How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 206922 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Online 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 #100 on: 20/11/2013 16:49:03 »
So, what would I like to define as a single 'frame of reference'? Well, we need super imposing, and that is entirely possible using quantum logic. We need a limit, and that is Plank scale to me. So? What about a 'point particle' what about 'excitations in a field'?

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

*

Online 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 #101 on: 20/11/2013 16:55:00 »
Doesn't mean 'bits' though, means what it say, 'limit'. But that is from where our .. local .. principles and constants should come as I think. Defining it through 'scales'. Although you naturally are free to define this as the 'bits', creating a universe, you still have to explain from where the constants and principles come. Either you turn it into a cat biting its tail, making some circular logic, or you prefer a linear logic, as a beginning and a end. Or you might prefer quantum logic, in where it all exist, outside a arrow. The last one demands something existing, past Planck scale, as I read it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #102 on: 24/11/2013 16:49:07 »
What would gravity be from a purely local point of view? Similar to what a expansion might be seen as, locally described? Can I describe a expansion as a 'upwelling', of a added distance, constantly creating in all points? And then gravity as it exist for me, standing on matter, as a 'down welling'? Weird thought, isn't it :)

Gravity is related to matter, and 'energy', as well as accelerations/decelerations, being two sides of a same coin. Does a expansion automatically bring with it a added energy equilibrium? If now a 'vacuum' contain a energy. It must, if that is true. Otherwise the 'energy' of that 'universal container' should dilute, and what would that do to the conservation laws?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #103 on: 24/11/2013 16:55:44 »
You can have such a universe, in where a expansion express itself in all points, as long as we have a mechanism for keeping particles 'together'. Think of buoys in a pond, getting filled up with water and assume 'gravity' (as well as the microscopic 'forces') being the security net, updated at 'c'.

It's 'c' that's important here I think. The 'speed' of communication.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #104 on: 24/11/2013 18:26:02 »
Gravity is always pointing inwards. Plank scale is always as close to you, no matter from where you choose to scale it down. Take a sphere of matter, reduce it to plank scale, or at least as far as you can get. Not 'shrinking' it, just subtracting particles from it. Will it still have a gravity? And what way would that gravity point? Assume it existing in a 'flat space'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #105 on: 24/11/2013 19:36:03 »
"The gravitational constant (G), first estimated by Isaac Newton and also known as Newton's constant, describes the strength of the gravitational pull that bodies exert on each other. " Then we have "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface. The symbol for the first is G (big G), and the second g (little g)."

The first. G, is defined as a constant, although hard to pinpoint experimentally.

"The first experiment to measure Big G was conducted in 1798 by British scientist Henry Cavendish. He set up a clever device in which a dumbbell-like object with two lead balls on either end was suspended by a wire. Another dumbbell was placed so that its balls were near the two spheres. The gravitational attraction between the two sets of balls caused the dumbbell on the wire to twist. A mirror on the wire reflected some candlelight, creating a beam of light that allowed Cavendish to carefully monitor exactly how much the wire rotated. His experiment produced a value for G of 6.74 × 10−11 m3⁄kg s2.

Since then there have been dozens of experiments to measure G, producing a modern estimate of 6.67384 × 10−11 m3⁄kg s2 – not far from the 200-plus-year-old experiment’s results.

“These days, we use a laser light that gets measured by an LED, but it’s not really so different from what Cavendish did,” said physicist Harold Parks of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, co-author of the paper with the new Big G value that appears Sept. 5 in Physical Review Letters.

The team, led by Terry Quinn, the former director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France, used an updated version of Cavendish’s setup for one experiment. But they conducted an additional experiment, using a servo to counteract the twisting of the wire and figuring out the gravitational constant based on the voltage required to keep their apparatus from moving. Taken together, their tests yielded a new G value of 6.67545 × 10−11 m3⁄kg s2, which is higher than the current accepted value by about 240 parts per million. It may not seem like a big deal, but a constant should be constant and physicists would like to know that they have it finally figured out.

The main problem here is that gravity is an extremely weak force, more than 40 orders of magnitude weaker than that other familiar daily force, electromagnetism. When you reach over and pick up a pen from your desk, the electrostatic forces in your hand (which allow you to hold solid objects) are able to quite easily overcome the gravitational force of the entire Earth on that pen." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/
« Last Edit: 24/11/2013 19:38:35 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #106 on: 24/11/2013 19:43:51 »
'c' is a local constant that you can split all the way to Planck scale. One Planck length, being the smallest meaningful distance light are presumed to propagate, in one Planck time. You can do the same with a local arrow, assuming it equivalent to 'c'. So what about gravity?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #107 on: 24/11/2013 20:28:34 »
A mix of quotations.

"According to modern physics field theories, each of the four basic interactions (a better term than 'force') is mediated by a type of particle:

The strong (nuclear) interaction is carried by gluons. (This is the interaction that holds together the particles in the nuclei of atoms.)  An attractive short range 'force' between particles like protons and neutrons

The electromagnetic interaction is carried by photons. (This is the interaction responsible for all electrical and magnetic phenomena.)  An attractive or repulsive long range 'force' between two objects with charge

The weak (nuclear) interaction is carried by weak bosons. (This is the interaction that governs certain radioactive decays, such as beta decay.) A short range 'force'.

The gravitational interaction is carried by gravitons. (This, of course, is the interaction that gives rise to the familiar pull of gravity.) An attractive long range 'force' between objects with mass. "

Photons have an energy, and so a equivalence to mass. They are point particles though, bosons, not taking up place. There is nothing I know forbidding you to superimpose all photons existing, at any given instant. So it is rather meaningless, as it seems to me, using those as some smallest definers of that constant? As long as we use (Planck) scaling that is, passing that it may become meaningful in some other way. Try this one http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/ for some thoughts on mass and energy.
« Last Edit: 24/11/2013 20:31:06 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #108 on: 24/11/2013 21:00:10 »
So what are 'point particles', having no measurable size, as far as science know today? Some quotes on it, and one link :)

"A point particle, also known as a point mass, is an idealized object which has mass but no extent in space. An object which does have extent in space can be considered to consist of an infinite set of point masses. If the object neither rotates nor deforms, every point mass making up the object undergoes the same motion (or lack of motion) that every other point undergoes. Hence, laws of motion that apply to a point mass can be applied to an object that neither rotates nor deforms. In the case of objects that do rotate and deform, laws of motion that apply to a point mass can be used to characterize the motion of the center of mass of the object."

"The quarks, leptons and bosons of the Standard Model are point-like particles. Every other subatomic particle you’ve heard of is an extended particle. The most familiar are the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom, but there are many others—pions, kaons, Lambda particles, omegas and lots more. The defining feature of these kinds of particles is that they have a reasonably measurable size (which happens to be about the size of a proton)."

"A lepton is an elementary, spin-1⁄2 particle that does not undergo strong interactions, but is subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. The best known of all leptons is the electron, which governs nearly all of chemistry as it is found in atoms and is directly tied to all chemical properties.

Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons (also known as the electron-like leptons), and neutral leptons (better known as neutrinos). Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed.

There are six types of leptons, known as flavours, forming three generations. The first generation is the electronic leptons, comprising the electron (e−) and electron neutrino (νe); the second is the muonic leptons, comprising the muon (μ−) and muon neutrino (νμ); and the third is the tauonic leptons, comprising the tau (τ−) and the tau neutrino (ντ).

Electrons have the least mass of all the charged leptons. The heavier muons and taus will rapidly change into electrons through a process of particle decay: the transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state. Thus electrons are stable and the most common charged lepton in the universe, whereas muons and taus can only be produced in high energy collisions (such as those involving cosmic rays and those carried out in particle accelerators)."

The 'point' with 'point particles' is that they can be seen as having a field, interacting with the energy of the vacuum, aka 'virtual particles'.

"Let’s start with the easiest point-like particle we know, the electron. Assume it has zero size. Although we know that the quantum realm differs from the familiar world, in which things are measured in inches and feet, we can still get a reasonable mental image of what happens as we imagine looking at an electron with a perfect microscope. To begin with, since it has zero size, you can never actually see the electron itself.

However, you notice the electron does have an electric charge, and that sets up an electric field around it. That’s the first crucial point. The second crucial point is an idea called the quantum foam, which refers to the fact that empty space isn’t actually empty. Matter and antimatter particles appear and disappear with utter abandon, willfully flouting what seems like a principle of common sense. Empty space is actually pretty complicated.

Now if you combine those two ideas—that there is an electric field and that space consists of a writhing, bubbling mix of particles—then you can imagine what a point particle is like. At a large distance from the particle, its electric field is weak and doesn’t much affect the quantum foam. However, as you get closer to the point particle, the field becomes stronger. The stronger field affects the ephemeral virtual particles to a greater and greater degree, eventually lining up other particles with its point particle. (For example, the field of a positively charged point-like particle will push away other positive particles and hold negative particles close.)

Thus if you collide two point-like particles, while the two particles might never actually collide, the cloud of particles surrounding them will likely interact. The point-like particle is the mathematical abstraction at the center of the particle, but the extended field in essence makes even a point particle not so point-like." https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #109 on: 24/11/2013 21:05:42 »
No size right, but still of defined although fuzzy positions, and furthermore the orbital of a electron in a atom, is not fuzzy, as I gather.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #110 on: 24/11/2013 21:08:46 »
Would you say that a atom needs its electrons?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #111 on: 06/12/2013 10:00:01 »
A field :)

Assume light to be non propagating. Then assume that what we measure as lights speed in a vacuum is excitations defined by relations, creating a pattern 'propagating'. You can also split it into two parts as I think, one 'static' and that is a field, then a arrow that creates change. Also you need to assume that 'location is all', meaning that observer dependencies is a matter measuring over frames of reference, with the constants we find to exist, existing locally purely. And that fits the way gravity behaves too as I think, as if gravity was a 'down welling' in each point, somewhat like gravity has a direction, slope on slope inwards, towards some 'center'. But what about matter? What about about me, moving my hand? Or my nails growing? How would such a universe 'remember' the way we transform? and how would it consistently keep us 'together'

Two parts. A static 'field' with a observer dependent arrow. And then matter, the universe, and 'motion'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #112 on: 06/12/2013 10:17:24 »
Because I define a 'clock' equivalent to 'c', they both become 'constants'. And as all 'constants' are locally defined I would expect that what really is non illusionary is just those '(locally definable) points'. They are what's not 'observer dependent'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #113 on: 10/12/2013 13:06:19 »
How about this then?

Think of the universe as a plane, then gravity as something coming to existence (as locally defined) interacting with that plane, acting perpendicular to it?

If I would adopt that view, then 'gravity' is existent even when not measurable, but as a 'property' of a SpaceTime, which indeed would make some sense to me :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #114 on: 10/12/2013 13:25:35 »
Although, if you as me want to define it from points, a plane would just be a conceptual description. That as this 'plane' you might measure on, must be observer dependent, so creating that same confusion as the idea of a 'container universe' of four dimensions. To make it fit my weird thoughts :) You need to define it purely locally, to get to what a constant, principles and a 'non observer dependent' reality must be, well, as it seems to me now at least?
=

That would mean a universe's 'properties', naturally.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2013 13:32:04 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #115 on: 10/12/2013 14:11:04 »
And if you don't use a plane, then this 'perpendicular' definition becomes wrong, although still usable as an idea of something existing as defined over frames of reference, also assuming a universe to be a projection, although 'real enough' for us measuring 'inside' it.  With a point particle, assuming it to exist and to interact with 'gravity', the direction becomes toward some 'center', does it not? If assuming three 'dimensions' and a arrow for it to exist in. Then again, the 'point particle' itself might very well be a dimension less quality/property of a SpaceTime, in which case we might want to keep the idea of a 'perpendicular' direction?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #116 on: 10/12/2013 14:19:47 »
Because, assuming a point particle to have a dimension less quality/property, also defining a universe's properties from strict local definitions, it doesn't make a lot of sense defining it to have three dimensions, does it? The only way you can justify that sort of definition is when you place the point particle inside a three-dimensional universe (and a arrow, to measure in it).

What we then might get to is something where a 'direction' comes from interactions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #117 on: 10/12/2013 14:21:20 »
And where interactions defines 'dimensions, distances and time'.

Your local ruler and clock.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #118 on: 10/12/2013 14:24:12 »
That as when you measure on a universe, you do so over frames of reference. But locally, always locally.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #119 on: 10/12/2013 14:26:12 »
So your arrow would be a 'constant', as 'c', and your local 'ruler' should then also be a constant, as it seems to me, all from a strictly local definition.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #120 on: 10/12/2013 14:32:05 »
In fact, that is the way it must be, to get to a repeatable experiment. We need some properties (laws) to be the same, no matter where we measure from. And those 'properties' allowing us to find those laws, must then to a high degree be considered 'equivalent'. Otherwise we can't have a universe as we define it today.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #121 on: 10/12/2013 14:34:23 »
From a 'global' point of view I can describe a multi verse, as it is observer dependent. From a 'local' point of view, we share the exact same constants, principles, properties, etc etc.
=

That should be read as a your 'multi verse' existing, as defined by your measurements, when compared to some other observers measurements, ignoring Lorentz transformations. You can't introduce a Lorentz transformation without moving the universe from measurements, into conceptual 'space'. Realistically, your measurements define your environment, and what will happen, to you that is :) then we also have the possibility of fitting your measurement to mine versus a Lorentz transformation.

The last is what defines our universe's causality. If there was no causality, a Lorentz transformation should not exist.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2013 14:42:20 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #122 on: 10/12/2013 14:46:48 »
Causality is unavoidable, I think? As long as we have the same local properties definable in all 'points/observers'. Or can you construct a universe in where we all locally share the same principles, 'constants/properties', equivalently. To then come to a (global description of a) universe without a causality of some kind existing?
« Last Edit: 10/12/2013 14:48:19 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #123 on: 14/12/2013 17:46:09 »
I'm not especially excited over the idea that 'all time' co-exists. You can theorize that it does, Using those locally defined 'time slices' and then imagine that you 'instantly' could see the whole SpaceTime loaf, depending on motion, direction and mass (energy). It's just not true, causality won't allow it. It seems as some really smart people have allowed themselves to be seduced by its novelty. It's like the idea of the moon only existing, as you observe it, Einstein doubted that one with very good reason, the moon will be there.

And I don't need entropy for defining this. I just need a locally measured 'c', and assuming a equivalent 'clock'.

'c' is not relative. It's only relative when you think in terms of a 'container universe'. Locally measured you can prove that your local time never change, locally you can join any frame of reference, finding its 'time' to be yours too, and no experiment you can imagine locally will prove this wrong.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #124 on: 14/12/2013 17:53:29 »
That doesn't state that there isn't a possibility of something containing a whole SpaceTime. Scaling SpaceTime down to Planck scale, gravity disappear. Isn't that a accepted fact? And so does 'c', and if I'm right so should a local arrow. But you measuring will have a clock ticking beside you, so in your measurement a arrow must be involved. It's very hard to imagine a way to test 'singular frames of reference' in themselves. We always test locally, over frames of reference.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #125 on: 14/12/2013 18:02:07 »
What I mean is that there is a difference between stating that 'all time must coexist' as you can get to different 'time slices' theoretically, and what a SpaceTime really is. Ours must be regulated by 'c', that's the speed of communication, everywhere we measure, to make sense to me. That communication defines your reality. But it's not impossible to consider the 'common universe' a illusion, if you find a way to stop 'c' locally measured. But then you will meet another place, using another way of 'communicating' as neither causality, nor 'c' as a mean of communication, should exist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #126 on: 14/12/2013 18:34:42 »
You can get to a universe imagining it having no dimensions at all. You can also find something not using a propagation, instead finding a rhythm, defined by 'c'. What's real would then be constants, equivalently so in each frame of reference, aka 'point'. The rhythm is defined by 'c', and those constants, giving us causality. Defining it locally also mean that whatever dimensions and degrees of freedom we measure are 'local constructs' defining your relation to a universe. That doesn't make dimensions non existing, or degrees of freedom. It's just another way of defining it. In this universe observations define degrees of freedom, and dimensions. In it we have 'c', but we don't have a explanation of why we can communicate between frames of reference, although we know how. 'c'.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2013 18:36:14 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #127 on: 15/12/2013 00:25:29 »
So what do this mystical revelation mean :)
Nothing special.

Just that I think scales are more important than what I see normally.  And as I've always have said, it's not so much about proving a 'new theory' as it is about applying a different point of view. Using that view some things that I wonder about becomes simpler, others doesn't. The clock and 'c' is true, prove it wrong and I will be pleased. That will give me something new to think about.
=

as usual, my spelling sux...
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 02:15:20 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #128 on: 15/12/2013 00:29:14 »
And yes, it's indeed taking Einstein seriously, more seriously than what we normally do. We like to split relativity from the very small. I don't, I just use a local description, that keeps it as simple as I can get it. My universe needs to make sense, and I'm prepared to ignore most archetypes for getting there.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #129 on: 15/12/2013 10:37:59 »
When I think of the very small I do it in terms of frames of reference. Assume that a clock stops there, assume that 'gravity' disappear, assume that 'c' is gone, as some definition/limit of communication. How will you differ one point from another in a positional system? To me they become inseparable, doesn't make sense to say that this point belong to there, and this to there. They are one and the same.
=

That gives one a question, can you presume a geometry? Or is geometry a result of matter, relativity and 'forces'? We're in a fishbowl, with limits.
==

And that bring us back to how we do a measurement. We can't do it purely locally, measuring 'inside' one frame of reference. We can loosely define me as being at rest with earth and so you can argue that I can do a measurement inside one frame of reference, but gravitationally that can't be true, and ones position must also have a impact on the measurement, comparing it with another observers 'identical' experiment, also 'at rest' with earth.

To me it's the difference between a macroscopic and microscopic definition, and also why I think it should be possible to define one singular frame of reference to Planck scale. Maybe there is a geometry existing microscopically too, but all points in that 'frame of reference' should be microscopically identical as I think. I don't know if it would matter, if there is, or not, actually.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 10:51:54 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #130 on: 15/12/2013 10:56:34 »
There is a tentative idea I have of it though. And that one uses something similar to the idea of decoherence. I assume that a geometry is a result of interactions, 'c' defining its communication. We have the idea of 'symmetry breaks'. Assuming that a geometry is a result of limits imposed on a regime, defining it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #131 on: 15/12/2013 10:59:29 »
That will give you one  equivalently same point, or no point at all :) as you need a positional system to define a 'point', microscopically, becoming many points for us inside, allowing us coordinate systems.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #132 on: 15/12/2013 11:04:09 »
In that way everything we measure is a illusion, theoretically :)
But to me it's not, and neither can it be to any other observer existing inside it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #133 on: 15/12/2013 11:07:44 »
And then a Big Bang must be what defined that 'first' symmetry break, presenting us a arrow. But it should also mean that when scaling down, we look at what always is there, the regime we come to be from. It's not 'gone', it 'coexist' with us.
==

We speak of distances, don't we?
Well, the distance to that origin is the same from all positional points, 'coordinate systems', you can think of. The exact same distance, into a 'center' if you like, from any position chosen.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 11:11:15 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #134 on: 15/12/2013 11:21:14 »
A 'symmetry break' is such a perfect description of it. Whoever first thought that word up found a real beauty :)

It's simply a break in a symmetry, SpaceTime.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #135 on: 15/12/2013 11:32:39 »
So what is entropy?
It belongs to a arrow.

And what is consciousness?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #136 on: 15/12/2013 11:38:03 »
We think we 'invent' a quantum computer, don't we :) Well, if we're a symmetry break, why not say that this 'invented' us, consciousness, entropy, and all, like some white mouse ::)) Douglas Adam had it right.
=

Applying frames of reference on such a reasoning, I must state that it, from its own frame of reference, the origin of our symmetry break better should be considered to 'invent', as there is no arrow to define for me there. It never started, and it never finished it either. All such definitions belong to us, inside a arrow of time, our 'fish bowl'.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 11:44:58 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #137 on: 16/12/2013 12:13:30 »
Let us assume that Planck constants aren't constants at all, instead being some agreed on definition relative some ill defined earlier definitions. Would that destroy the equivalent way I treat 'c' and a arrow? I don't think so, what my reasoning rests on is the assumption that at some point it will become meaningless to define a 'propagation' of light. I'm discussing where physics breaks down actually. That's also where I will place a singular 'frame of reference'. A frame will become apparent when it gets a definition through interaction, and so will a arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #138 on: 16/12/2013 12:18:00 »
You can free this definition from the one where we define 'c' as defined constant speed too. Although that would give us a very flexible definition of where such a 'break down' of physics take place, as it still is observer dependent, it would still point to locality being what defines it. And locality from my point of view isn't solely about interactions, locality can also be seen as one singular frame of reference, equivalent to all other frames, consisting of the exact same properties, principles etc.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #139 on: 16/12/2013 12:24:02 »
Easiest to understand is to think of a arrow, locally defined. You're 'constantly uniformly accelerating', being at rest, with Earth. Does you clock still work? You go into a rocket to be shot at a relativistic speed into the universe, will your local clock stop?

Nope.

Doesn't matter if we define it as uniform motion or accelerating decelerating. That wrist watch must exist, or you will have to define a entanglement of sorts instead, somehow? :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #140 on: 16/12/2013 12:29:44 »
And those discussions about what arrow is becomes ill defined to me, considering what people discuss. A arrow is to me your wrist watch, equivalent to 'c'. I do not need to define that 'speed', and argue what is should be. It's a relation, and a equivalence, the same no matter what 'speed' you would like to define from some comparison. Can you see what I am talking about?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #141 on: 16/12/2013 12:36:39 »
Using such a definition everything becomes a equilibrium. There are parameters that change your 'universe', comparing your local clock to other frames of reference, but you are still in a equilibrium with the cosmos around you. Motion, energy and mass. And as it is a local approach to reality, presuming equivalence between all 'singular frames of reference' a Lorentz contraction can be understood as yet another relation changing due to those parameters. What defines your universe are local constants.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #142 on: 16/12/2013 12:39:11 »
And the universe you think of as a 'commonly same container' of us all will cease to exist. What's commonly same in this universe are constants, principles, properties, that we ultimately can refer to as existing locally defined in all points.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #143 on: 16/12/2013 12:48:36 »
But I will use 'c', and I will define 'c' as a constant through all types of motion, the same way I challenge you to show me how your clock experimentally can be proven to change its 'speed/ticks' locally measured.

You can't.

Only comparisons will infer such a notion. And that comparison builds on you, using your local clock :) Can you see what that implies? That you have no defined notion of a arrow what so ever, using that type of argument. If you apply your local definition on some other frame of reference. Then others can do the same with you, and hey, they won't agree on your 'time keeping', will they? So, what is a 'time keeping'?

Either it is non existent, in which case there are no 'repeatable experiments', or, it is locally defined, equivalent.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #144 on: 16/12/2013 12:55:57 »
There is a causality to cosmos. We define that causality through 'c'. That's what gives you the opportunity to do a Lorentz transformation, transforming my notion of a SpaceTime to yours.

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

*

Online 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 #145 on: 16/12/2013 13:02:39 »
It's a ultimate game. You build it from 'nodes'. You give them common principles, constants, properties. You define limits of communication as 'c'. You, and here's what I don't know how to understand, have to find a way for the nodes to interact. That/those interaction(s) will then define dimensions, and 'degrees of freedom'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #146 on: 16/12/2013 13:05:54 »
Entropy can also be seen as a mean of 'communication' I think. Transformations leading to some minimalistically equivalent state in all points, called 'heat'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #147 on: 16/12/2013 13:12:00 »
But tell me one thing, can 'heat' exist in one singular frame of reference?

Can it?

I don't think so myself, 'heat' and 'temperatures' are interactions. Although, one could assume that there should be properties defining that interaction, existing in all frames of reference.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #148 on: 16/12/2013 13:20:49 »
And all that clever reasoning building on a presumed container model of a universe stops making sense. No use defining a loaf of bread, with 'time slices', 'proving' that all time is co existent.  Using my definition we come down to two things, a locally equivalent arrow to 'c', also equivalent for all points or 'nodes'. And then something where a arrow stops making sense, that's what 'co exist' to me, and you can use scales to see it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online 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 #149 on: 16/12/2013 15:17:33 »
There is another alternative way to think of it, possibly? The 'commonly same container' we see is defined by Time dilations and Lorentz contractions. Apply the eye of a God on this, a thought up 'outside', and then define what allows communication, not meaning 'c' now, just a 'fabric' of sorts. What keeps it 'together'?

a very weird 'fabric' it must be. But we need something, allowing for lights propagation in a vacuum, communicating over frames of reference. That to us defines the 'dimensions' we find us to exist in.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."