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
...
34
35
[
36
]
37
38
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
354306 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #700 on:
19/02/2014 16:01:09 »
How do we get it together? forgetting 'individuality' for this entanglement, yet defining it observer dependently, locally?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #701 on:
19/02/2014 16:06:15 »
you have to give up 'space' as a distance traversable in a defined time, I think? It's about a suddenly ill defined 'locality' when described from the view point of a 'spatially instantaneous' entanglement, or outcome, isn't it?
so ordinary 'motion' becomes a very weird idea in this entangled universe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #702 on:
19/02/2014 16:07:56 »
And a 'Einsteinian' acceleration becomes even weirder, as it is applicable to both Earth and a uniformly constantly accelerating rocket. The equivalence principle.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #703 on:
19/02/2014 16:13:25 »
Gravity as accelerations stressing entanglements? But what about Earths gravity? uniform motion being no motion at all, locally defined. Matter then also must stress the entanglements if we were to argue such a relation.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #704 on:
19/02/2014 16:49:05 »
all frames of reference are equivalent, ideally and locally defined. We then scale 'upwards' from one frame, now finding a multitude of frames, interacting with my local definition(s), presenting me with time dilations and Lorentz contractions. We also find inertia and gravity.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #705 on:
19/02/2014 16:52:01 »
You could see a entanglement as something 'time less' maybe? If you like, representing a scale where a arrow disappear.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #706 on:
19/02/2014 16:55:58 »
From locality and a arrow disappearing, everything must be entangled. As it seems to me there can be no less than a total equivalence 'down there' at that place where distance disappear. Distance needs a arrow, and dimensions and degrees of freedom too. Without a arrow there is no degree of freedom.
So scaling?
How does it exist?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #707 on:
19/02/2014 17:11:36 »
Or maybe that's not correct, let us assume a equivalent ground at some minimalistic scale. A entanglement can be described as two 'separate' photons, each one existing in a indeterminate superposition as long as there is no measurement done. After measuring one you 'force' the superposition(s) to fall out in a definite outcome, characterized by those photons giving us a opposite spin. You break, or collapse, the wave function describing them, and the opposite spin we see is a result of conservation laws. In this case conservation law of angular momentum. A symmetry if you like.
so what is indeterminacy? Maybe we should define it as indeterminacy when a arrow disappear?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #708 on:
19/02/2014 17:20:21 »
This one is a pleasantly nice read
Entanglement: From the information philosopher.
You read this one you start to see.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #709 on:
19/02/2014 17:42:36 »
You can think of it this way. A original photon is indeterministic, neither 'up' or 'down', existing in a indefinite state until measured. You pass it through a beam splitter, in where it gets split into two photons, each one of half the energy of 'its origin'. Both assumed to be in a same indeterministic state as we have no measurements made. The important point is that they both origin from this original 'indeterministic' photon, getting split, and to keep the equilibrium their spins now has to take themselves out, and so be found to be opposite. From such a point of view those two photons still are 'one original', just expressing itself localized differently spatially defined.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #710 on:
19/02/2014 17:57:34 »
So, 'meaningful information'? Does it obey 'c', or does it not? Until I see a experiment proving the concept of sending meaningful information through a entanglement I will expect what's meaningful to obey 'c'. Which then also either makes the idea of 'new energy' transfered through you probing a entanglement wrong, or defines 'energy' as being non meaningful information.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #711 on:
04/03/2014 03:55:58 »
The same idea that define 'c' as a constant, same for all of us measuring from a uniform motion, is also the very reason to why we get time dilations and Lorentz contractions. What parameters differing them is mass, speed, 'energy density', and those they acquire through frames of reference interacting, relative locally measured constants.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #712 on:
08/03/2014 13:03:40 »
How about this, define the universe as a clock, one dimensional
Or, if you prefer (I do, I do:) having one degree of freedom to 'vibrate in'. That's where your local constants, as 'c', comes from. One degree of freedom does not define what this degree is 'free' in, and that one seems better to me than assuming 'preexisting dimensions', as some original in where things 'exist'.
Becoming a 'field' through frames of reference interacting, if you like. Then that is our 'global definition' of what makes 'repeatable experiments' come true. Still local though
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #713 on:
08/03/2014 13:18:20 »
Let's get back to entanglements. Injections of energy 'teleported' to another location. It has to be wrong, because if you destroy one 'side', the logical conclusion if it was right would be that the other side should be destroyed too, unless we assume some restrictions. Another way to use this example would then be to consider, if it is wrong, what it says about hidden parameters. If it is so that you by weak experiments on one can influence both, without destroying the entanglement, at the same time as we assume that injecting energy into one (measuring) does not carry over to the other? Weak experiments as an idea for communicating 'instantly' becomes questionable here, wouldn't you agree?
And what does it say about the possibility of there being a hidden parameter?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #714 on:
08/03/2014 13:21:58 »
This is using 'energy' as some minimalistic common nominator in all transformations. Also assuming that change costs.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #715 on:
08/03/2014 13:29:34 »
One more point to it. Assuming that it is right, and that you can inject energy, actually presumes a hidden parameter too, doesn't it? As it won't matter 'how' we destroy the original entanglement, the other 'side' of it must still exist, until measured. So if you want to 'inject energy' you now have to define why it won't destroy both sides. On the other hand, if the entanglement indeed are(is:) one entity, as is presumed by me, then? Forgot what I thought
Getting senile here.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #716 on:
08/03/2014 13:37:16 »
Ah yes, maybe this? If we want it to be a result of hidden parameters, and we want, if we want to be able to inject energy in it, then we have to consider how those limits can come to be. It becomes some weird sort of 'degrees of freedom' too? To me that is
Anything that express itself one unique way, not definable any other way, has somehow a unique degree of freedom to me. As not allowing the entanglement to disappear, by you measuring and so injecting a energy in it. That then craves a definition for why.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #717 on:
08/03/2014 13:46:03 »
The hidden parameter, in my universe, would then be rules, constants, properties and principles. The question becomes if you can take it any further than that? Why are there rules? How can 'spin' exist (QM). Why doesn't measuring a entanglement destroy 'both ends' of it. Does the rules consist of definite, arbitrarily set up, limits? Or are they expressions of something more fundamental, creating them?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #718 on:
08/03/2014 13:48:47 »
You might say that I'm questioning what indeterminism mean.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
64733
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 176 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #719 on:
08/03/2014 13:57:09 »
Can you see how I think there? If 'weak experiments' are possible to influence a entanglement, allowing communication 'ftl'. Then 'injecting energy' should be possible too. If it is not, although the first still works we need to redefine what we mean by 'energy'. And that somehow splits this idea of 'energy' into two domains. One in where you can influence by weak experiments, another in where your measuring doesn't influence any 'energy levels' for the other end at all.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
34
35
[
36
]
37
38
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...