How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205582 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 #1250 on: 18/10/2014 09:50:32 »
Because we now (presumably:) agree on that the universe isn't made out of a 'container'. If it was you then could define a absolute frame to it, with that frame also being able to define it all as one  'field', expressing itself differently depending on 'density'. But it would also invalidate relativity, as well as giving us yet another question to answer, what would then be the 'outside'?
"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 #1251 on: 18/10/2014 10:00:48 »
Would you want to state that a vacuum can't exist without a 'energy'? Think of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is that one related to a vacuum on its own, or is it, as 'temperature', related to restmass versus a vacuum? If you think of it the last way, what then about the Casimir effect? Is it about a vacuum, or about a combination of a vacuum and rest mass? How would you go about proving a 'energy' to the vacuum, not using rest mass?
"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 #1252 on: 18/10/2014 10:02:38 »
The real point is simple. Do you think there can be a vacuum, without 'intrinsic energy'?
"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 #1253 on: 18/10/2014 10:11:03 »
From relativity, presuming Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction as complementary expressions to the time dilations we observe, whatever distance you locally will measure always is relative 'motion', mass and energy. and the same goes for all other observers existing. Can you split a vacuum into pieces? How?

And if that vacuums 'distance' always is a local relation to your measurement?
What would that 'unified field' we assume look like?

Is there a global description of it, or will there only be local?
"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 #1254 on: 18/10/2014 10:13:54 »
Because if you only have local definitions of it, then there is no global, more than causality, which we hopefully agreed on using a locally measurable limit set to 'c', which also contain the clock defining your arrow of time.
"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 #1255 on: 18/10/2014 10:15:22 »
So locally you're always moving in one direction, time wise. Called aging :)
"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 #1256 on: 18/10/2014 10:17:39 »
Locally there are two things that I see, accelerations and a arrow, that defines it.
Can you accelerate a vacuum? Or age 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 #1257 on: 18/10/2014 10:26:29 »
From causality's point of view this universe is whatever can be causally connected through your measurements. If we take a hypothetical case where we have two observers of some third, in where one observe something happening which still haven't happened according to the other observer, do you think there could be a way for the one seeing it communicating this to the observer still not able to observe it.

What would that do to causality? Shouldn't be possible, should it?
So, causality and 'c' defining this 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 #1258 on: 18/10/2014 10:52:05 »
Then again, if it was possible, what would it mean? Would you see it as a proof of a 'container universe', or would you then have to redefine 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 #1259 on: 18/10/2014 16:22:31 »
Accelerations are indeed weird. Assume 'locality', then treat it as a 'local field', then define what a accelerations is intrinsically. You think you can? I'll give you a Nobel prize if you find a way to do it from locality.
"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 #1260 on: 18/10/2014 16:34:39 »
There are combinations existing to a locally defined reality. One is connections, defining a 'commonly existing seamless universe' that we expect ourselves to exist in. The other is the few definitions not resting on frames of reference, of which accelerations is one. I use 'c' but 'c' is, strictly defined, something defined over those frames of reference. The other ting I expect I can define is that arrow, but that one is also a result from '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 #1261 on: 18/10/2014 16:36:34 »
So? do accelerations exist in 'one frame of reference' or not? If they don't, then everything I define is a result of frames of reference, and 'locality' as such is the focus from where you define 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 #1262 on: 18/10/2014 16:38:19 »
that doesn't make 'locality' non existent. But I lose any simple anchor to define it from. What is that clock?
"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 #1263 on: 18/10/2014 16:43:09 »
I will now give a proof of sorts for 'c'.

imagine that you shrink that two way communication (two way mirror) defining 'c'.
Do you expect it to differ as you shrink your experiment?
"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 #1264 on: 18/10/2014 16:44:33 »
Now use this type of defining, on accelerations.
Does it disappear?
"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 #1265 on: 18/10/2014 16:48:28 »
Gravity should disappear though, will a acceleration?
"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 #1266 on: 18/10/2014 16:50:01 »
Hopefully, it's not too boring, but one never knows :)
"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 #1267 on: 18/10/2014 17:24:41 »
So what differ gravity from a acceleration here?

Well, when you define gravity as disappearing 'magnifying' some area, you use an idea of what is measurable locally. And there, assuming you magnify a geodesic enough, the locally bent area won't be noticed, as you don't notice that earth is a sphere, walking. Will that be the same for accelerations?
"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 #1268 on: 18/10/2014 17:49:32 »
What type of gravitational field are acting on you in a uniformly, constantly accelerating rocket, at one gravity? Is it local or do you expect it to exist outside the frame of reference joining you with the rocket? It's local, don't you agree? The far away observer, or 'near', will not notice it as 'gravity'. Use this on the gravity acting on you here. Is it so that the near observer won't notice it?

Here you get two choices, either you choose the equivalence principle, that one is strictly local. Or you argue from a container model in where the gravity found locally in that rocket differ from what you would expect the 'near' observer to define (Earth).
"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 #1269 on: 18/10/2014 17:51:09 »
so which one is right? Well, what do you think of repeatable experiments? And constants?
"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 #1270 on: 18/10/2014 18:31:42 »
And yes, I think you can define a vacuum without a 'intrinsic energy' as just a 'distance', locally measured.
"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 #1271 on: 18/10/2014 18:32:43 »
I would prefer not to use that one though, but I still think it must 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 #1272 on: 18/10/2014 18:33:45 »
It's the 'property' 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 #1273 on: 18/10/2014 18:35:01 »
The opposite proposition is that a vacuum doesn't exist.
It's a 'field'.
"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 #1274 on: 18/10/2014 18:39:30 »
That would then reduce this world to one thing, no opposites, no ideas of yin and yang, and what symmetries should be from such a proposition I don't know? What is a symmetry? What is a opposite? You will have to rewrite history for 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 #1275 on: 18/10/2014 18:43:03 »
To do this, keeping symmetries and opposites in this universe, you need another way to look at light 'propagating'. Somewhat alike a field, but not as in a 'container model', but as a field lighted up from locality, and that one sound phreakingly mysterious :)
"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 #1276 on: 18/10/2014 18:45:27 »
You look out, and you see. Every observer does that. If we now define a observer as something able to interact, then the interaction consist of observing.
"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 #1277 on: 18/10/2014 18:47:36 »
It's action and reaction, in Newtonian terms, and also what normally is described as 'locality'. That something reacts, and the reaction spreads out, interacting with other observers.
"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 #1278 on: 18/10/2014 18:49:22 »
In my universe this must be what create dimensions. Give us our boundaries. but it has local properties.
"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 #1279 on: 18/10/2014 18:50:19 »
And those properties are also what I think of as the 'discreteness' we want to find.
"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 #1280 on: 18/10/2014 18:51:08 »
and 'constants'
"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 #1281 on: 18/10/2014 19:01:32 »
So, defining it this way there is no thing as 'infinite'. From where would you be able to define something as 'infinite' in such a universe? Upheld through locality, and causality? You would need that 'absolute frame' that won't exist in it. This universe will fit your nail, or it is several times bigger than it is, or it... To me it's created dynamically through 'c', which is your arrow, locally defined. Causality will keep it definable for us. But all of those rules are local properties.
"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 #1282 on: 18/10/2014 19:07:28 »
It is 'infinite' in that you won't be able to define a boundary though. But the real point here is that 'infinity' is our idea, and we use it to differ from something 'finite'. We grew up in a world where we easily could define between what was finite and what was not, at least we could do the former if not the last.  It's a symmetry too :) and I do believe in symmetries. But they don't always come out as one expect.
"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 #1283 on: 18/10/2014 19:14:12 »
I would like light to be one way. 'c'.
We need sources and sinks, that's causality. But there are different ways to reach it. If a propagating photon also can be described as a local disturbance in a 'field' then those two ideas are not logically incompatible. You can keep that field, and you can also call it a propagation, even if there is nothing propagating more than a local arrow.
"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 #1284 on: 18/10/2014 19:16:56 »
'c' becoming like a wave on a 'surface', the field becoming what it is immersed in. and there are still several ways to define that 'propagation'. Because what it is, broken down to its constituents, are displacements under a arrow.
"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 #1285 on: 18/10/2014 19:17:44 »
Can you see that arrow? Always local, and a property.
"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 #1286 on: 18/10/2014 19:21:33 »
Doesn't matter, I think? How one would like to define that arrow. As a result from frames of reference interacting, or as a 'local constant'. I prefer the last one myself. the reason is simple, A arrow as a local property starts itself. How would interactions start a arrow, without a arrow already present for those interactions, starting 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 #1287 on: 18/10/2014 19:22:45 »
But I define it as a property, not as something 'touchable', but so we define all constants.
"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 #1288 on: 18/10/2014 19:34:41 »
Because whatever 'points' we want to define as discrete need those properties. I doubt they need to be 'material' in some way. But they still need to be definable, just as we can define light as a particle, and a wave.
"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 #1289 on: 18/10/2014 19:42:34 »
But, defining a arrow my way it's no longer 'moving', it's a local property. what makes it 'move' is interaction between frames of reference. Or you might want to think of it as having its own 'local dimension' in where it takes you with it, to your death. But it's no longer 'c' 'propagating', at least not solely 'c' 'propagating. Because 'c' and this arrow is equivalent to me. It's a clock, and measuring it interacting with other frames of reference, it will tick differently, locally it always have a same beat though.
=

Locality has one beat, not several. Superimpose light, join within a same frame of reference, one beat. Will be consistent for all positions in time and space. and it works as a definition, if you define it locally.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 20:10:18 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 #1290 on: 18/10/2014 20:16:33 »
Otherwise you would be forced to define light as a variable, with its equivalent clock, still observer defined when comparing between frames of reference though. And that one is a real headache. Because you would now on one hand presume absolute frames to exist, on the other still keep observer dependencies as we know that 'motion' change a clock, as does mass. It's not logically consistent to me.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 20:18:41 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 #1291 on: 18/10/2014 20:54:46 »
You need it be placed between frames of reference defining it my way, time dilation and Lorentz contractions. The problem is how to define that. Either you use motion and mass as local variables imposing on the local beat, or you need a new way to define what is a relation, if you as me want all local beats to be equivalent. I don't know how to define that one more than as a SpaceTime distortion of some sort, presenting us with a twin experiment giving different biological aging. Possibly I can keep a equivalent local beat the first way, using SpaceTime geometry to define light finding different paths locally with motion and mass. But I have a feeling :) that it's weirder than that, or maybe it isn't?

Because you could use light that way, if you define it as a clock, also involve different  geometries, depending on mass, relative motion, accelerations, locally as well as observer dependent. As if we then would be as 'bubbles' in that glass. That would keep the clock as a constant equivalent to 'c'. But I'm not happy with 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 #1292 on: 18/10/2014 20:56:23 »
And you can still define dimensions as coming to be through local properties connecting. Maybe tomorrow I will know what I want there :)
"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 #1293 on: 18/10/2014 21:00:26 »
Maybe it's me still stuck on this old idea of a universe? A container model as I call it. Locally defined the universe would consist of motion and mass, imposing on your local beat, as well as the distance you define between points.
"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 #1294 on: 18/10/2014 21:03:32 »
But it would be geometry then, and geometry need dimensions, or it will be relations between points that then define dimensions. the first would be close to a container model, the last one avoids 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 #1295 on: 18/10/2014 21:14:51 »
defining it locally both 'c' and your time becomes properties, and 'constants'. Those can then be manipulated relative mass motion and ? Defined locally you don't move if so, it's the universe that does it, imposing itself on the local beat. So what would such a reasoning make of a gravitational acceleration? heh.
"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 #1296 on: 19/10/2014 08:00:41 »
I'm not happy at all now :)

1. decoherence
2. mass
3. motion (all types)

I will avoid the vacuum because that one is pretty complicated to me, as it presume this container model existing, of some sort. If someone could prove that a vacuum can exist without 'energy' as 'virtual particles' or indeterminacy I would be much obliged. That would simplify it, I think? Or maybe just complicate it :)

The point is that one doesn't have to change anything to find this 'beat' I'm referring to. One can keep the idea of mass and motion locally redefining your clock, and so get to a twin experiment. The beat being 'c', in a wider perspective becoming causality, the problem is that I want to find some other way to define it.

I don't want light to solely 'propagate', which also can be connected to a 'container model'. Neither do I want pre-existing dimensions, for much the same reason. I want causality building 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 #1297 on: 19/10/2014 08:09:14 »
And yes, the idea of 'energy' is deeply connected to mass, motion, and a vacuum. Then again, assuming that you can build a universe through causality, including a vacuum in it to define distances, degrees of freedom, and dimensions, this vacuum becomes a inseparable part of a universe. Can't avoid it, can I :) But when thinking of Lorentz/Fitzgerald contractions, real and observer dependent, how do one think of that 'field' there? You can't use a global definition of a container model there, it won't fit. You can use local descriptions though, each one unique to the local observer, causality connecting them through '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 #1298 on: 19/10/2014 08:14:51 »
Why I want a vacuum to be able to exist even without 'energy' defining it is simple. Then it becomes a opposite and a symmetry for me. the other way, assuming a vacuum to be 'energy', not able to exist without it is a lot more confusing as we have inflation and expansion to consider, injecting 'new energy' from nowhere, or 'somewhere', inside or outside a universe. the alternative might be that the universe gets diluted 'energy wise' as it expands. And that one will be a snakes nest.
"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 #1299 on: 19/10/2014 08:16:25 »
All of the last is a snakes nest to me, as it both involves this 'container idea', as well as giving no understanding to what makes a inflation.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."