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
...
21
22
[
23
]
24
25
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
356962 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 #440 on:
12/01/2014 19:10:43 »
Scaling becomes something different to me, thinking of it as meeting a background of constants, etc, also losing that arrow. The local arrow gives us our linear definitions, as distances, dimensions and a measurable universe.
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 #441 on:
12/01/2014 19:14:58 »
Isn't it strange to you too? I imagine that by scaling down a universe loses all definitions we find macroscopically. I also define it such as you can't include a observer of it in this definition. For relativity everything evolves around observers, and so it does in all experiments we do. There's alway a locally defined clock and ruler involved. Even theoretically we involve arrows, as bringing us outcomes.
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 #442 on:
12/01/2014 19:20:06 »
You can't ignore the observer, the only thing you can do is to clarify his/hers/its involvement. And defining it this way the observer must have a relation to what he measures. Is there a difference between a detector and a observer? You can either assume that consciousness must be involved for any measurement to take place, or you can define it as detecting is observing. The last one is the one making most sense to me, and it accepts everything, able to interact with something else.
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 #443 on:
12/01/2014 19:25:08 »
What it does is two things. It ignores consciousness as a prerequisite for observing, and it defines all 'observers' as being as important for the experiment, you included. It doesn't split it into different categories, instead it assumes that a outcome is a result of relations, where everything defining it has a relation to that outcome.
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 #444 on:
12/01/2014 19:25:43 »
Your clock and ruler too
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 #445 on:
12/01/2014 19:35:28 »
It is your clock and ruler that finally put a stamp upon that experiment, is it not? And a repeatable experiment is a equivalently made, defined, experiment, although done at another location and time, at a different position inside this SpaceTime if you like. And when we do them we define 'laws' by them, if they truly gives us the same outcomes.
For this we ignore the idea of a arrow 'pushing us' into a future, but my own definition of inertia can't do that. And neither will a 'container idea' of a SpaceTime. Because in such a one the dimensions 'adapt' to each other.
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 #446 on:
12/01/2014 19:38:32 »
There my idea of a arrow can be used more simply though, as it presumes all arrows locally equivalent, even though we will ignore accelerations for this, just looking at time dilations, as defined in uniform motion.
Locality builds on constants, locally measured.
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 #447 on:
12/01/2014 19:49:32 »
Although, using inertia as becoming gravity due to a arrow interacting with it? What would a acceleration become?
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 #448 on:
12/01/2014 20:30:30 »
You can't define a rocket accelerating at a uniform constant one G, the same way you can define it standing on Earth. Or can you? Locally defined it should be the same? And, if I now define a arrow as being locally equivalent anywhere, then also define inertia as being a local constant?
Then you have two locally unchanging constants. What you introduce that differs is then a acceleration, which is displacements, and assuming a constantly uniformly accelerating, gravity.
That states that motion should be gravity. Locality defines a uniform motion as being no motion at all, as I think I discussed before. Locally defined you only can get to a 'gravity' through acceleration (deceleration). Also you can consider all particles as, more or less, being at rest with each other in a relative (uniform) motion. It becomes harder from gravitational time dilations to do so, but macroscopically it works. If it didn't you shouldn't exist
So, using that definition the only 'motion' we need to consider here should be accelerations, right?
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 #449 on:
12/01/2014 20:44:24 »
So using accelerations we find the displacements to grow over a defined time period right? Maybe we should look at it at a particle level though? Maybe introduce local clocks microscopically instead too? Instead of using a fuzzily defined 'local' macroscopic clock?
Then each microscopic clock should find a constantly uniformly growing displacement relative the other as a constant uniform acceleration builds up, displaced space growing between them each 'instant', if you see how I think there. Which then would make gravity a result of displacement? But where would that displacement be standing on Earth?
Damn
I really liked that one.
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 #450 on:
12/01/2014 20:47:53 »
Although it still makes sense to me, defining inertia as a constant?
There must be a way of making sense of that one.
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 #451 on:
12/01/2014 20:50:33 »
It must have to do with what mass is, how it can come to exist, if it is going to make sense.
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 #452 on:
12/01/2014 20:52:14 »
What makes mass able to accelerate?
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 #453 on:
12/01/2014 21:02:16 »
As you stand on Earth you're being moved in time, the same definition is correct for all motions, none excluded. Assuming it all to come down to local principles etc, I then need to define this earthly gravity relative the proper mass I stand on, now ignoring 'infinite reach' of all mass acting on each other for a while.
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 #454 on:
12/01/2014 21:08:02 »
What does inertia need?
momentum?
Displacements?
Mass?
=
Does a wave have a momentum? A photon? It has..
So not momentum, unless I want to define a mass to a photon.
Defining a mass to a photon also should define different 'time dilations', depending on energy. I don't like that one at all.
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 #455 on:
12/01/2014 21:09:18 »
It depends though? If you imagine it as 'propagating', or as 'non propagating'.
=
Assume a very high energy, evenly distributed. Transform it into photons. Now assume that the higher the energy, the greater the mass. That should give you gravitational time dilations and Lorentz contractions, comparing between frames of reference, assuming frames of reference being applicable to such a scenario. That one depends if you trust a photon to be a 'individual', or not.
the speed may be the same, but their energy can differ. And in a Big Bang?
«
Last Edit: 12/01/2014 21:52:06 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 #456 on:
12/01/2014 21:13:35 »
Is there some analogue to microscopic displacements possible, considering a proper mass from its particles? You should be able to define gravitational time dilations, and so Lorentz contractions, there too as it seems to me?
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 #457 on:
12/01/2014 21:18:18 »
That would move it from a constant uniform accelerations displacements being responsible to one in where we would use the definition of the time dilations and Lorentz contractions we find in both descriptions, wouldn't it? Those then being the definition of how a gravity comes to be?
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 #458 on:
12/01/2014 21:19:27 »
But it doesn't answer how a rest mass comes to be.
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 #459 on:
12/01/2014 21:27:33 »
You can use energy defining how a particle comes to be, shooting particles through a EM-accelerator, measuring if there is new interactions. But those interactions are short lived, decaying back into 'stable particles' as I get it. So there is a difference.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
21
22
[
23
]
24
25
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...