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
...
12
13
[
14
]
15
16
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
357593 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #260 on:
03/01/2014 20:53:44 »
But the unique thing with this distance is that it is as 'far', or 'near' to locality, everywhere. You can go wherever you want in this 'common universe' to measure. The distance is the same. Well, a little, but let's use 'test particles for it
and define a flat space, we can use scaling for arriving to that one. 'gravity' and 'mass' redefines space, as does motion. But in a uniform motion, using a test particle in a 'flat space' your distance to that 'singular frame' scaling, should be the same everywhere.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #261 on:
03/01/2014 21:02:55 »
From such a point of view one also safely can assume all relative motion to be equivalent, even though we can prove different uniform motions existing, measuring and comparing over frames of reference. Because we define it locally, and locally it is equivalent. I really like that one as it solves a problem for me.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #262 on:
03/01/2014 21:13:15 »
It doesn't matter for this how you define your (uniformly moving) velocity relative incoming light, or other bodies. All uniform motion is locally equivalent although your relations relative other frames of reference can change. As you measuring a time dilation and a Lorenz contraction.
Although it makes our common perception of a universe into some sort of projection to me.
And that one is a headache.
But it makes it no worse than 'one dimensional' loops and strings do? Or as some geometrical definition, as relativity for one is described today, does it?
There's just a need of defining how it 'connects', joining into our defined 'dimensions'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #263 on:
03/01/2014 21:25:17 »
A symmetry break also fits the idea of a inflation (and expansion), and the way it seems to have been faster than light. I need it to be a symmetry break to fit my ideas I think.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #264 on:
03/01/2014 21:30:32 »
And I don't want a initial 'temperature' scaling down, temperature must disappear, locally defined as I see it. And that's the observer problem for me, all over again. The way we introduce frames of reference in all observations. We can't avoid it, not if we want to measure something.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #265 on:
03/01/2014 21:36:52 »
And yes, as I define constants properties and principles as 'preexisting' expressed though symmetry breaks, equivalent in all points, I think I'll do the same for 'gravity', for the moment that is
. A 'down welling' in each point, scaling it down.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #266 on:
03/01/2014 21:39:27 »
And now we come to another interesting aspect of it. 'c' disappear as you scale it down, using Plank scale, although 'time' still should be there as some 'property', not ticking though. What happens with gravity as you scale it down?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #267 on:
03/01/2014 21:47:44 »
Then again, think of a black hole. Then define that infinite mass inside a event horizon to some 'dimension less' point? Energy constricted? A broken symmetry, broken again? If I'm defining all points as equal, what would that make of this? I really do define them that way you know
and they are, to all experimental definitions, locally equivalent.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #268 on:
03/01/2014 21:51:07 »
Then again, that's behind what we call a event horizon, is it not? A singularity, nothing able to go in, and come back, with information. The universe closing itself of? Something consisting of infinities?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #269 on:
03/01/2014 22:00:47 »
If we think of it from a geometry, that dimensionless point defined, should be a representation of all other points defining whatever mass there is, before a compression. And although that still is correct, from some distance outside the event horizon. As you close in to a event horizon, tidal forces and gravity will start to act on you, more than what you expect, if comparing it to its former mass as matter, acting on you. And passing your/the event horizon there should be no way back for you, as far as I get it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #270 on:
03/01/2014 22:11:25 »
I have no problems with 'dimension less' points though. Not from a definition in where you scaling down should see interactions change and ultimately, assuming it magically possible to define a (singular) frame in itself, disappear into properties, principles, and constants. Those are noting tangible, and they can only express themselves in interactions. And locally defined, if there is no way to find and define a distance, does it exist?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #271 on:
04/01/2014 00:58:29 »
I know, it sounds pretty weird, doesn't it? And yes, I'm not sure of all of this:) But it tickles my curiosity.
And no QM, and no 'forces' discussed for the most part either.
But I mention it, now and then. How should one define interactions without at least two frames of reference being involved? As well as the observer/detector, assuming a experiment? Although you can take away the observer/detector, presuming a natural interaction as a radioactive decay, it must continue anyway. That is statistics. And as I define interactions as 'frames of reference' interacting, each frame becomes a natural 'observer/detector' to me.
And 'one frame of reference' then?
Well, prove that one and I think we definitely passed QM:s limits, into ??
But on the other hand, using frames interacting I can't see how to pass two frames?
Well, I might be able to imaginatively but I don't see how to test it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #272 on:
04/01/2014 13:32:35 »
Another point with this idea of a black hole is the one in where it is a equilibrium that breaks down, creating that singularity. A geometric relation between a mass and a space, creating 'infinities'. So that 'infinite mass' created inside a event horizon is not related to how many kg:s you throw in, although we can speak of smaller and greater black holes from its outside. Break that relation microscopically and there will be a 'black hole' too, and passing that event horizon you won't get back.
In a one to one relation it seems possible speak about different infinities, but as you also must acknowledge the fact that any real infinity always will give you a one to one correspondence, no matter how you first defined them by 'size', you can't really prove that one experimentally, can you?
Let's use it on different black holes, of a different mass, initially.
What's important there?
'initially'. Initially we can say that the relation between matter and geometry will create different sized black holes. But from passing a event horizon they all are alike. Theoretically we can assume all sorts of things inside that event horizon, practically we will never know if we don't pass a event horizon to see.
So in a 'one to one' relation we have two things, our definition before defining two infinities, of different amounts. After the 'real infinity' is established though, they will be the exact same to all experimental approaches. Even if going inside a 'microscopic' black hole, it won't make a difference to your chances of returning. And counting one infinity relative another will never end, no matter how you define them initially.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #273 on:
04/01/2014 13:38:44 »
'Initially' here is what exist before the singularity is established. There we can labor with those concepts, using a 'one to one' definition. But any real infinity is countless, and for that your initial parameters won't matter. And a black hole is a nice practical definition of why.
=
Using numbers for defining different infinities you will find the same. Using that 'one to one' correspondence it doesn't matter what your initial definitions of them was. Neither of those infinities will end, you counting 'one to one'. If one would end, your initial parameters would be all wrong, as you now have a finite result for one.
Then they can't be infinities.
«
Last Edit: 04/01/2014 13:46:40 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #274 on:
04/01/2014 13:52:47 »
People just love to get stuck on the first definition, and stop there
Calling those that take it to its logical end being 'wrong'.
But it's not. The most I can say about it is that depending on what 'system' you choose, you will get to a different definition.
=
Possibly exchange 'system' for frame of reference too. As I'm interested in local definitions.
«
Last Edit: 04/01/2014 14:03:04 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #275 on:
04/01/2014 14:19:36 »
So, is the universe 'infinite'?
From what definition?
Go out to the left to come back at the right?
Or infinite as in there being no end at all, and when ignoring time for it meaning no 'repetitiveness', as the above example actually mean, ignoring a arrow?
Or 'infinite' as in connections, defining a universe, observer dependently?
«
Last Edit: 04/01/2014 14:30:14 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #276 on:
04/01/2014 14:27:02 »
I better admit that I'm partial to my own definition.
If I define it from connections (locality) then there is no defined magnitude to it, except your local definition of clock and ruler. There is no end either, as long as connections exist, without those we won't exist either. so what we have is in one way a 'bubble', but not as definable from any thought up outside. It's existent to us inside it, but? There is no way to define what a 'outside' will mean that I can see from it. Unless you want to use 'constants, properties and principles' as what 'exist outside'?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #277 on:
04/01/2014 14:36:46 »
And a inflation does not use a arrow, initially. Not as I think of it. Let's call SpaceTime a 'rip' coming from a symmetry. That rip can only use a arrow if we also can define frames of reference interacting. We need oscillations for it
sort of. Proofs of change.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #278 on:
04/01/2014 14:37:30 »
That would then be connections establishing themselves.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65540
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #279 on:
04/01/2014 14:40:39 »
And they use 'c', don't they?
But a inflationary space?
Well, that space should be connections too, shouldn't it? To exist I mean? Either that, or that 'space' is non existent, as defined classically, perfect vacuum.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
12
13
[
14
]
15
16
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...