that 'ideal local clock' we always use, where does it 'tick'? It all comes down to interactions creating the focal points, that we then define as 'bits'. And a frame of reference from this definition is just a result of interactions giving us opposites. I'm having a hard time with that one, as it would be a very different interpretation.
I don't know
«
Last Edit: 31/01/2014 12:03:53 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 #621 on:
31/01/2014 12:12:31 »
The other point I'm getting to is the one Higgs and those other guys found important. Inertia.
I'm in total agreement on inertia being important. And if we stop considering relative motion, just looks at what express inertia then we find accelerations.
Earth accelerates too. Without a 'motion', but it accelerates. So a reasonable question should be in what it accelerates?
There's only one thing it accelerates in, and that is a arrow.
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 #622 on:
31/01/2014 12:20:25 »
Time becomes a relation to mass. one point mass giving you one representation, and as you let them together into macroscopic pieces, them redefining that 'point mass' time, as related to other frames of reference. The point mass is still there, but in this piece of matter his relations to other frames of reference change.
Maybe focal points would be a giving subject? because you can give a point mass one focal point of 'time', a earth another, a neutron star a third. Locally defined they should be the same though, in my thoughts.
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 #623 on:
31/01/2014 12:27:46 »
Build it up from point masses. Let a arrow be a constant referable to 'c'. All point masses keeps this ideal definition and as we put them together we find a need for a ideal clocks. We have ideal clocks, everything has it, but as you break matter down you should reach something irreducible. A 'point mass' or ? A infinite center if we use a black hole for it. but there must be a back ground to it.
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 #624 on:
31/01/2014 12:38:18 »
What is a illusion, in 'my universe' that is,
is not yours, or mine, local arrow. We need them to be equivalent to get to repeatable experiments, otherwise they won't exist. But the idea of a macroscopic even flow of time is incorrect. And that idea comes from the way we perceive the universe, 'commonly same' to us all. The universe is a mosaic, 'interactions/relations' between pieces giving us time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But it does not change the fact that we all locally have a equivalent arrow.
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 #625 on:
31/01/2014 12:47:22 »
If you want you can see it as being 'here', happening all the time, all the way. Our arrow becoming a back ground scaled up into a macroscopic universe. and when you scale it the other way, finally reduced to constants, properties and principles, rules. So your background becomes 'time less', and this, your play for a audience.
Yeah, sounds good doesn't it
ahem
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 #626 on:
31/01/2014 12:54:51 »
You can also relate it to information.
If you assume there being something striving for the concept of 'meaningful information', then we and the universe we agree on existing is 'it'. We're all meaningful information. but then we have information that's not 'set up', and that one you find as you scale down. Another way to express it would be from simplicity to complexity. What defines our universe is a need for logic, for 'meaningful information'.
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 #627 on:
31/01/2014 13:02:02 »
What we can notice is that the idea of this other type of arrangements fails our logic. It breaks down as we close in on it. That's also what combine the idea of a event horizon to the idea of the very small where the mathematics becomes just as impossible without using renormalization. When we expect the inside of a event horizon to behave the same as its outside, we're doing a renormalization, based on the statistics we have of SpaceTime outside it. That all physics works the same, no matter where you are.
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 #628 on:
31/01/2014 13:06:36 »
So we can answer one question at least. Can mathematics describe everything?
No, if it could there would be no need for renormalization, and statistics.
Even if we would get the most elegant equation from using those two, describing a universe, it would leave us with the same dilemma as 'c' does. It explains it, but it doesn't explain it.
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 #629 on:
31/01/2014 13:15:34 »
There is a catch to this though. It might be possible to create a mathematics truly explaining things, looking at what statistics and renormalization tells us to work. And so refute what I just said. But I'm not as interested in what might be possible as I am in what is possible. And there mathematics does not give us a tool that unerringly lead us to the right conclusions. If it did we would all become mathematicians
Then again, maybe we all are? When you reach for something you mostly catch it too, don't you? Well, that's a pretty good intuitive mathematical computation you must have made, to arrive at that point in space and 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 #630 on:
31/01/2014 14:02:41 »
What do we call it when a baby learns to walk? Trial and error? A statistical approach to how to learn to walk? somewhere inside that baby there is something 'weighting' the results of all this trial and error, not only related to its brain but to muscles and tendons and ? All about relations. As Jung would have had it, the gestalt becoming something in its own, a 'ideal' and a 'synergy'. Epigenetics is a new field in genetics, or maybe not so new, but once more taken seriously. It's about much the same thing.
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 #631 on:
31/01/2014 16:24:53 »
Then we have this about what information should be. I differ it in meaningful information and useless information, from logics. Entanglements then becomes useless information, until someones proves that we inject energy, that can be taken out at 'the other end' of the entanglement. As an idea 'energy' is very interesting, and I would refer it to a interaction. So do you inject energy into a entanglement at 'both ends' as you measure? You should, and that's what makes that idea so phreakingly interesting, as well as confusing, to me
What the idea suggests, is not only that we inject 'energy' in all interactions, but it also allows you to collect a same amount at another SpaceTime position. If we now treat this as a photon hitting your retina (eye), does the retina inject energy into the photon?
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 #632 on:
31/01/2014 16:28:41 »
We can test this proposal by thinking of light passing a glass, does it lose or gain energy by doing so?
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 #633 on:
31/01/2014 16:40:22 »
Whatever else it does, I've never seen anyone arguing that it gains energy by passing through matter, or getting absorbed and re-emitted by the glass molecules, atoms, electron orbitals, etc. On the other hand, a often used argument to why HUP is so confusing is that you by probing something disturbs it, forces it into a state, but that is not the exact same thing as injecting a energy, is it? It's confusing ideas all of them I better admit. But I don't think it possible for the glass to inject energy into the light, passing it through. Because that should then cool a window in the sun, and it doesn't.
=
There's one more point to it. Photons doesn't 'interact' with 'photons', as far as I know, unless we refer to the 'energy' in a gamma gamma reaction where you might find short lived 'new' particles. But then we have waves too, in where they can reinforce as well as quench each other. It is confusing, isn't it
«
Last Edit: 31/01/2014 16:47:28 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 #634 on:
31/01/2014 17:15:22 »
Take a field of light. does it have a temperature?
Not as I know, it have a energy that can be expressed in temperature, but to do so you need to introduce matter, don't you? You won't find light interacting with light producing a temperature without matter. So what was the temperature in that primeval 'photon field', and, is that even a meaningful question?
I don't think it is.
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 #635 on:
31/01/2014 17:20:55 »
A better question then would be how 'energy' of a 'photon field' can produce stable matter, matter that will continue to exist as the temperature falls. Also why that matter doesn't break down, due to the immense temperature we can imagine it to be produced under. The same energy that creates matter, should as soon matter is 'produced', start to act on it as 'temperature', shouldn't it?
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 #636 on:
01/02/2014 01:08:30 »
Then we have this idea of gravity transferring energy. A photon is defined by a recoil at its origin, and its own annihilation arriving to its 'sink'. It's Newtons 'action and reaction', as well as a result of the conservation laws. A sun has a lot of photons leaving it constantly, they should then act on this sun in the classical way by recoils, dampening its 'motion', although that 'reaction' should even out over a spherical body, shouldn't it? You can apply the same idea to 'gravity' as it transfers 'energy', as Earths tidal forces. It seems as a good argument for something being transfered by the 'force' of gravity, doesn't it? Another way to view it should be that what we see as tidal forces are the geodesics defined for those spacetime positions, meaning that what rips you apart is not a force, but your body's particles diverging geodesics due to gravity. The 'forces' keeping those particles joined into you are split by gravity defining different geodesics for them.
=
(Hmm, not sure you can use 'action and reaction' for it? The recoil is explained through conservation of momentum, if I get it right, those days. It's about a symmetry needed, but action and reaction is about forces, and ? Demands a acceleration possibly? And a photon doesn't accelerate. I'm not sure, although I'm sure that Newton thought of action and reaction as a result of forces, making it inappropriate here any which way. So forget 'action and reaction', although it still fits somehow.)
Ok, back to black holes tidal forces
«
Last Edit: 01/02/2014 01:39:17 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 #637 on:
01/02/2014 01:13:47 »
You can view this as being a force too, but when those particles follow their separate geodesics there are no force acting on them, the same as there is no force acting on you in a free fall. It's when you're at rest with (and on) Earth there is a force acting on you, and you can measure that force by a scale. In a free fall the scale won't show you a thing.
«
Last Edit: 01/02/2014 01:46:26 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 #638 on:
01/02/2014 11:42:07 »
Forces are tricky, dimensions are tricky. That force can exist, acting on you, what does it mean? A stream acting on me, have I transformed away the stream by becoming at rest with it? Is it gone? Depends on how you define it I think. Locally it is gone, ideally defined. From a perspective of someone standing on a bank watching you, it's still there, just taking you with it.
But that is what relativity seems to state, that everything is frame related. Well, almost everything. A acceleration is not depending on what frame of reference you choose to accelerate in. A acceleration is always a local experience of inertia, and 'gravity'. Will gravity disappear as you scale something up? A piece of Earth you're standing on, 'magnifying' it, will gravity disappear? I don't think so, but it might become unmeasurable by your scale.
If you can't measure it, is it gone?
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 #639 on:
01/02/2014 11:50:36 »
I try to use a strict locality, I hope
and then what ever experiments I know, for making my views on it. So, to me gravity is gone, if you can't measure it, just as that stream is gone, locally measured. Because this is the way the universe is fitted, it uses time dilations, Lorentz contractions, 'motion' and accelerations, and on it imposes limits that are local, not 'global', as standing on that bank might be seen as.
'c' is a local description. That we make it into a constant means that we accept locality. Otherwise it can't be a constant, as your 'motion' then would have to be taken into account, relative some arbitrarily defined frame of reference, as for example the cosmic background radiation.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
30
31
[
32
]
33
34
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...