How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 206956 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1000 on: 03/07/2014 12:56:58 »
Strange how correct the bible can be on that point, or rather the new testament. The whole idea of what Jesus preached was just, that before turning the head of others you badly needed to turn your own head. To tell someone to do what you say, not what you do, is a dead end.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1001 on: 03/07/2014 13:02:16 »
And as I'm no saint :) I'm most probably not the right person to tell you. But, I think it's still the most important thing anyone can do with their life. To turn ones head a little, and realize that it is a shrinking planet. And it has a direct connection to if we plan or not. If we don't plan, which is my thesis, then this is the only way we ever will be able to make a change.

Do you get this?

Read it again.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1002 on: 03/07/2014 13:24:08 »
Crazy demands, isn't it? :) Well, that's what practical solutions are good for. One kid per person is a decision you can take by yourself. If we agreed on that one we would do something monumental. We would enlarge this planet, its resources, and create a better living for us all. Because our population would shrink.

The old ways, the church way, and the free markets way, was (still is, depending) more and more consumers. Reproduce, as often and fast as possible, enabling me to become that happy millionaire selling my ideas, and materials. And remember, you can become one too, following this glorious plan for our future, btw, I promise, it's enjoyable too :)

Old ideals, and old ways.

That was before prophylactics :) And modern societies so involved in making careers that family life takes a second position to ones self interests (career).

A life worth living?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1003 on: 04/07/2014 18:14:50 »
Where does heat go?

when you have a material that gets heated then you have a interaction between radiation and matter, or matter matter but that also must by necessity involve vibrational states transfered by radiation. If you then want to call this radiation photons or waves I will leave aside for the moment.

Then you have phase transitions. Those are states where, as a example, water getting heated starts to produce water vapor (steam). As such states occur the temperature  (heat transfer from one material to another) won't change as measure by your thermometer. The reason is explained as what happens at those points are internal, in this case the phase transition from water to steam is occurring.

Phase transitions is about states relating to rest mass, as I think?

How would a universe of pure radiation be able to have a phase transition?
Can it? And even worse, how would you define 'energy' to have it?

You have to differ the concept of 'energy' from radiation. Radiation contain energy, everything I know of is presumed to contain energy, it's the coin of exchange. But 'energy' without anything expressing it? No photons and no waves?

can that exist?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1004 on: 04/07/2014 18:58:32 »
Then we have the idea of a 'heat death'. How is that possible in a infinite universe? If I presume expansion and inflation to be correct, as well as the definition of there being no center to the universe, how does this heat mellows out, so to speak? If we had walls to this universe you might have one definition of it, but then we also would have to consider the kinetic energy of radiation, or 'radiative pressure' :) acting on those 'walls'. Without 'walls', and with a infinite universe one idea might be that the expansion is driven by heat? It's a really weird one, as you either need to assume that this 'energy', in a expanding universe, assuming you want to keep the universe in a equilibrium, will be 'inserted' from 'nowhere' as needed to fit a expansion, alternatively that it isn't 'inserted', which then accelerate the heat loss? And if so, how could a inflation work? A inflation faster than light of the room we exist in.

And what about conservation of energy here? If I want to take that seriously, can I allow new 'energy to 'materialize from nowhere' to keep our infinite universe in a equilibrium? The whole idea of conservation of energy more or less presumes the universe to have way of stopping leaks, doesn't it? So we would need to have a very weird mechanism, considering that this new 'energy' needed, just would have to be 'inserted' as to fit our internal equilibrium, no more and no less, assuming conservation laws

And how does a heat death ends up? What is its final state? It needs matter to exist as I think. If I want to think of a heat death, doesn't I have to assume that everything exist in a same state then? What about those internal phase transitions? The 'energy' of this universe can't go down, not if you think it conserved, it can only transform. Assuming a expansion and a infinite amount of energy, as fitting a infinite universe, but still in a equilibrium as that follow logically from conservation laws, you need a way to keep that equilibrium. you might assume that it could drive a expansion somehow though? But then you also must assume that we would see that in, for example, a otherwise unexplainable heat loss?

Why it follows logically? Well, as I think then. You want a 'closed universe' in some indefinable (for now) way, if you want conservation laws. Because without that there can be no conservation of energy. And if you treat that universe instant by instant, then each instant should present a equilibrium existing. You can't have parts differing, some 'new' without 'energy' getting 'filled' by that set amount energy you then assume the universe to constantly have.  Maybe the question should be how a expansion fits conservation laws?

If I on the other hand think of it as a symmetry break? Then it shouldn't be a isolated existence, although it easily could be so described from a inside of it, which are where we are. It's about getting something from 'nowhere' then :)

Or if it is a projection of sorts?

this idea of indefinable walls 'existing' in a infinite expanding, once inflating ftl, universe makes me head ache. And presuming there being no center to it, the expansion occurring in each point, what are those walls?

Yeah, weird thoughts indeed?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1005 on: 04/07/2014 19:13:25 »
And then there is a last thought. The whole idea of transformations without loss of energy, as it should only be transformed. Isn't that a sort of perpetuum mobile. Not that is doesn't stop, as per entropy, but it seems that there is no ultimate cost involved in it? Because if there was, I would assume some energy to be lost irrecoverably, 'disappearing', if you see how I think here?

But energy don't get lost?
It transforms :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1006 on: 04/07/2014 19:29:03 »
And that should bring us to the concept of information loss. Useful information relative unuseable. In a 'conserved' universe, can there be a loss of information? Writing something on ice cube, is the information lost as the ice melt?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1007 on: 04/07/2014 19:35:19 »
Every definition we have presume time, doesn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1008 on: 04/07/2014 19:40:27 »
Still, we live by our minds. Most of the things we believe in are mind concepts, thoughts. Mathematics is a way to describe logics, because that is what we presume this universe to build on. So is there a ultimate logic describing everything? Would you want to state that entropy explains complexity? From a seed to a tree? Or the way you can imagine up something, or the way we exchange information?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1009 on: 04/07/2014 19:46:47 »
Is it a information universe? Think of a quantum computer, assume all paths taken 'simultaneously, the probability defining a outcome. Consider that 'timeless instant' as another way to look at the universe. Would you then expect all thoughts there ever have been and will be, to co-exist there too?

Probability builds on experience collected through time, statistics. Studying the statistics one can theorize about what logical laws there should be, describing why the statistics behave as they do.

Everything involves time.

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1011 on: 04/07/2014 20:33:21 »
It's really nice that link. Did you read it? :) Had it before and will probably link it whenever entropy is discussed. Entropy is a way of life it seems, or better expressed, a way of time.
=

Notice how easy he makes it, that's the sign of a clear mind to me. We have some people here that have that ability :) maybe not me though, heh.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2014 20:36:44 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1012 on: 04/07/2014 21:04:30 »
If you read it you might be able to answer if complexity and entropy is the same. At least I think so, it's not the same. If you take a plant it uses entropy to add to its complexity, the complexity of it goes up at the same time as the entropy increase. Now this may sound as it is the same but it's not. When entropy increase it disperses, like milk, spontaneously mixing with coffee. Complexity is something else, and it's about everything of matter, living and growing. I don't know how else to express it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1013 on: 04/07/2014 21:30:25 »
Let us assume all processes going backwards? the broken cup assembles. You grow young instead of old. Now that is a reversal of time, and some think it's possible. I don't find it possible myself, and that you can reverse the movie is to me just a result of there existing a logic. For the universe to contain a logic you should be able to reverse it, assuming you have all parameters involved (very theoretically naturally). Sometimes you also see time reversals described as still fitting entropy, those of you reading this link above, would you agree to that?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1014 on: 08/07/2014 21:50:01 »
So, what about it?

Does God exist?

Depends on what attributes you expect it him, or her, to have, doesn't it? You want God to know every sparrow that falls to the ground? Then you probably also want him/her to be responsible for this universe we exist in too. I wouldn't want any God to feel responsible for that :) It should reasonably quick put him/her (it?) under the care of a divine shrink, if he/her though she/he was. I think we are responsible, although that's a rather unpopular view of life, isn't it?

We always want someone, or something, to blame, don't we?

But I do think we have to take the responsibility here. We are what we make it to be. If you think this way then the next question becomes, what do we want it to be? And that's a lot trickier? What do we want to become? Animals, fighting for existence? Well, that not too bad, as long as no animal sticks out from the horde, as we do. Because we do, we're not the same as the other animals, we invent things, we have 'ideals' and 'visions' :)

All to often those include greed and expanding ones territory, one way or another. Not too different from any other animal, is it? If they just could. So what do you think, can we become caretakers? If so, on whose terms? Earths as a whole, or just from the perspective of what a human may want, as always, shortsightedly.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2014 22:31:56 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1015 on: 08/07/2014 22:35:52 »
Complexity isn't about physics per se. It's about thoughts, and words, creating new ideas and possibilities. It's about that, not theoretical, yet very theoretical layer, that creates your mathematics, and your ideals, and your dreams, and hopes for the future. And that one grows in the direction of the arrow, it doesn't dissolve.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1016 on: 08/07/2014 22:52:25 »
Let's assume the universe consist of information. Why does it use complexity? And why does the complexity grow? It's about logics, and also about emotions and feelings. It may well be so that you can translate those into a logic, creating them. Just as your taste can be translated to geometrical formations, more or less, fitting your taste buds.

Would that make love meaningless?
Or hope?

It's like mirrors of a same universe, one consisting of the mathematics defining it, the other consisting of what comes from a constantly growing complexity.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1017 on: 08/07/2014 22:56:48 »
In a way it is about those shadows on the wall, but the shadows are us. We don't define a taste from some mathematical or chemical definition of a geometrical formation, we define it from what we experience as we taste it. It's 'sweet' or 'sour' or 'salt', add infinitum.

No use ignoring this fact.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1018 on: 08/07/2014 23:05:07 »
And pain, does it hurt you? All animals should be able to experience pain, the question might be in what way (how) they translate it. and that one belongs to their complexity as living organisms I think. But pain will still be pain.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1019 on: 08/07/2014 23:09:27 »
What might the the goal of complexity be? The goal of entropy seems to be a quiet dissolving, but what about complexity?

What is the state of a true quantum computer, before we find it to deliver a outcome?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1020 on: 09/07/2014 17:22:59 »
I believe in time, I think it is time that enables intelligence, emotions, dreams and hope. Take that arrow away and nothing will 'exist', at least not as we define a existence. It's time that allows you to have a goal, it allows you to study, it allows your mathematics. Take it away and mathematics won't exist. I think we live in a symmetry break, it has a logic, the logic is describable mathematically. that does not state that mathematics is what the universe is, we don't know what the universe is, nobody does. It's like those 'gurus' that pops up constantly, telling you how life should be lived. Are they immortal then? They better be to have all those answers. And in western democracies we exhange gurus for 'experts', treating them as eastern cultures treat 'gurus'. I like science, and physics, and there one ground rule is that nothing ever is set in stone. It may be true, but only until proven wrong. So forget gurus and experts, keep an open mind instead, and try to decide what your mark will be on this world, before you leave it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1021 on: 10/07/2014 00:02:57 »
You know, the world is still a wondrous and marvelous place, if we allow it to be so. We can stop it shrinking, each one can do that, no need of a masters voice. It's like the idea of democracy, a individual vote for what I think is right. Maybe we find, or at least have found, representative democracy the best way, but maybe it's time to take another step. You can't compare what you have against what's worse, and then state yourself satisfied. There is always a need to move forward, to do it better. That is complexity's demands to me, and it's more spiritual than anything else I know of.

Because we have moved forward, all of us have. The dark ages are mostly behind us, unless we throw ourselves into some new war of course. I sincerely hope we can avoid that. Think of a country littered with Fukushima's to see why.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1022 on: 10/07/2014 18:19:34 »
Let's talk about Russia for a second or two, but first I would like you to read Tightness and Looseness.. Would you agree on this one?

Let us assume that they are, generally speaking, on the right track. Then apply it on Russia's. They've lost, or given up, their former empire, to find themselves surrounded by new EEC states, that furthermore also want to join NATO. Sweden take all Internet traffic, 80 % of it goes through us, bundle it up wholesale, and ship it to UK and the States.

Would you define Russia as a 'loose' or 'tight' Country?
What happens when such a Country starts to feel 'pressed in'?

How would USA behave if it was placed in this kind of situation?
How did it behave at the Cuba crisis?

(Disregarding Russia point of view here, this whole new technique of collecting all information there is, from the Internet and mobile phones etc, to store it indefinitely, until needed. It's no longer a conventional 'targeting intelligence', unless you want to consider us all targets, for your whole life.)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1023 on: 10/07/2014 18:35:43 »
The question above has nothing to do with what ideals one might have of a world order. Solely with people. I better repeat it :) it's not about whether Russia, as a 'democratic country', should be treated one way or another. It's about putting someone under pressure, and the question of if it is the right way to go.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1024 on: 10/07/2014 18:53:39 »
What happens when such a Country starts to feel 'pressed in'? That I think has (at the very least) two sides to it, what happens internally, with those citizens not toeing the official line? And what happens externally, the relations to neighboring states? To that you can add what possibilities of pressure Russia can apply, economic as with their pipelines of natural gas etc, as well as military.

Let us assume Europe free itself from its dependencies of Russian delivery's here. How will that be looked at internally from Russia side? Will it diminish the pressure they think themselves under, or will it increase it? Free trade, when working, is a good thing. Using it for political blackmail will backfire, sooner or later.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1025 on: 12/07/2014 01:29:07 »
Assume that space expands in every point, gravity acting as buoys (with matter) keeping the solar system together. How does that fit with the notion of old light? It's simple, thinking of it for a while, but still got me momentarily confused. When we look out on the universe we don't see what 'is', we're seeing what 'has been'. So what you see is related to the distance of the source. But a inflation and expansion actually supports my definition of time, locally equivalent to 'c'. Because you have it happening (evolving) in each point, locally defined at a 'same time', everywhere.

so distance gives us our possibility to look 'backward in time'. And so it, to me that is :) also makes it plausible that as there is no center, you equivalently should be able to state that everywhere is a center. You are the center of what you observe, and you will see the same wherever you go. So, leaving for the suburbs of our visible universe you should find the exact same vista as you do here. A 'infinite' universe, all around you.

the second one relates to what I wrote about conservation of energy, and with it all conservation laws I presume? With a assumed entropy, how can there be no cost to it? Something must be lost if you assume a direction. We call it useful energy transforming into non useful energy as I understand. But generally thinking I can't see any process with a defined behavior in time, that hasn't some sort of cost associated with it?

So, what is the cost here? Assume that time is connected to processes, interactions. Does all interactions stop as entropy dissolve, equals out, a universe? What about the uncertainty principle? Does that disappear?

If there are no outcomes?
=

Need to learn how to spell, and not to mix Swedish words with English, at some time :)
Not today though.

 
« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 03:09:18 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1026 on: 12/07/2014 01:36:23 »
Looked at this way, it's all local. All your definitions are local. And locally is what gives you your constants. And those constants creates a universe interacting in time. But I still don't see what connects frames of reference? It would be preferable with a simpler universe, like a box :) in where we can place ourselves, but that isn't what expansion and inflation states.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1027 on: 12/07/2014 01:41:23 »
Can you see why I don't like the idea of a vacuum as 'energy' here? I don't think it fit.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1028 on: 12/07/2014 01:48:26 »
Ideas trying to define a equilibrium are also ideas involving a 'container universe' to me. Although the container here is very vague it still exist in such descriptions, but to me inflation and expansion must question it. It becomes very tricky understanding how a equilibrium can exist in a expanding universe, unless you either assume a 'outside' of some sort interacting in some unknown way with our universe, alternatively assume that a expansion somehow 'lends' from this very vaguely described container model of a universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1029 on: 12/07/2014 01:51:12 »
so what can we come up with? Assuming that the conservation laws are correct?
A holographic universe? A universe of information? What do we have left if we throw away all ideas of a container?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1030 on: 12/07/2014 01:55:42 »
I don't really know. I know that I consider this a symmetry break, and also as a projection. But I do not assume a outside. If there is one it I think will have to be defined as co-existing with us in each point, or avoiding that, just call it 'everywhere'. A symmetry break because we have a direction, we find all sorts of directions :) and a projection because the only definitions making sense to me are local, including constants. That makes what connects frames of reference the most intriguing, and confusing, thing I can think of.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1031 on: 12/07/2014 02:11:49 »
What you do when you throw away the container is also to question what dimensions should be seen as. Because any dimension builds on the assumption of us being to define at least some sort of 'area/extension' for it, doesn't it? String theory defines a one dimensional string this way "A string is a one-dimensional object, meaning that if you want to travel along a string, you can only go forwards or backwards in the direction of the string, there is no sideways or up and down on a string."

Well, as soon as I can move on it I will presume it to extend in some direction, if not area then at least a 'space' to move in. And you need it to extend to get all those different models, of strings, loops, and branes. Or that description may be wrong, I'm not sure how a string, or loop, theorist imagine it.

but I do like the idea of some sort of first building blocks, although if we think of the uncertainty principle and indeterminism, it also seem to become a result of frames of reference interacting, creating this reality we live in. Decoherence, as QM speculates about.

also, any extension measured must be a result of a time involved.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1032 on: 12/07/2014 02:23:28 »
I don't think you need description 'limiting' the infinity of this universe. No need to walk out to the right to come in to the left. Better to use the idea of a real infinity, you being the center of this universe. The center is just a concept, a complex focus point consisting of 'you' observing the universe around you. Because 'you' is more than the sum of your parts. You are the thoughts, the mind, the focus that observe, and measure. It's exactly like the idea of a proper time existing. That proper time we refer to exist for each one of us, equivalently so. But you can't define it to some 'point' in this four dimensional universe we find. It's like decoherence, it comes to be as a focus.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1033 on: 12/07/2014 02:25:10 »
It's all about complexity, isn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1034 on: 12/07/2014 02:30:13 »
Alternatively you can think of a proper time as something existing in all points, locally defined. And that one is about whether there exist a discreteness to this universe. If it does, then the question becomes if that is a end to it, or if it is a duality of sorts with what I call a 'flow'. We have a way to look at it, the way inwards, magnifying. And when we do I think we see a duality there too. What some call a field.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1035 on: 12/07/2014 02:36:26 »
It's a weird concept :)

You are more than the sum of your parts, consciousness add something. But so is your proper time. And there is a discreteness, as I think, but that one is also part of a flow. I'm slightly starting to understand the old lady who thought Earth rested on a elephant. "It's elephants the whole way down, my young man.'

Well?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1036 on: 12/07/2014 02:44:24 »
So what have I against a field? I don't like container models, that's about it. Give me a way to think of a universe consisting of a observer dependent field, able to be measured differently by different observers, without giving it limits. Otherwise I like it a lot.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1037 on: 12/07/2014 02:48:49 »
As I see it then, a field is what you should get as frames of reference interact, locally defined.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1038 on: 12/07/2014 02:54:57 »
Think of a expansion again. Assume it to happen in each point. Can you see yourself falling in? Do you expect it to have an end?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1039 on: 12/07/2014 02:57:15 »
Is that a direction?

What about a perfect sphere of (even density) matter in a flat space.

Which way points gravity?
« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 03:12:36 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1040 on: 12/07/2014 03:16:33 »
Why I'm using a perfect sphere here is not because its geometry, although it is about its geometry :)

Shrink it, then shrink it some more, then shrink it again.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1041 on: 12/07/2014 03:20:18 »
Maybe you could call it a symmetry? It has a perfect even matter distribution in a other wise ' perfectly empty vacuum, or universe '

And if you turn it around, then a 'perfect point' should when magnified become as this perfect sphere, to us inside this four dimensional universe, I think that is :)
==

Not really though, it's a simplification. I'm just using it descriptively, to point out something that I find strange. You accept a expansion? Then maybe you see what I'm getting at? There is no less logic in gravity's direction here than there is in the expansions. And to me it's about how we define dimensions.

I think 'degrees of freedom'  is a, so much, better description.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 03:56:33 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1042 on: 12/07/2014 03:28:03 »
Then we have uncertainty, and indeterminism. It keeps coming back, doesn't it?

Read this one, then read it again. I know I did :)
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/resonances.html
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1043 on: 12/07/2014 04:39:27 »
If you read it then Andreas wrote something really fundamental there.

"Assuming the subject is logical, as physics is supposed to be, the fundamentals are the basic ideas that allow one to reconcile seemingly contradictory end results."

So what would a observer dependent field need to be from logic? It would need to agree on basic observations, even if ones measurements would disagree. As for example the amount of planets. If we stretch this notion somewhat further, also the amount of particles existing. As per a Lorentz transformation.

would you agree to that?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1044 on: 12/07/2014 04:45:40 »
So, assuming this is correct. Then we have us one definition of this 'container', wouldn't you say? Also we would need to presume that all observers would agree to what they see containing the same dimensions, that means four, length, width, height, and a arrow in which to measure those.

So is it a container?

A very strange one if so, it has a consistent logic, but that is a must. I can as easily exchange a container for rules, laws, and principles.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1045 on: 12/07/2014 04:53:12 »
Andreas is so right in what he writes. Physics presumes a logic. Just as we should find a time reversal, logic demands it to me. Or do you know a way to define a process, evolving in time, that becomes impossible to reverse, as in catching it on a screen unable to reverse the movie? Even if you do, what is its probability? If you want this universe to consist of a logic, can you allow it to not be reversible?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1046 on: 12/07/2014 05:11:32 »
Then again, I don't consider it reversible practically. That means that you can't travel back in time, well, as far as I'm concerned. You have to differ between a logics demands of causality (Cause and effect), and that local arrow acting on you. The logic must be there, but the arrow has only one direction. Whereas entropy locally can decrease, although overall must increase, your local arrow constantly will 'tick' at a same rate as 'c', all as I see it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1047 on: 12/07/2014 05:14:42 »
To clarify, when you measure that local entropy decreasing, you do it using your local clock and ruler. So entropy and the arrow is not equivalent. 'c' and the arrow though, is.
=

better get some sleep huh :)
« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 05:17:31 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1048 on: 12/07/2014 05:29:25 »
It all comes down to what you think define this universe. I use strict locality to define it from. I don't use a assumption of a 'container universe'. If I did I think I should lose my definition of a arrows equivalence to 'c', as you there find both 'time dilations' and 'Lorentz contractions'.  But I know that my definition must be correct, you're a living proof of it, as is me :) We both have a birth, and a end, locally defined.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1049 on: 12/07/2014 12:36:40 »
Relativity is a theory of extremes, or maybe a theory of where the limits of our observable universe are? Like 'c', like what Ehrenfest paradox discuss. It's implications are philosophical, it's about what life consist of, and the universe, but you won't see it at/in the 'regime' we live, normally defined at least. You need to get close to the 'relativistic envelope' to observe it. To me it's important, maybe not so much to you. I would say relativity is a question of life, why we exist and where we are going.

It invites all of us to wonder.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."