How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205465 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 #1100 on: 14/07/2014 13:26:20 »
That makes the universe something different from the container idea. No defined chamber at all, from where it 'spreads out'. what we have that could be said to 'narrow down', is a time line. And that time line you must find where ever you go to look out at the universe. Fits my ideas perfectly actually :) Time is as 'real' as can be, it's a constant that you can confirm, no matter where you go. And equivalent to 'c'.
"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 #1101 on: 14/07/2014 13:27:22 »
Don't lose yourself in the mathematics, use your 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 #1102 on: 14/07/2014 13:31:41 »
And, it's always a local definition. and that is what a inflation is too, and a expansion, and a constant. But, equivalently shared everywhere. So, no center to any of it, or if you prefer, everywhere you are observing is the center, locally defined. Try to see it this way and a lot of things will take a different meaning.
"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 #1103 on: 14/07/2014 13:38:22 »
It all magnifies into a universe from locality. With you being the definer of that universe you describe. what makes it seamless is that it contain a logic, not a shared chamber.
"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 #1104 on: 15/07/2014 20:21:59 »
It's a weird place this universe. And it builds on logic, although not the straightforward linear variant, in where you can be certain of a definite answer. I suspect renormalization to be, in a way, a statistical approach to reality, you use experiences of how it is, to set limits for your mathematics and so getting answers that makes sense. Looked at that way a renormalization is some motto self-fulfilling, on the other hand it gives a tool that works with what one know.

That's the only presumption I think should be, btw, for any physics. That there is a logic to the universe, the rest of our presumptions are more questionable. And that also answers whether mathematics is the tool of the trade, sure, it is, but as with all tools you need to use the right one for the job.
"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 #1105 on: 15/07/2014 20:26:55 »
But it is also so that if this universe would be a 'linear mathematical box', containing no uncertainty, and no indeterminism, those thinking that free will can't exist most probably would be right. HUP is to me a invitation to that state before a outcome, or choice, has been made. Also a promise of your free will.
"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 #1106 on: 15/07/2014 20:33:12 »
That does not state that you can't imagine a mathematical 'space' consisting of all choices there ever to be, or has been. And being in that space you might want to argue that everything is 'known', and so a free will is a illusion. But that would then be from what I call an 'eye of a God', not from me standing inside this universe acting on will.

Every time you make a choice, you're defining this universe we find ourselves in a little further. Doesn't really matter if you imagine yourself to have countless copies of yourself, taking all possible choices. You're not them.
"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 #1107 on: 15/07/2014 20:40:10 »
But what makes the free will. Is not the outcome. It's that 'space' in between a action and a reaction, it's uncertainty and indeterminism, and somehow also disconnected from my usual thoughts of time. In a very strange way, ones free will connects to the very small. On the other hand or tentacle :) treat it all as a surface. Everything becoming a sheet, then nothing is further away from the very small than anything other. Just unfold 'dimensions' into a plane.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1108 on: 15/07/2014 20:45:55 »
It's really 'infinite'. It has to be, if inflation and expansion is correct.
I agree, and the way I see it is thus:

The Big Bang was a local event in an infinite bulk. And inflation and expansion are also only local events on the grandest of scales. Many other so-called Big Bangs are not only possible in this bulk but, IMHO, inevitable. But we shall never witness such events because light speed restricts this possibility.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #1109 on: 15/07/2014 20:47:21 »
Actually there's no need for treating it that way. No need of a sheet as I see it. There already is no position in this SpaceTime, further away from 'QM'., than any other. You just need to turn your head ever so slightly to realize it. Doesn't matter if that position is outside your body, or inside it.

But what it might be translated into should be a plane, sheet, surface.
Whatever you prefer to call 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 #1110 on: 15/07/2014 20:50:59 »
Possibly Ethos. Although there's a need to define what a Big Bang is though. In a way this Big Bang still is going on, unfolding as we write :)
=

Also, by using 'bulk' you seem to define a container of some sort? I don't think you need a preexisting container for it. My thoughts on that one is that whatever 'container' we measure ourselves to exist in, creates itself by communication, so to speak. Making geometry a result of a logic unfolding inside a arrow.
« Last Edit: 15/07/2014 21:00:51 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1111 on: 15/07/2014 20:56:18 »
Possibly Ethos. Although there's a need to define what a Big Bang is though. In a way this Big Bang still is going on, unfolding as we write :)
Truly yor_on,..........I've always wondered if a Black Hole had a limit to it's size and mass. Could we be seeing the explosion of a really huge supermassive Black Hole? A White Hole as it were, located in the infinite bulk that we interpret as our local universe. Just a thought...........
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #1112 on: 15/07/2014 21:03:03 »
Heh :)

You need to define what you mean by bulk Ethos.
Do you suspect it to preexist?
"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 #1113 on: 15/07/2014 21:08:52 »
There's nothing I can see stopping your idea of other 'universes acting out a same logic that this one, but there is neither anything, that I see now, that will connect them to us and our universe. The 'bulk' would then, from my point of view, represent this possibility, but not some defined dimension(s) in which it all take place.
"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 #1114 on: 15/07/2014 21:14:55 »
Looked at that way you can see a Black Hole several ways I think. the one making most sense for the moment, for me (maybe I'll change my mind later:) is the one discussing them as singularities. As some cosmic censorship. It's results of the logic this universe use, and although part of it, censured.
"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 #1115 on: 15/07/2014 21:46:16 »
By similar logic you might be able to argue that if communication is what define a geometry, then any 'many worlds' theory, that births new worlds to fit all possible outcomes, also must present a logic why, if now their physics are exact the same as their 'parents', they lose communication with us.

the way around it might just be defining dimensions as preexisting universes, although that one is severely convoluted to me. So maybe I need to retract the statement of several possible identical universes, for a same reason? That as soon as we have means of communication that are 'identical' as having a same physics, there should be communication possible, presuming dimensions are treated as 'constructions' created in a universes communication? Three of the dimensions 'distances' can be measured from any direction, the fourth that we call time has only one direction, which gives time a privileged place in my thinking.
"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 #1116 on: 15/07/2014 21:55:43 »
Because, as soon as I do away with 'containers' there is nothing more than the logic (physics, mathematics, chemistry etc), defining a communication. There, the 'space' created for a universe becomes its physical artifact, having no meaning from any thought up 'outside'. And furthermore I don't think there can exist a 'outside', using this logic. What's nice with it is that it leads us to communication, using laws, rules, properties and principles.
=

And I think you can treat time this way too. As a physical artifact, having no meaning 'outside'. But I also define it as a local constant, adding that I don't know of any global constants that isn't equally local.

You have two choices here. Either defining laws, rules, properties and principles from the whole, a container of sorts, or, defining it locally to then introduce several frames of reference, co-existing and communicating, presenting us our SpaceTime.

Both definitions will lead us to a definition in where it doesn't matter where you are, the physics you meet must be the same, but the one using locality is sharper to me, less of a theoretical point. Because if locality is right it can be no other way, as far as I see.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 00:07:43 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 #1117 on: 15/07/2014 22:01:31 »
Alternatively you might want a plane, or a point, and call it some sort of projective reality? Many worlds scenarios becomes somewhat of 'holograms inside holograms' to my thinking, also presuming no interference etc. Or fractals?
"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 #1118 on: 15/07/2014 22:06:06 »
You can think of it as a symmetry break too. Then dimensions should be a proof of us being in one.
"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 #1119 on: 15/07/2014 22:11:20 »
I think the last one is the simplest one actually. And whatever 'symmetry' should then be about HUP and indeterminacy to me. It's not that there isn't anything more, just that it isn't 'outside'. Using logic, rules, a local arrow, etc, the universe create its dimensions, and us, and sets its limitations for measuring. So the inside could then be described as being the outside too, :) in a slightly convoluted way.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1120 on: 16/07/2014 03:38:18 »
Heh :)

You need to define what you mean by bulk Ethos.
Do you suspect it to preexist?
Yes; I believe it to have an eternal past and an eternal future.

I can imagine this Bulk to be an infinity of nothingness wherein many, if not an infinity, of universes could exist. This is where true space exists, the empty void where a vast number of universes might reside.

I've made a point in other threads to suggest that I believe there is no space empty of field. But this remark is only applicable to the space within our own universe. It may or not be true within the Bulk.

I prefer to think that the Bulk is devoid of field, where no spatial fabric exists, only emptiness separating the many possible universes. But alas, this is only conjecture on my part without proper substantiation and will likely remain so for a very long time.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 03:53:22 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #1121 on: 16/07/2014 11:46:38 »
Never mind Ethos :)

Just make it into a mathematical space, equivalent to that mathematical space in where many worlds theory lives. That's a better type of bulk than any other I can come up with.
"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 #1122 on: 16/07/2014 11:50:03 »
although, if you do, you need to leave the arrow. That type of bulk isn't about a arrow. There will be no way to sort things as being before something else. It's more of a static reality in where everything that ever has been and ever will come to be 'co-exist'.

It's the same 'bulk', if so, that I think of when referring to HUP and indeterminacy.
"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 #1123 on: 16/07/2014 12:01:23 »
that's another problem with the many worlds theory actually. As far as I get it, it is about outcomes, ordered as a string of pearls, each 'pearl' then initiating its own mathematical space in where all outcomes, imaginary possible from that event, will initiate somewhere, with universes included. There are other ways to look at it, but they are all unsatisfactory to me. They don't have the logic I prefer.

As a static mathematic space though of its own, no arrow involved, I have no problems with it though. I think that way is simpler, and also, highly possible.

but when it comes to events creating a infinity of alternative events I find the logic lacking in simplicity and beauty. As well as it has to use a arrow. but the arrow isn't in that mathematical space at all.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 12:03:02 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 #1124 on: 16/07/2014 12:13:35 »
Why people like it, and why I too has a sweet spot for it. I think is a result of it promising some sort of 'eternal justice' and equilibrium. As we all then are in equilibrium, no one totally a victim and no one totally a perpetrator, as long as we accept those 'alternatives' as being part of ourselves.

But if you don't, and I don't, then it has no specific ethics of 'justice' involved. Although it still could be seen as some sort of equilibrium. But the equilibrium we refer to here, doesn't need this string of pearls to exist. It's already apparent in HUP and indeterminacy.
"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 #1125 on: 16/07/2014 12:26:05 »
Using a mathematical space, without involving arrows, makes it impossible to define a many worlds theory I suspect. They may exist, but if dimensions are a result of a SpaceTime, and with it this arrow, obeying a same physics, then why can't those 'universes' communicate?

Because to call them 'separated' involves limitations, and if it isn't non-equivalent physics, then? What have you left? Degrees of freedoms maybe, or 'dimensions', separating them.
"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 #1126 on: 16/07/2014 12:31:56 »
the important thing to remember before losing oneself into the mathematics, is that I presume dimensions to be coupled to a SpaceTimes existence, as described from its inside. And that is connected to a arrow. So you can't really invoke any eye of a God, to look at a infinite sea of 'alternative universes' constantly bifurcating under some eternal arrow.

The arrow is a result of a universe existing. That's also why it makes most sense discussing it as a symmetry break.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 12:34:13 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 #1127 on: 16/07/2014 13:21:10 »
And why I do it? A long story, but it started with observer dependencies. Either you believe them to be true, or you think of them as an man made and physical artifact. I tried to find a reason for them and this is what it lead me too. It's as real as anything you ever will know in this universe. Einstein seems overall to be a person QM find uncomfortable, but he really isn't. He's perfectly on the spot when it comes to how the universe works, the thing with him that first confused me was his preference for a 'container universe' in where time dilation and Lorentz contractions becomes a proof for times illusionary existence. But that I think, goes back to his trust in logic, and that there's should be a reason for things happening. In the end maybe also on a trust in something more than just us.

The only thing needed to make a better sense of Einstein from a quantum realm is to exchange the container idea to one where the container is the artifact, created from physics. The problem there is that it is not only Einstein that thinks of containers, of different kinds. You can find it, if you look hard enough, almost everywhere.
"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 #1128 on: 16/07/2014 13:38:20 »
You might summarize it into a question of time. Either time is a illusion, or it is a constant.

and as I adhere to the point of there being several way to describe this universe, yet expect one of them to make more sense, to me :) I use it as a constant, and that one is so simple. from that follows that a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation is a result of frames of reference interacting. And decoherence makes a lot of sense too, as it is about conglomerates, giving you that ideal constant of a arrow, locally defined as equivalent to the concept of 'c'.

And doing so there became more and more questions to my mind, about preconceptions that we don't even notice in ourselves. The final one, I think? Is the one about 'containers'. Lose the container and you will find new ways to define a universe. Although it might end in a 'container description', that container should be one of logic building from the very small.
"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 #1129 on: 16/07/2014 14:05:10 »
Actually it made me start to reread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

Neither Erik Verlinde, nor Gerard 't Hooft, are easy to fool I think. I still have a problem with holography, and objective dimensions existing, as the reason though.
"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 #1130 on: 16/07/2014 14:29:44 »
And naturally, determinism as the reason for a universe. I think that what allows the concept of free will is indeterminism. That 'space' in where everything co-exist is where we go to find that free will, ideally described. You might also consider it from the opposite, a totally logic, linear, deterministic system, in where only the outcome chosen ever could be? Does that fit you, and your actions? All assuming that we still can define probabilities. A perfect system like that shouldn't have probabilities btw. Because a probability assume that there are several opportunities equally existing, only differed by how we find nature to behave most of the time.

So a perfectly deterministic system should be one where probability won't exist at all, only one outcome possible.
"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 #1131 on: 16/07/2014 14:31:02 »
That should mean that QM cease to exist. As well as Einsteins observer dependencies. And your free will.
=

Maybe you could incorporate some type of determinism locally though? I see it as we have local constants after all, but when combining it into this seamless picture of a universe described by observer dependencies?

Then again, would a perfect determinism allow HUP?
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 14:40:09 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 #1132 on: 17/07/2014 01:37:38 »
There is one more point to it. Indeterminism does not state that 'this is what it is'. Determinism though, does. To me it seem to want what I call a 'container logic', a 'isolated system' that is 'controlled' in all aspects, unknowable for now but when known, taking us back to a 'Newtonian era' of full understanding.

Maybe the universe is like me :) not entirely sure on anything and so like to keep its possibilities open,. that's also what I mean when asking if you might be able to introduce some kind of determinism locally. As what I think we should meet, isolating a 'point', are just constants.

But we also find a indeterminism there, don't we?
As HUP?

It also depends on how you want to define HUP naturally. As a indeterministic principle in itself, or as a deterministic principle statistically seen? Or both?
« Last Edit: 17/07/2014 01:39:15 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 #1133 on: 17/07/2014 02:20:43 »
Entanglements are a perfect illustration to why I think we can't know it all. A deterministic model of a entanglement must rest on hidden variables, that steer the down converted photon into opposite spins. In such a model there should be no possibility of randomness. As well as I also see it as a support for our free will, as there is no known way to predict the spin beforehand, although there should be statistical rules for its proportionality, 'up' or 'down' when repeating experiments a sufficient amount of times.

That is not too far from that situation in where you find yourself 'of two minds', not sure of what you will choose, uncertain. So what you find to be macroscopically true isn't isolated to that, it exist everywhere.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2014 02:22:42 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 #1134 on: 17/07/2014 02:29:05 »
You might say that the universe make at least one choice. that choice isn't about this opposite spin we expect the unmeasured photon to have. It's about the spin you will see as you measure. Because even though the probability for 'up' or 'down' is 50% each way, once you've measured it it is set. And the choice of how that spin would turn out wasn't yours, unless you cheated. That the other photon then 'knows' the way it turned out is a added treat.
"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 #1135 on: 17/07/2014 02:35:14 »
And I don't think it matter for this how you want to 'isolate' your system. If you want to include the experimenter as well as the equipment, or how ever you want to set limits. It won't change the fact that there is no way to know that first measured spin, before you do it. So you can build out this 'isolated system' as far as you like, as far as I can see it won't change a thing here.
"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 #1136 on: 17/07/2014 02:40:16 »
Looking at it statistically we always 'know' the opposite spin, because as far as experiment goes this is what we see repeating itself, ideally now. Practically there are all kinds of complications involved in this kind of experiments. But we can also remark that this 50& probability of what the first spin will be measured as, is unknowable. but something 'decided' it, otherwise we wouldn't have a outcome.
"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 #1137 on: 17/07/2014 02:45:01 »
So you don't only, in a deterministic system, need hidden parameters for why there always seem to be opposite spins, you also need some hidden parameter for defining the first spin. If you don't set that, only set why the spins are opposite you end up with a incomplete deterministic system.
"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 #1138 on: 17/07/2014 03:03:36 »
To assume that hidden parameters would be a result of the whole of the universe communicating, 'everything' setting the state of 'everything', somehow, is a possibility naturally. But as a entanglement is presumed 'instant' you then need parameters that communicates faster than 'c'. Although iIf you to it add modern ideas, differing between communication that is useful/meaningful in some motto, from communication that you can't use for anything meaningful, then it might work?

That one can be seen two ways, as a conventional 'container model' of this universe. Or, possibly also working from some local definition. Maybe you will need both to prove it, if so.

And it doesn't change that I seem to presume ftl for it. A more preferable way (to me) would be to prove that is is a consequence of the way the universe exist. Not ftl as such, instead a question of what makes a universe, and 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 #1139 on: 17/07/2014 03:10:06 »
what does that state about our preconceptions? The idea that we can differ between meaningful and not meaningful information? Allowing the non meaningful to be faster than light in a vacuum? To me it says that we believe this universe to be logical, the things that makes a difference to us must make sense. And what about those things that doesn't make sense? As a entanglement?

Well, they are allowed, but they won't make a difference to us.
"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 #1140 on: 17/07/2014 03:11:57 »
We build it on logic, even when we do not see how it can 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 #1141 on: 17/07/2014 03:13:47 »
The same could be said for a singularity. They exist, but they are censored.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1142 on: 17/07/2014 05:42:16 »
This thread is a perfect example of why I stopped talking to you on this forum, yor_on. This thread is merely you talking to yourself, and nobody else cares about the subject. So that means its only an online diary for your thoughts on something that nobody else cares about.

*

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 #1143 on: 17/07/2014 12:05:15 »
:)

It's ok Pete. you have your ways, I have mine. It's a big universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1144 on: 17/07/2014 15:36:25 »
:)

It's ok Pete. you have your ways, I have mine. It's a big universe.
And btw, I for one am interested in the questions yor_on is asking. Without such questions, science would have never discovered any facts whatsoever. I am a man of questions myself and admire yor_on's search for the truth.

If one has no curiosity for what lies behind the closed door, chances are that door will remain closed until one with a greater curiosity arrives upon the scene.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2014 16:31:51 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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 #1145 on: 17/07/2014 20:01:30 »
It's like all other subjects of personal interest :) We all take our own thoughts seriously, well, sometimes at least. I don't know why the universe act as it does, but I do expect a logic. The alternative is a universe without, but as far as I've seen that's not what we have found, so far? And mathematics is the tool we use, describing the logic.

Apropos all and nothing..

Anyone read this one? http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

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

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #1146 on: 18/07/2014 00:58:23 »
Quote from: Ethos_
And btw, I for one am interested in the questions yor_on is asking.
You don't understand. I have no problems with questions. However yor_on makes threads difficult to read because he creates post after post after post never really asking a question nor waiting for an answer. What he's doing is philosophizing incoherently. For instance - what question did you see him post that you thought was intriguing or interesting?

Quote from: Ethos_
Without such questions, science would have never discovered any facts whatsoever. I am a man of questions myself and admire yor_on's search for the truth.
Again, I have no objections to questions. Why would you conclude such a thing? Didn't you read what I posted to him, i.e. This thread is merely you talking to yourself, and nobody else cares about the subject. What about that suggests in any way that I object to questions?

The worst part about it is that he has no concern for others in this respect. It's fine in this sub forum because that's the purpose of it. However in the forums for science it's inappropriate.

*

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 #1147 on: 18/07/2014 12:31:55 »
Pete, I think you should take your considerations to a moderator instead. And let them decide what should be deemed appropriate for TNS. I would prefer if you didn't use this thread for it, it easily becomes a flame war :) Discussing (and doing so in the exactly same thread, nota bene) whether such should be allowed to exist or not, although it would make a slightly comic sense to me, if we all would do so, in a same thread we want to dispose of. As for the rest of it I really hope the universe is big enough for both of us? :)

=

Anyway, what made me wonder wasn't about whether religions could be said to repress or not. Just the idea that we all should carry some innate need for it. When it comes to individuals, not organizations.
=

Spirituality may be the word for it?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2014 12:59:13 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 #1148 on: 18/07/2014 16:37:58 »
What you use to decide is probably logic. Which society, of those existing, do you want to bring your kids up in? Assuming you're poor naturally. the whole thing loses its meaning if we assume us all to be prosperous. That's the 'dream society' in my mind, the one where we all become millionaires. So if you want that society, I think you're bicycling in great beyond.
"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 #1149 on: 18/07/2014 16:40:40 »
And yes, it's a question of how you would like to define spirituality? As a form of logic, or not?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."