How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205332 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1050 on: 12/07/2014 12:45:12 »
The first thing you need to define, a basic, is whether you expect there to be a logic, or not? Without a logic, without a time reversibility the universe becomes magical to me. With a time reversibility I find a logic that fits to the arrow we measure locally. A place where causality breaks down must also become place without measurable statistics, as I see no way to guarantee a result there. Probability also builds on a assumption of there being a logic existing, causality holding, and when it comes to very low probabilities, actually need this base to be able to define such.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1051 on: 12/07/2014 12:48:23 »
How else did you think you would be able to define that almost magical probability of all molecules getting collected in a corner of your room? It there was no bell shaped curve defining its probability?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1052 on: 12/07/2014 12:59:54 »
so what about Feynman's ' many paths' then? Isn't that a example of a state where it becomes extremely difficult discussing a arrow? Sure, that's what I naively think of as a example of a symmetry, and a symmetry break. The symmetry exist, still does, with us and our local arrow, becoming something of a needed counterpart to it.

Without that arrow, would a consciousness exist?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1053 on: 12/07/2014 13:10:18 »
This universe is defined through outcomes. The outcomes follows a logic that should be reversible to fit my thinking. Even though this logic is strictly local (as in a local arrow), to get to a 'seamless container universe' you need it to connect all 'events', as instants of outcomes, in a understandable way for all observers. That's what relativity does (Lorentz transformations).  Behind it all though is our presumption of this is the way it must work for us. It has to make sense.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1054 on: 12/07/2014 13:19:27 »
there is actually a possibility of the universe being magical :) A 'wizard  of sorts' having a laugh on us, creating a symmetry break out of thin air, stringing us up to a logic, as puppets to a show. I don't think it is so, I think of it as a symmetry, and I find no way to see how this wizard should be able to exist, to formulate this symmetry break, without a arrow involved. That mathematical space of 'many paths' should then be its whole existence, as I think.

No, it's a symmetry, and we are needed. We're the symmetry break making it all possible, to me, that is :)

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1055 on: 12/07/2014 13:25:08 »
the reason is rather simple, which is to my liking. 'many paths' presume exactly what exist, namely us and our universe. Take it away and that mathematical space shouldn't exist either.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1056 on: 12/07/2014 13:33:21 »
It's a basic, and a presumption.
But it got to be there.

If you on the other tentacle love containers, then you also probably want to define something making it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1057 on: 12/07/2014 14:27:30 »
So what is a dimension?

I would define it as a distance. A distance is something you measure under a arrow. Without a arrow a distance won't make sense. We have four dimensions. On the other tentacle, three of them are the same, equivalent distances, the fourth is that arrow which makes them exist. A distance is observer dependent, as we all know from relativity. It belongs to 'you' measuring it, relative your 'proper time' and local ruler.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1058 on: 12/07/2014 14:31:18 »
Together with time, mass, 'speeds' and 'energy', they form our geometry. 'Speeds' as you can break that one into two categories, uniform motions equivalent to no discernible local change and so equivalent to being still, accelerations (which include decelerations) expressing itself as a locally definable inertia, and under special definitions 'gravity'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1059 on: 12/07/2014 14:39:22 »
the Higgs fail miserably with defining what mass is under a uniform motion. If you would imagine it as a viscosity then you also need to explain why rest mass under different uniform motion still will be of the same gravity. As a explanation for inertia it becomes different, there it seem to fit, but that will then split gravity and inertia. You don't get both as far as I know, with a Higgs boson.

There is also that, that a Higgs boson is a try for explanation versus 'forces'. You might say that it is a return to Newtonian outlook of a 'container universe' in where there are force carrying particles, as the Higgs Boson that then regulate inertia, and as some want, also somehow (?) create gravity.

This sort of reasoning is not relativistic, it's a return to a universe that is a container. On the other tentacle, didn't we agree on that it has some properties that we definitely would expect a 'container' of sorts to express? Even Einstein defined the universe as 'one thing', making a 'relativistic sense'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1060 on: 12/07/2014 14:49:20 »
Let's see, you're constantly 'infalling' :), when using my definition of a expansion, remember? At the same time as you, standing on Earth, is accelerating constantly and uniformly, according to the equivalence principle, with gravity's arrow, defined from some ideal sphere of a even density in a flat space, pointing in the opposite direction from your 'acceleration'. I can see why a Newtonian outlook seems to make more sense :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1061 on: 12/07/2014 14:50:19 »
But relativity has hold all tests I've heard of.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1062 on: 12/07/2014 15:06:53 »
So where does my interpretation of Einsteins relativity differ? It's one word.
Locality.

And that one is about presumptions. I presume that it becomes simpler to explain as defined locally than presuming a container, and then try to explain it. Doing so frames of reference ability to communicate becomes the big mystery, presenting us the illusion of a seamlessly existing universe in where we all are 'contained'.

You use a container? Then time becomes a illusion. You use locality, then time becomes a (local naturally:) constant. Which one do you prefer, and which one fits your life?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1063 on: 12/07/2014 15:10:11 »
It's simpler because it unite your arrow with 'c'. It gives you a simple logic (although understanding why 'c' is 'c' still is a mystery) explaining why you will find yourself to age wherever you go, at whatever mass, and speed.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1064 on: 12/07/2014 15:13:35 »
And just as a expansion, and gravity, and constants, it's a local expression. What makes our seamless universe is the way they connect. And that is 'frames of reference'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1065 on: 12/07/2014 15:20:32 »
It's also dependent on what you want to call a 'illusion'. Reality, as far as I can see, is about communication. Connect frames of reference, enable it to communicate, and evolve, and you should have yourself a logic, a arrow, and a universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1066 on: 12/07/2014 15:22:46 »
And from that you should be able to define 'force carrying particles' be they bosons or rest mass (fermions).
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1067 on: 12/07/2014 15:24:51 »
And our measurements will define dimensions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1068 on: 13/07/2014 16:08:12 »
Can a 'photon gas' have a temperature?
Not really, at least not from where I stand. But it will present us with a temperature as soon as it interacts. Photons do not interact with each other, normally defined. If they did we should see all kinds of interesting phenomena happening in a vacuum, as space, as I think. although to test it you really need to create a 'perfect vacuum'.

A BEC is consisting of particles obeying Bose-Einstein particle statistics, similar to bosons as photons, with Fermions (matter) obeying the Fermi-Dirac particle statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that you can't have identical properties for two particles of rest mass, normally. They each need to occupy a unique state. that's, as far as I get it, what builds our 'touchable' matter.

It also means that fermions can't share a identical ground state, in contrast to a bosonic BEC in where all particles, at extremely low temperature, will do so. Fermions are defined from their spin which are described as half-integrals (1/2 = half integer spin). Helium 3 is a atom of rest mass, consisting of two protons, one neutron and two electrons. It's particles adds up to an uneven number creating this atom, and therefore can not be made into a BEC. Bosons spin, on the other tentacle, is defined by whole numbers, integer spin, from zero and up. So, if you can find a atom with the correct number particles creating it, getting a integer net spin out from the 'gas' of atoms, you have the possibility of a BEC.

Helium 4 is such a atom, consisting of two protons, two neutrons and two electrons. Cooling an assemble of such atoms down will lead to them losing their individual identity, following Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP).

HUP is a statement about uncertainty. One explanation is that as you cool those atoms down the number of possible energy states existing for them drastically shrink. As a result of this their velocities becomes more definite, and with that follow that their positions must become more and more uncertain,  in the end resulting in a BEC. Another partial explanation come from the QM statistics itself, stating that when treating bosons as a 'ideal gas' there will be a limit for the total number of particles moving at excited states (kinetic energy). And this allowed number shrink with the temperature shrinking. Passing the allowed limit will then start to force particles down to a zero-momentum ground state. Those not stopping their motion will not become the BEC, just those forced down.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1069 on: 13/07/2014 16:25:46 »
It's about that Big Bang, and temperatures, heat, and interactions actually :) I can't be the only one wondering about what transitions you can expect 'pure energy' to be able to do? Or ignoring that, a 'photon/wave' universe?

If there are no interactions?

Then again, we have the idea of spontaneous particle creation to consider too. Although I find that one rather weak, and weird:) it is a possibility. Is gravity equivalent to energy? Also, are there proofs of virtual particles becoming real out of a vacuum?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1070 on: 13/07/2014 16:29:21 »
It's like temperatures, isn't it? To measure it you need to produce that thermometer. doing so you introduce a interaction between radiation and rest mass, that result in giving you a temperature. Radiation on its own does not have a temperature, unless extremely theoretical. Experimentally you need rest mass for producing it as I think?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1071 on: 13/07/2014 16:30:36 »
and to proof your 'virtual particles' you will need rest mass for it to interact with too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1072 on: 13/07/2014 16:31:46 »
And it all goes back to what a Big Bang means? Well, except for the obvious :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1073 on: 13/07/2014 16:39:14 »
A simple definition of why I'm correct is to consider the vacuum existing. You have space just some tens of (swedish) miles away. Further out you have a sun. We assume that light propagates between that sun and here, constantly, unerringly :)

So, does it heat up the vacuum?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1074 on: 13/07/2014 16:42:10 »
Do that mysterious energy 'stored' in the vacuum interact with the suns radiation then?

N000Oooope :)

If it did we would notice.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1075 on: 13/07/2014 16:47:59 »
Any time you see a sun flare you see a interaction between radiation and matter, as far as I know. You need some type of rest mass. But a Big Bang, without rest mass? How did it ever get to producing it? From what type of reaction? Energy + energy = rest mass, can't be right. Radiation + energy then? Makes no more sense to me :) Radiation + Radiation then. Really? And from where did we get that radiation?

Actually, the last one isn't that stupid. It just depends on how you define a universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1076 on: 13/07/2014 16:54:22 »
Everything is possible to translate to the coin of exchange, 'energy'. But you have to be pretty mixed up if you define matter and photons, radiation, as one and the same. They are not the same.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1077 on: 13/07/2014 20:20:15 »
Yes, I know of waves interacting :) quenching and reinforcing, as in a two slit experiment, and I will need to write about that too. But photons do not interact as far as I know. And you need to set it into my world view, in where locality is all, well, all I go out from that is. But I really need to write about waves too.

Another thing. I wrote that Higgs doesn't explain rest mass. that depends maybe. Assuming you believe in 'real' virtual particles, with a momentum discernible by a Higgs boson/field? And if we to that add that those imaginary directions take themselves out?

Well, curioser and curioser possibly, but who knows?
I just don't find it good enough.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1078 on: 13/07/2014 20:49:13 »
Alternatively, assume that everything 'vibrate'. Atoms, their particles, electron clouds, whatever rest mass you can think of. We need to impose the same restriction naturally, that those directions they may present 'vibrating', evens out. then you could possibly argue that a Higgs field react with it, creating a mass. Naturally we then need to assume that some bosons, as photons, shouldn't 'vibrate' too, as it (a photon) has no discernible rest mass. It can't have it, it's never 'at rest'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1079 on: 13/07/2014 20:52:02 »
So, momentum or position :) A Higgs would then 'see' what?
Why?

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1080 on: 13/07/2014 21:00:26 »
Would you then need a 'container model' explaining this field? Or can you do the same without? If you believe HUP then there is probabilities that define what we see. there are no certainties, although possibly decoherence can be seen as a try for a, statistically defined, certainty, all as I get it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1081 on: 13/07/2014 21:04:24 »
It's not the Higg's per se that gets me frustrated :) It's the thinking behind, the presumption of a container it implies to me.. What defines this universe is not a container, it's logic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1082 on: 13/07/2014 22:10:30 »
How about this then. I had an idea, old one, about this being a flickering universe. You could translate that into a discrete model, where it all becomes quanta that flickers, of and on, at for example Planck scale. To that add that motion then represent differing positions in this 'field'. Planck scale seem a natural choice for it. What would a Higg field be then?  Maybe a flickering can be translated into motion by a Higg? but it does not fit. The Higg fit a model in where you presume, preexisting, dimensions, in where we find a field, or rather several types of fields, that together create our rest-mass, and our reality. Because the Higg does not explain particles, it's here to explain inertia, and possibly gravity.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1083 on: 13/07/2014 22:28:57 »
How do I translate a Higg field to a photon following a bent path, passing our sun for example? It has no mass, you can argue that it has a energy naturally, equivalent to a mass. but why would a vacuum give that path if the reason to gravity it this field, acting on particles? To answer that you could argue that the 'vacuum energy' close to a rest mass must stronger, think of a event horizon and spontaneous pair production for that. And so producing a higher amount of 'virtual particles' that a Higg field can interact with, creating that photon path?

I don't know, I don't like 'virtual particles', especially as they only exist in combination with rest mass, as far as I've read, experimentally. you want a vacuum to have it, then please find some way to prove it from a vacuum, not from interacting with rest mass. It's like photons 'propagating', no way to prove in unless you define source and a sink of matter, as there is no object as a 'photon' measurable in itself, unless in a annihilation. Which to me always will be a very local experience. Then we have waves, they demand frames of reference to exist, if something really should be said to 'propagate' then I would think of waves firstly.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1084 on: 13/07/2014 22:46:26 »
That takes us back to the initial moment of a Big Bang :)

Without rest-mass, and also without radiation?
How would energy, if that now can be assumed to exist as some entity, on its own, produce it?
Relates directly to if you should be able to prove 'virtual particles' without matter interactions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1085 on: 13/07/2014 22:50:19 »
So what am I saying here? That this universe you experiment on can't be the one creating it? Alternatively, prove virtual particles, without involving matter interactions, that should give you a good argument for 'energy' being able to create the rest.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1086 on: 14/07/2014 00:27:08 »
So what does the Higg rest on? The standard model? And the results from LHC? And, maybe, also on the presumption of virtual particles able to interact with it? That is if you want it to relate to rest mass in uniform motion, also called relative motion.

Read this one first http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/03/the-biggest-firework-of-them-all-the-higgs/

then this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/higgs-boson-particles-techni-quark_n_5085812.html

seems I wasn't too far from how some think when it comes to 'virtual particles'?

no surprise there, it's all about a container model, isn't it? real 'motions', of 'real', as well as 'virtual' particles, treated the same way. Ignoring the logic that states you can't use that model, unless you ignore relativity's observer dependencies. Shouldn't the mass measured then, change with ones (relative) motion in a vacuum? the whole idea of force carrying particles moving around as unmeasurable bosons seem to crave a simple container model.

To me it seems diametrical to what relativity state about motion. That it is observer dependent. You are free, in a uniform motion, to define that 'relative motion' any way you like, from being still to speeding away. It all depends on what you measure yourself against, as long as there is no absolute rest frame for this universe. And all experiments I know of agree on that one. There is no 'absolute motion', unless we're referring to accelerations which are provable, locally.

(And again we see that word, 'locally' :)

On the other tentacle, maybe there is a definition of the Higg that consider relativity. I would like to see it.

It also states that "To remove the need for fine-tuning and still answer the Higgs-mass question, physicists have suggested extensions of the Standard Model, the most popular of which is supersymmetry. This theory proposes a heavier superparticle, or "sparticle," for every particle in the Standard Model. Sparticles would then cancel out the effect of the virtual particles in the vacuum, bringing down the Higgs mass and removing the need for any fine-tuning."

But "Ethan Siegel from SB calls for shutting down the LHC (of course he cannot openly do so). He writes that the discovery of the Higgs boson is

    … a nightmare scenario for everything else, including supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and string theory. Because finding the standard model Higgs at this energy means that there’s no need for any of those things. A Higgs at 125 GeV and nothing else at the LHC, totally consistent with the standard model, mean that if supersymmetry exists, it needs to be at such a high energy that it no longer solves the problem it was designed to solve!


He means the Hierarchy problem, and he is basically saying, though he cannot dare to actually say it (He may officially deny this interpretation), that with the Higgs, everything of interest that may still be out there is beyond the reach of the Large Hype Constructor (LHC), so we may as well scrap it!"

From http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/physicists_demand_lhc_shut_down_after_higgs_and_higgs_nonsense-91748

Now, this doesn't state that there can't be other models than the Standard model though. But it do seem to state that they also will have to fit what the standard model describes. And there we now see a Higg particle, or 'field', with virtual photons just as real as our normal photons.
« Last Edit: 14/07/2014 00:46:32 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1087 on: 14/07/2014 00:42:54 »
The point is that I can accept it proving inertia, at least it seems to be possible. But if it is so, then that, to my thoughts, goes against Einsteins definition of inertia in a constant uniform acceleration becoming 'gravity', as described through the equivalence principle? And that one isn't wrong, too many experiments proving it.
=

you might say I'm of two minds, every time I think of a higgs particle, or any 'field', for that sake.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1088 on: 14/07/2014 00:52:39 »
or we have to redefine gravity? One type relating to rest-mass, another relating to Higgs bosons with 'real motions', also forced to add a sub category, equivalent to a rest-mass as defined from the equivalence principle?

I don't know, but hey, that's no surprise :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1089 on: 14/07/2014 00:59:06 »
Actually, assuming that the Higgs would define all types of mass. Then I also think I will have to assume that we have found 'the gold standard' for absolute motion? Which then probably should annihilate relativity? At least major parts of it.
=

Not sure on this one though :)
Will have to think it out.
« Last Edit: 14/07/2014 01:01:45 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1090 on: 14/07/2014 12:42:08 »
It's like everything else the Higgs. You have to wait a while and try to see what people mean after the hype has gone away. Luboš Motl has this to say about it "The Higgs boson is a particular particle – state in the Hilbert space – in a correct quantum mechanical theory describing Nature. I mean the Standard Model or its extensions. Any discussion of the Higgs boson would be totally impossible without quantum mechanics. All properties of the Higgs boson crucially depend on principles and special effects of quantum mechanics.

The Higgs boson is a particle associated with the Higgs field. To see the emergence of particles from fields, one has to discuss physics at the level of quantum mechanics; see the previous point. However, even in classical physics, one may add the Higgs field to the general theory of relativity, much like the electromagnetic fields. The Higgs field is a source of gravity and other things. But it's just "another added player"; the main field in the general theory of relativity is the metric tensor, i.e. the spacetime geometry, not the Higgs field." Then he goes on to discuss string theory http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31897/whats-next-after-higgs-boson-discovery

Another pretty good explanation to why a Higgs is expected http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-higgs/

But I think the most honest one is http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/higgs.html
=

So, if you now still feel suspicious to this idea, what more can you look at? Well, it presumes 'regimes', doesn't it? It goes out from temperatures. And a 'container' of it, that inflated. I do not doubt a inflation, or expansion as defined from a inside of a universe. But I've still to understand the rest of it.

how do you define a temperature to a photon universe?

how do you define its ability to create rest mass that doesn't revert into photons again, spontaneously. It's also called spontaneous pair production, and presumed to be able to happen now too, although reverting.

how could it be hot?

and what do you mean by it existing in some 'tight spot' initially?
=

I would call those questionable.


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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1091 on: 14/07/2014 12:44:48 »
It's not that we don't find regimes, and symmetry breaking, now. But what about those initial parameters?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1092 on: 14/07/2014 12:48:36 »
you can't work it out from using matter/radiation, and then back track. It's not a given that what we see now was the initial state, meaning that without rest mass I would expect you to need a different physics approach to explain it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1093 on: 14/07/2014 12:57:41 »
and what about this 'tight spot'. Doesn't fit the definition of a expanding universe to well, does it? assuming that it expands equivalently at all positions, gravity acting as 'buoys'. Looking at it from locality, all 'spots' you go out from, to then back track in time to some specified initial location, are as plausible. There is no 'initial tight spot' in the usual meaning that starts it. Because you can pick any position you like in this universe to backtrack from, and assuming you like the concept of a 'container universe' you should have a logical fallacy if you then want to define the time wise 'tight spot' to where ever you 'end up'. You have to think it out for yourself, to see what I mean, but it's worth the trouble I think.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1094 on: 14/07/2014 13:00:41 »
And that's the fallacy to me. This preconception of a container. It seems to pop up everywhere in the presumptions. You can build a very nice logic from it, if you never question your basics.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1095 on: 14/07/2014 13:05:03 »
You see, if you want a very high temperature, if you want a 'tight spot' in where it happens, then I think you want a container. But the container we define is a logic container, it's not a physical one, as having touchable, measurable, walls limiting it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1096 on: 14/07/2014 13:07:42 »
It's not a 'chamber' in where we have a explosion. That's a very Newtonian concept to me :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1097 on: 14/07/2014 13:13:48 »
Easier to see perhaps if you understand what I mean by that you can move anywhere in this universe, to the furthest edges of its visibility. and still find a exactly same view as you do from here, with stars existing all around you to the time wise and visible edge of the universe. There is no center.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1098 on: 14/07/2014 13:15:22 »
It's really 'infinite'. It has to be, if inflation and expansion is correct.
« Last Edit: 14/07/2014 13:22:53 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1099 on: 14/07/2014 13:17:15 »
Now, this is my view of it, and it builds from locality. You want another, I would say you also want a container universe, and with it, your tight spot. but that one is a logical fallacy.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."