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
...
28
29
[
30
]
31
32
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
358198 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #580 on:
19/01/2014 15:48:19 »
Using relations you will get to a definition of a universe, as being a linear logic, definable through a arrow and what repeatable experiments you find setting its limits. The relations becomes it all actually, dissolve decoherence (as a probable) and the universe should disappear.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #581 on:
19/01/2014 15:54:13 »
It also becomes meaningless arguing what 'reality' is. We define ours from a inside, and it is as real as it ever can be from that inside. When you die you die, you are no longer 'inside' unless you want to count in 'energy' as a countable. Your consciousness, your definition of yourself, needs a arrow. That doesn't state that there can't be anything more to it though, but whatever that would be it won't use this arrow.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #582 on:
19/01/2014 16:06:48 »
A slight release, isn't it
Getting away from oneself I mean, the last and biggest adventure you'll ever make. If we use fractals for defining how simple becomes complex, then the universe should be a mathematical fractal to my mind. A fractal that is described as evolving by a arrow, defined by decoherence, and constants. Properties and principles arising from it interacting.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #583 on:
19/01/2014 16:10:49 »
And free will then, well, what is HUP?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #584 on:
19/01/2014 16:13:09 »
All of it defined locally naturally, over frames of reference.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #585 on:
19/01/2014 16:17:16 »
So what 'glues' one frame of reference to another? Forces? Constants, properties and principles? I prefer the last.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #586 on:
19/01/2014 16:21:12 »
But it depends on from where you look at it. Forces exist, gravity acts not only as a point like experience, having one direction 'down wards' into some center. It acts on you and you act on it, which allows us to define why our solar system hang together. EM is the same way, you can exchange frames of reference there too, defining it differently.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #587 on:
19/01/2014 21:33:06 »
So, we have us a universe in 3-D, with a local arrow giving us four dimensions, but I suspect you can add one local direction downwards to it. Doesn't matter where you are either. Five 'dimensions' if you like
the most important being the one you get to, scaling it down.
==
All depending on definitions naturally.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #588 on:
19/01/2014 21:40:45 »
Or two?
If you imagine it as a plane, then scaling down that plane gets a direction of its own. I don't like dimensions that much. I think it's better to define it from what a observer, locally defined, can measure over frames of reference. Then it should be the behavior you find that define the degrees of freedom something have. And so we find four macroscopically but a microscopic lattice might be defined to have two. And going further down, how many degrees of freedom can there be?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #589 on:
19/01/2014 21:44:19 »
Can you define a dimensionality in where there is no possibility of scaling? Should a string be impossible to scale?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #590 on:
19/01/2014 21:48:33 »
The point to it is that a string is below any measurements, but if you truly think them to exist, then there is no reason I see why you can't imagining them able to scale, down and up. Scaling becomes a direction of its own to me, although part of the three dimensional space we define macroscopically.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #591 on:
29/01/2014 12:56:15 »
How different does a universe becomes if you disallow dimensions, instead using degrees of freedom? For example, a orbital, can you describe that in 'degrees of freedom'? Well, you can describe it as a result of how the atoms are organized, as in a lattice. It becomes a statement much alike the argument Einstein presented. Relativity being frames of reference interacting, having the addition of the importance of the 'observer', meaning that the observer always has to define it locally, using a locally defined clock and ruler for measuring in comparing between frames.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #592 on:
29/01/2014 12:58:39 »
Then we have the idea of being at rest with something. Assume that gravity in 'reality' will come down to just one direction. The direction shown by a singular 'point mass', inwards.
That gives us one degree of freedom, doesn't it?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #593 on:
29/01/2014 13:03:02 »
And a lattice then? Two degrees of freedom?
And to that you need to add observer dependencies, but I can't see how that could influence the degrees of freedom you find something to have? Maybe it can though? As in imagining myself 'speeding relativistically', very close to lights speed, trying to define the degrees of freedom for suns, moving relative me in the vacuum. Would they be found to move?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #594 on:
29/01/2014 13:06:19 »
We have two ways to define reality. One is through observer dependencies, and experiments of course, the other is from a thought up 'objective standpoint' in where I apply what I call the eyes of a God to a universe, and so a imaginary 'outside'. Is there a outside, if you only have degrees of freedom to define it from?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #595 on:
29/01/2014 13:14:13 »
I think that a field picture is acceptable from a definition in where we use local constants combined with the degrees of freedom we can prove, as defined by the observer. When different observers agree on each others observations, and their 'equal setups' we come to a definition of a 'commonality' in this universe, and 'repeatable experiments'. Those then must define the 'common universe' we agree to exist. But there will be no outside to it, unless you define it such as only what we directly can measure is 'inside' it. Which in this case should disallow a Higgs boson/field.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #596 on:
29/01/2014 13:18:04 »
So what is then degrees of freedom, and where do they end? Can you scale them away?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #597 on:
29/01/2014 13:23:33 »
If you use a local representation, ignoring dimensions, how many degrees of freedom do exist? We use four dimensions in relativity, three room dimensions, and one 'time' dimension. That becomes the container from where I define the degrees of freedom to that lattice. Would we be able to see more degrees of freedom than the ones defining the container? Doesn't seem possible, does it? If we could the container would be differently defined.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #598 on:
29/01/2014 13:29:46 »
There is no size to this universe, but there seem to be a scale. You can scale it down, and according to my thoughts then, the 'distance traversed' in scaling down should be approximately the same everywhere. You could also define it from observer dependencies as mass, gravity, motion, energy density etc. But I'm using the prerogative of applying 'eyes of a God' for this
And so I expect the 'distance traversed' to be equal, everywhere.
«
Last Edit: 29/01/2014 13:31:17 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65662
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #599 on:
29/01/2014 13:34:50 »
It's a different universe than the one we see. We see it without including observer dependencies, and we assume that what 'I see is what you see too'. That makes applying the eyes of God real easy, and thinking of it as having a inside and a outside real easy too.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
28
29
[
30
]
31
32
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...