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
...
32
33
[
34
]
35
36
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
355379 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #660 on:
01/02/2014 15:03:42 »
SpaceTime is 'Background independent', meaning that it is itself that creates it. It's about dimensions, three room and one time, defining geodesics that everything 'moves in'. The only way to break those, accelerating. Then there is frame dependencies defining what you observe, always locally made. But the concept seems still to be one of a 'container', to me, although you easily can redefine that as I do, using only local definitions. Einstein used both, local definitions and this idea of a SpaceTime as a 'entity' in its own right. When he spoke of the moon always existing I think he thought of SpaceTime as a entity, not from locality. but you can argue the same locally I think.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #661 on:
02/02/2014 13:34:06 »
Can't help wondering about regimes and temperatures. A gamma gamma universe, populated by energetic light/photons interacting how? A 'energy density' of what? As waves they quench and reinforce, would it then be when they reinforce each other? That they make matter? And why seems atoms to be time less? At least very long lived, how do they do it?
And another thing, if you think of two objects exchanging light signals in uniform motion, they both will define the speed they exchange it with 'c'. What a light clock shows is a 'twisted geometry' from the observer, induced by motion. It's not a result existing for the observer, locally measured. You might say? That the geometry change with somethings motion, as defined from the observer. The problem is that it is measurements we use to define what is correct, and they are always local. You might want to argue that the far away observers motion isn't only a motion, but also a distortion of the space you define him to be in, traveling.
If it was so, and we introduce different observers at different speeds, then that distorted space we find one to traverse is either a geometrical illusion, or it gets redefined, differently depending on observer.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #662 on:
02/02/2014 13:43:27 »
And that one goes directly back to the question of how we define a dimension, doesn't it? If everything would be planes, then what that light clock shows us, measuring it locally, indeed would be a changed geometry. Think of it as a sheet moving away from you, upon which light paints a picture of this light clock ,'ticking'. It would be the geometry that distorts the speed of those 'ticks'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #663 on:
02/02/2014 14:36:47 »
Actually, the sheet doesn't have to move at all, as I think. It's enough if everything you observe gives you a information consistent with 'motion'. But that's a very strange idea
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #664 on:
02/02/2014 15:07:53 »
You either could see the concept of light clocks a good proof of a vacuum containing three dimensions, or, you might ask yourself how it is this way, if it isn't three dimensions?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #665 on:
02/02/2014 16:21:02 »
Causality demands symmetries. It's a logic, in where you follow the 'dotted line', called a arrow. The arrow is 'time reversible' in that you find a symmetry of sorts, allowing you to play causality backwards, at times, also depending on what limits you set. But I think of it more like a mirror (symmetry) to the way a arrow works, and from logic there must be a certain reversibility. Or do you know how to create a logic universe, using a arrow, without reversibility?
='
The fact is that I have never seen physics define a universe where we won't have a time reversibility existing, and still present us a logic. From pure logic that is one of the things what you need to prove, before giving this time reversibility its present status as a 'proof' of a arrow being a 'illusion'.
We better define what magic is too. It's not ' very advanced technology indistinguishable from 'magic' ', it's the opposite of logic. It won't make sense.
«
Last Edit: 04/02/2014 12:27:45 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #666 on:
04/02/2014 11:53:17 »
So what do we have so far in my universe
A arrow equivalent to 'c'.
A definition of dimensions as coming from 'degrees of freedom', defining dimensional limits, always observed and defined locally.
A argument about 'arrow' in where I state that you can't ignore your 'wrist watch', always giving you a 'time', even for things that is unchanging in themselves. This meaning that there is no way to prove anything, measured over frames of reference', to not having a arrow, that I can see?
I think the equivalence, and the way to define a dimensionality, is the ones I like most, this far
Doesn't mean that there isn't dimensions, it's just back tracking them to what I think makes most sense from observer dependencies. And that is 'degrees of freedom' defined by the observer.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #667 on:
04/02/2014 11:55:44 »
Then we have gravity, in where I'm ignoring our sidereal universe, instead defining it from a point mass. That one fits right in, into a 'back ground' of sorts, that we can reach by scaling.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #668 on:
04/02/2014 11:59:13 »
Inertia should be gravity, expressed in accelerations. What is weird with this is what 'motion' becomes, in such a universe? From an idea of 'origins' of locality, gravity should be the 'original concept', inertia coming into existence through acceleration.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #669 on:
04/02/2014 12:02:47 »
So a 'motion' is no longer a 'motion'. A relative motion a equivalence to 'being still', and experimentally provable too. A acceleration becoming inertia, becoming a equivalence to gravity. What the he* is motion?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #670 on:
04/02/2014 12:06:43 »
All of it defined locally. Proving why I use locality by referring to the way we define 'repeatable experiments'. Always a local definition, also as a result demanding 'constants' to exist, and from that getting to our definition of physics being the same everywhere inside a SpaceTime, that we can communicate.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #671 on:
04/02/2014 12:09:56 »
And it's all local. Repeatable experiments proving that SpaceTime use a logic, as differing from 'magic'. Chaos can be a logic, but magic isn't.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #672 on:
04/02/2014 12:14:25 »
Which leads us to question how a frame of reference join another, and why they at all co-exist? I really don't know how that can be possible? For lack of better words, it seems like 'magic'
to me, so far. We need something defining the 'observer dependent mosaic' a SpaceTime becomes from ideas like mine, and others.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #673 on:
04/02/2014 12:19:41 »
I have two arguments there. One in which there is no other definition than accepting that a single frame of reference can't exist, at least not experimentally. That one is Relativity.
Another in where we might assume that singular frames of reference do exist, as described by a loop, a string, a geometrical knot, or as a 'quanta/bit'
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #674 on:
04/02/2014 12:22:39 »
A outside third which then is some sort of projection, holographic or not. Maybe that one can join with any of the other two. A lot of it rests upon your definitions. Which is why I like the concept of 'meaningful information', and defines that to everything obeying 'c'. A entanglement may be information too, but it's not meaningful to us, obeying 'c'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #675 on:
04/02/2014 12:30:44 »
You see, to me 'information' is what I observe. And as I can observe a entanglement it too becomes information. But it's not meaningful to me, in that I can't use it for communicating.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #676 on:
04/02/2014 12:33:51 »
Heh, so many post and so little done
Ain't that just like life.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #677 on:
10/02/2014 03:35:52 »
Local definitions can only be as good as the limits allows it. NIST have put a gravitational time dilation to centimeters, clocks 'ticking' differently depending on gravity. What does such results mean? That there are gravitational time dilations inside my body too? It should be so, and each time I move I must wander from one time dilation to another, add infinitum, as relative earths gravity. So does this make time a illusion? Not really, the problem is how frames of reference interact. Because mine, and yours, local arrow is always there, of a same measure relative oneself, wherever one go.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #678 on:
11/02/2014 18:02:06 »
Time dilations should be a result of frames of reference interacting. But my local arrow can't be so, or maybe it can
It depends on how you define it. If you like an idea of time, or a arrow, as a result of frames of reference focusing at some ideal local point, adapting and becoming your arrow. Then 'time' is a result of frames of reference, and it becomes a 'illusion' of sorts as it then doesn't have a anchor in a constant. But as I define the arrow to 'c'
well, then I have to redefine 'c' too, don't I? If the local arrow still is equivalent to 'c', and that it will be to all tests possible. You will always find that 'c' is able to split in even chunks of 'time', becoming a clock.
So using this definition 'c' also becomes a variable, adapting the same way as ones local arrow. Heh, this one presumes that you have a 'continuum' similar to how I believe Einstein thought of it, because we're now using 'forces' focusing at wherever you measure, giving you that ideal local clock.
Or I keep 'c' as a constant, and a arrow. Then time dilations still are a result of frames of reference, but that local arrow becomes a background. It depends on what your taste is I would say
myself I like constants, and find them weirdly fascinating.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65272
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #679 on:
12/02/2014 00:48:07 »
For the moment, and it's rather late here, I think both will work with a concept of locality. But I still prefer the one where we use constants, becoming a sort of background. Instead of referring to each point in a SpaceTime as a 'equilibrium', focused to present us with a same balance, meaning your arrow equivalent to 'c'. I really need to think some more about this one, don't I
But it would become a interesting universe if it was so. Symmetries and equivalences defining it, not constants, although you might be able to look at it as possible to describe, from both sides.
What is a constant?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
32
33
[
34
]
35
36
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...