How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 206820 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #200 on: 28/12/2013 11:49:49 »
But this approach solves some very strange things for me. It leaves me free to accept Lorentz contractions and time dilations. they are a result of those local constants, applied over frames of reference. And it explains a 'plasticity'. What it does not, is to explain how what we see is 'commonly recognizable' as a 'same universe'. Well, I can use those local constants for defining how it should be possible, but? Why does it give us this 'common universe'? How does it do it?
=

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #201 on: 28/12/2013 12:42:06 »
So what is logic?

It's a belief system.
I think :)

It's based on the idea that some beliefs are possible to prove, here and now. Also that what we can use for proving them are mathematics, statistics, and probability. Or is there more to it than that, logics that we use? Physics comes from statistics, 'repeatable experiments'. We define it such as if there is a logic to it, then it might be true.

So what is empathy, compassion? What is 'intuitive'? What is a 'eureka moment' that you afterwards dedicate a whole life to proving logically? Then we have love?

Would one stomach that logic is a belief system too? Or are you a devotee? Convinced of there being a 'ultimate logic', no matter whatever logics we have today breaking under new logics, superseding the old. As Relativity's logic supersedes Newtonian?

Does God exist?
And does he need logic, if he/she(it:) does?
=

Why I'm asking?
Well, I believe in logic, and hope it to be just such a 'overlapping' truth, no matter what 'breaks' as we use this tool. On the other hand, it does not explain everything, not yet at least. Was reading http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/24/atheism-richard-dawkins-challenge-beliefs-homeless?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2&commentpage=17

And it made me wonder. Not as much about what Cris wrote, I found him quite truthful in his reflections, and it was moving to me. But all those defending logic as the only thing there is? Finding him 'attacking' it? I don't think he did, he's on a journey, and it seems worthwhile to me. Neither did I read him as degenerating others, rather he was lifting up all that we have in common, those emotions, feelings, we all share. Well, I do, and I hope you do too :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #202 on: 28/12/2013 13:09:31 »
What I'm thinking of there is that people love to define belief systems as 'logical'. Remember Hitler, and his 'Aryan logic'? What differ physics, 'hard sciences', from such is that we don't take any belief system for a given. And that we have mathematics, repeatability, and hypothesis's, validating and testing.

But, depending on your logic limits. What you set as your 'system' restricting it, you can reach various results. And never is it more apparent as when it comes to religious dogma. We are flock animals, and we like alpha leaders, but we better use some common sense before choosing one. Or we will end up deluded, by others, but mostly by ourselves..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #203 on: 29/12/2013 21:16:18 »
A little like politics relative democracy. People seem to be intuitively understanding politics, understandable as I can depict any politic statement by me as a extension of my own private opinions. After all, it's what we in Swedish call 'egen intressen' that defines politics, my 'self interests', what I want, often giving me a gain.

But that's not democracy.
Democracy is very simple, it's one voice, one vote, everyone equal.

Snowden does not discuss politics, to me he discuss what wests politics build on.
Democracy.

And that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. The closest we have to a working democracy today, is the Internet.
Not a country, just Internet. And such a lot of self interests want to become the regulators of it. Some going as far as making nation wide 'intranet' as China, sifting through all information coming from our 'normal' Internet.

Tell me, what's the difference between Chinas approach to a 'free exchange of thoughts and information', and one in where we find information corrupted, sifted through, limiting the free exchange? What the Internet should represent is democracy.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #204 on: 30/12/2013 14:33:07 »
It's been a weird xmas, almost no snow, more like spring than winter or autumn. You can't draw any far reaching conclusions from that naturally, but to me it's like 'swings', every swing pushing the climate a little further into a warming, storms getting worse, everywhere. We've had some really strong storms here in Sweden recently. On the other hand, if we really wanted to do something about global warming I suspect it would lead the developed country's into something resembling a 'state of emergency'. There are too many heavy interests wanting us to continue on the trodden path, and as we're flock animals, congregating around Alpha leaders? And they on their side want to stay in office, riding the gravy train as far as it can go, as most of us would like to I guess :) So, no uncomfortable truths.

Also, no one want to exchange their life for a poorer copy, do they? And it should be one of the effects, as well as a lot of 'imaginary money/assets', circulating as 'real assets' in the banks world, disappearing as people gets real worried, that is if waiting too long with taking action.

Don't rock the boat...
Seems as a good advice?

So, Fukushima then? And nuclear technology?
Nope, don't think that's the way, even though it will become one, as we keep on not 'rocking the boat'. We don't have that many centralized energy technologies left actually. We have coal, oil, 'Natural gas' (methane) and nuclear energy. That's 'energies' that you can rein in, controlled by the few, and without my central heating it can get really cold in Sweden. A very convincing argument for staying in line, wouldn't you say?

Natural recourses are declining though, at the same time as we build up an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, do you think it can lead to small arms wars? Probably, just as clean water should be able too, and fertile land. But not the west, at least not beginning here. We will see it in the poor countries first, and advertisers will gain huge amounts of money playing on wests guilty conscience, telling us to 'share' some part of our personal wealth with them. But it won't stop global warming.

So why am I writing about it, painting such a gloomy picture?

Same thing, it all comes together. The difference between politics, and democracy.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #205 on: 30/12/2013 14:50:28 »
We do have 'renewables'. Sweden for example have a lot of streams, waterfalls, that you can convert to electric energy. And then there is  the sun, winds, waves.. Although building a damn creates its own problems, for people and wild life living further down. And, as we don't try to utilize those resources to their full extent I'm more or less ignoring them for this.

But we do have the Internet. If there ever is going to be a change to the way we behave as a species, we will need to communicate. And I don't mean 'experts'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #206 on: 30/12/2013 15:01:28 »
Now take a wild guess why so many interests find the Internet so important, and also want to control its information.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #207 on: 30/12/2013 16:15:01 »
Then take a wild guess to why I say I don't know any 'democratic countries'. We have a resemblance to it, and we have a real chance of getting further too. But that depends on what you want the Internet to be, a place whereon one voice, one vote, everyone equal, is true? Or one where we adapt to a 'representative Internet'. Represented by what national 'self interests', commercial interests, etc, guides it to?

Interesting, isn't it :)
What do you want with you life? And your kids.
=

Internet is no different from outside your home. There, as here, you will find certain people you won't want to be with. People you wouldn't dream of letting into your living-room.

But that is exactly what democracy is, allowing even those you can't stand, to have that voice, and vote, treating them equally.

So, it's not 'politics', even though some politicians might try to convince you otherwise.
Politics are, to its highest degree, a question of 'egen intressen', self interests.
Enlightened or not.
« Last Edit: 30/12/2013 16:27:36 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #208 on: 31/12/2013 15:21:01 »
I've seen discussions about what is more 'right', although none discussing it my way. Defining a universe over frames of reference, in where you can reach some astounding results depending on your choice of measurements/system. Or from defining it 'locally'. Einstein first defined SR.

SR is without gravity, no gravity at all. In that place he created a axiom that nobody know why it is.
The speed of light is the same, measured from any inertial place of observation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

To simplify it we can use earth for measuring a speed, ignoring spin (frame dragging) and so gravity.
That will give us 'c' .

The problem here is that the universe use mass(energy) and gravity.
And that's GR.

Measuring over frames of reference you can reach conclusions that seems to contradict the statement of 'c'. But it doesn't, it's a question of how you define it.

I define it locally. That's also why I'm wondering how to define 'one local frame' practically. I would prefer a definition in where we could set a measurable limit for what one frame of reference is. That's also why I define a universe's geometry from local interactions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #209 on: 31/12/2013 15:30:52 »
And yes, such a interpretation will lead to QM. I also keep coming back to the way relativity defines a relativistically moving mass to be able to 'shrink a universe'. To see where that takes me you need to accept both Lorentz contractions and time dilations. You also need to accept that they are consistent through all types of motion, uniform motion (relative motion) and acceleration/decelerations.

To me they are real effects, just as your local measurements tells you. And that statement comes from, my very own :) analysis of what a 'repeatable experiment' should mean in this circumstance, and how we do them. We do them from a local definition, using a local clock and ruler.

So, ignore Lorentz contractions and time dilations at your peril. Because, if you do, you now have invalidated all repeatable experiments ever done. There are more things to it naturally, but this is the simplest reason I can give.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #210 on: 31/12/2013 15:41:17 »
Now, we can turn 'repeatable experiments' around if we like. What that says is also a axiom, the one where we expect physics to be the same in all points of a (measurable) universe. Constants, principles, properties being the same everywhere you can go, and tell us about it.

Because that is what a 'repeatable experiment' should be, to me, to contain a logic. Otherwise you create a 'magical universe', steered by different natural laws, constants etc, at different patches of 'space' (vacuum). Don't like that one, and no experiments done points to it either, that I know of?

So, you can do a 'repeatable experiment' anywhere in this universe. And that is 'locality' to me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #211 on: 31/12/2013 15:45:54 »
So we have two views. The one I prefer, in where all 'points' of a universe are equal, scaling them down to their simplest 'containment' of constants etc. and one in where you can define a lot of confusing things, debating 'c' and so SR.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #212 on: 31/12/2013 15:49:35 »
Neither is wrong, as far as I know. To me it's a practical question foremost, and what makes it simpler for me. Using (my type of) locality I can define a arrow, equal to 'c'. Using locality I also can suggest a 'geometry' as created from local principles, constants, properties. And that makes Lorentz contractions and time dilations understandable for me, in another way.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #213 on: 31/12/2013 16:01:19 »
Admit it, no matter your understanding of the mathematics. The idea of Lorentz contractions and time dilation, when considered from several observers in a defined patch of space, using different motions and mass, confuse you. But only when we think about a universe as some 'container' of them. We use 'systems' and 'dimensions', presuming that this way of looking at is the correct one. And it is how we built physics. But I expect it to be possible to use a 'universe' defined from local definitions instead, building a geometry from interactions. And then Lorenz contractions and time dilations becomes a result of your local definition relative all other 'points' creating what you find to be a universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #214 on: 31/12/2013 16:17:13 »
Considering that SR is without gravity, also defining gravity as a up/downwelling in all 'points'. Can we define some scaling from where 'gravity' disappear? I don't know.

What is a property?
Spin?

Gravity?
=

'Up' and down welling as we have two factors. You act on gravity by being of matter, and gravity acts on you. But in reality I would prefer to define gravity as being of one sign, and that should be a 'down welling'.
« Last Edit: 31/12/2013 16:19:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #215 on: 31/12/2013 16:38:52 »
There is actually the possibility of no singular frame of reference being able to exist, neither theoretically nor practically. And it may well be the correct definition, practically, for creating a measurable universe. The rest would then be properties constants and principles, unable to define to any specific location. Becoming a sort of 'background' to what we have as a universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #216 on: 31/12/2013 16:40:27 »
Because to get to a interaction, you need a 'split'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #217 on: 31/12/2013 16:42:16 »
Things 'bump' into each other, do they not? And waves 'propagate'. And we track it to the existence of a 'arrow', making all of it possible. And you do die.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #218 on: 31/12/2013 17:42:20 »
No singular frame of reference but still locality? What would that make of what you observe, scaling something down?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #219 on: 01/01/2014 13:31:30 »
So what do you think? Can there be a interaction, scaling it down, inside something defined as one singular frame of reference? I'm not discussing being 'at rest' with something here. That involves two defined 'objects', and usually reserved for macroscopic definitions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #220 on: 01/01/2014 13:52:01 »
And a Shapiro delay, as defined for a observer, 'far away' comparing this distance light 'propagates' to his detector with a locally defined speed of light then? Finding it to be 'slower'? Is 'c' a variable?

Nope :)

It's a locally defined speed of light in a vacuum, valid everywhere in the universe, that assuming the physics to be the same, everywhere I can go to measure and tell you about my results. And that my friends, are 'repeatable experiments.

You can define it as a result of time dilation, as described from the 'far away' observers frame of reference when calculating the result, finding that a 'curved SpaceTime' does not cover the 'slowness' he theoretically finds. You might also consider that if 'c' and and a arrow is inseparable, from a strictly local beginning, and as I think, then as I define the arrow to become 'slower' measuring over frames of reference, I also must consider 'c' to 'slow down'.

So is it a illusion?
Nope. As long as we define a universe containing ourselves it's not. It's a valid description of a universe, as measured by a 'far observer'. But please, use a definition going out from locality for it. Because that's 'c', and that's what I define as equivalent to a arrow of time. Split 'c' and you get the best clock existing. And that is the ground floor from where we can define such things as the Shapiro delay, Lorentz transformations, and a logical universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #221 on: 01/01/2014 13:58:54 »
How would you get to a Lorentz transformation without first defining 'c'? And do you think a Shapiro delay can be Lorentz transformed?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #222 on: 01/01/2014 14:02:50 »
If a Shapiro delay can't be Lorentz transformed it either has to be a wrong approach, or relativity has to be wrong. SR creates GR, using 'c' and 'gravity'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #223 on: 01/01/2014 14:45:35 »
I used to find relativity complicated, but it's not. What is complicated are the conclusions you can draw from defining different 'systems' from reading about it. So it can fool us a lot.

Relativity springs from 'c', that's the axiom telling us that it doesn't matter what 'relative motion' you measure, using infalling light or any other heavenly bodies, the speed of light in a vacuum will still be 'c' as measured in a 'two way experiment'. And that one is correct..

Using that one you need time dilations, and you need Lorentz contractions. To explain how 'c' can be 'c', no matter how fast I'm 'moving'. Nota bene, to me it won't matter if you introduce accelerations or not, for that very local definition of 'c', although to be strict about it we must use 'c' as described from 'uniform motion'.

So that's where you get time dilations and Lorentz contractions.

Then you go to GR, which treats gravity, and so matter, It does it by defining all energy as equivalent to mass, then defining gravity as inseparable from the effect you experience sitting in a uniformly constantly accelerating rocket, as measured by a accelerometer. The equivalence principle.

Notice one thing there though. It's about a 'local definition', just as 'c' is. But if gravity is 'motion' then you must find time dilations and Lorentz contraction even when being 'at rest' with Earth. And that one is proved by NIST, at centimeters.

It's our instruments that draws the line there, if we had a 'perfect' instrument 'ticking' at Planck scale ('c' is one Planck length in one Planck time) we would be able to track this relation between gravity and time dilations (Lorentz contractions) even further. But we meet HUP (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) long before that, so it's just not possible.

You might say that it 'smears out' at a very small scale.


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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #224 on: 01/01/2014 14:51:54 »
And you can simplify time dilations and Lorentz contractions by using this fact, that those are all 'local descriptions'. Just stop thinking of it, the 'universe', as some container. It's much easier to define it locally. Doing so you will need a complementary description of 'dimensions' though, and that, I suspect :) is what 'degrees of freedom' is all about. A simplification of 'dimensions', or as I think of it, a correction and better description.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #225 on: 01/01/2014 15:00:39 »
Using the idea of describing a dimensionality from locality we find that describing something, inside a lattice for example, as behaving in a 'two dimensional' manner is perfectly acceptable. It is not acceptable from the idea of a universe consisting of three singular dimensions and a arrow though. That one is rather easy to disprove, as you then need this two dimensional 'system', described in/by your lattice to 'disappear' from some angle of observation. It's not logically acceptable, as it won't happen in any experiment. Or you will have to define that as there can be no 'lower dimensional systems' existing in a 'higher dimensional system' invalidating most of the physics we use, as strings and loops etc.
=

spelling sux.
Keep missing words :)
==

That was actually the way I thought of it first, as if the universe we saw was made out of 'whole 4-D representations' in each point, also described locally to fit my thoughts. But using 'degrees of freedom' I think I would prefer to move away from that one, instead defining it as 'connections' expressing interactions. Those 'connections/interactions (relations) creating' what dimensions we measure. And so this lattice can be allowed to be 'two dimensional' for all practical purposes, and possibly even theoretically, as there is nothing stopping any sort of 'dimensionality' that I can see, more than whatever constraints being imposed by constants, properties, principles etc.

Einstein did not use a geometrical approach, defining relativity. And assuming this type of description, he might have been closer to the truth than the geometrical approach is, although that one is much clearer for us laymen. All as I think of it, naturally, as well as understands it, that is :)
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 02:18:46 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #226 on: 01/01/2014 15:02:12 »
So, degrees of freedom :) a better approach.

I'm sure you will agree on that one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #227 on: 01/01/2014 15:07:53 »
Because when you describe dimensionality from an idea of 'connections', locally defined, that means that your experiments (relations) must define your universe. And it also allows for different observers having different relations. So, dimensions falls away, and instead we will use 'degrees of freedom'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #228 on: 01/01/2014 15:10:21 »
But there is something more to such a definition, presuming a 'logical universe'. It must presume something being constant for all observers, giving them, and the universe, a coherence. What you see, and me, as we go out at night to look at the sky. 'Our' universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #229 on: 01/01/2014 15:12:12 »
And that must be local constants, principles and properties. We share them, everywhere, and they are our background.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #230 on: 02/01/2014 02:15:45 »
Now, where does a property come from?
spin?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #231 on: 02/01/2014 09:49:06 »
If you're asking yourself that one, you also might want to wonder what a nucleons 'rest mass' is, and you either define it as a rest mass, ignoring any thought up intrinsic 'motions', or you invalidate the idea of rest mass, and so also the idea of ever being 'at rest' with anything. A electron for example uses 'orbitals', not 'orbits', and if you don't know what a orbital is a 'goggle' will tell you the difference. And why is a nucleons mass bigger than its parts, theoretically measured.

This one treats spin rather nicely, Electron spin doesn't really exist.

But it also want us to go to a Bohr model?

Maybe this one should be read first. Q: What is “spin” in particle physics? Why is it different from just ordinary rotation?

And a Bohr model, Magneton?

"The magnetic moment has a close connection with angular momentum called the gyromagnetic effect. This effect is expressed on a macroscopic scale in the Einstein-de Haas effect, or "rotation by magnetization," and its inverse, the Barnett effect, or "magnetization by rotation." In particular, when a magnetic moment is subject to a torque in a magnetic field that tends to align it with the applied magnetic field, the moment precesses (rotates about the axis of the applied field). This is a consequence of the angular momentum associated with the moment.

Viewing a magnetic dipole as a rotating charged sphere brings out the close connection between magnetic moment and angular momentum. Both the magnetic moment and the angular momentum increase with the rate of rotation of the sphere. The ratio of the two is called the gyromagnetic ratio, usually denoted by the symbol γ.

For a spinning charged solid with a uniform charge density to mass density ratio, the gyromagnetic ratio is equal to half the charge-to-mass ratio. This implies that a more massive assembly of charges spinning with the same angular momentum will have a proportionately weaker magnetic moment, compared to its lighter counterpart. Even though atomic particles cannot be accurately described as spinning charge distributions of uniform charge-to-mass ratio, this general trend can be observed in the atomic world, where the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of each type of particle is a constant: a small half-integer times the reduced Planck constant ħ. This is the basis for defining the magnetic moment units of Bohr magneton (assuming charge-to-mass ratio of the electron) and nuclear magneton (assuming charge-to-mass ratio of the proton)."

And a brief history of how this term has been used. Brief History of Bohr Magneton.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 10:19:18 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #232 on: 02/01/2014 10:39:09 »
It's always hard to set things into a proper perspective historically, but I found this one N. Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules” 

But before that one you might want to read this commentary about Bohr and this same paper? Niels Bohr and complementarity. by Plotnitsky. A (2012) 
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #233 on: 02/01/2014 11:37:30 »
I'm arguing that you can't ignore the observation from the observed, and something similar seem to have been Einsteins take on it too.

"Einstein told Heisenberg that our concepts and theories decide what could be observed (Heisenberg 1971, p. 63). Einstein’s argument impressed Heisenberg and, in part, guided his work on the uncertainty relations. Einstein’s insight is crucial because it leads to a questioning of the uncritical use of the idea of observation, an idea that has been a subject of much discussion throughout the history and philosophy of science."

To me that practically means that as soon as you measure, you should consider your observations part of a larger system, defined by locality. It also means that you can't ignore your presumptions, for example a local clock and ruler. That does not presume them to be meaningless in any way, but it do mean that a pure 'local measurement' is not possible. And you can easily see why by considering that all measurements are done over 'frames of reference', now defining it from scales. You have the possibility of being 'at rest' macroscopically but that one is to me discuss-able microscopically, although correct from a macroscopic view.
==

I am of two minds, when it comes to being 'at rest' with something. The way I would try to join it is from decoherence. While you only find probabilities at a small scale, at a macroscopic scale you will find a classic predictability, and so I think of being 'at rest' with something for now. It has to be something similar to decoherence, at least to make sense to me.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 12:28:13 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #234 on: 02/01/2014 11:54:53 »
It also means that defining the reason why one find a rest mass of a nucleon to be larger than its 'parts', being 'energy or quarks and gluons' in 'relativistic motion' have no real meaning to me. There is no such thing as a relativistic motion there, just as atomic particles spin is no real spin.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #235 on: 02/01/2014 11:57:10 »
I prefer indeterminacy to 'virtual photons'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #236 on: 02/01/2014 12:33:44 »
What one can question using locality, is whether the classically definable spin (angular momentum) of a spinning top is more 'real' than the atomic spin? After all, the classical definition of a spin comes scale wise from probability. What I probably :) mean is that both has to be accepted on their 'face value'. They exist measurably, therefore they are here.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #237 on: 02/01/2014 12:36:26 »
It all comes back to measurements, doesn't it? And what meaning we put into their results.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #238 on: 02/01/2014 12:51:33 »
There are two ways to look at 'weak measurements', as I think of it then. You might be able to argue that by doing a lot of weak measurements of, for example, a 'photon path' you also gives 'it' a higher probability, by finding this 'path' to be the one most chosen. Or you can argue the opposite, that there are no paths, only positions in space and time, defined by locality. To do the later you need local constants, properties and principles.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #239 on: 02/01/2014 12:54:41 »
Without a 'locality' existing the later interpretation becomes a hard one to argue. Only if assuming this 'background', valid everywhere, can I argue that this is one reason why weak experiments seems as working hypothesis's.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #240 on: 02/01/2014 13:00:04 »
So time dilations exist, as soon as you can measure them, locally defined. There's no reason to assume that accelerations/decelerations is the culprit for this, in my eyes. More than you need to introduce them to get back to a origin, now ignoring the idea of some 'spherical universe'. And why I ignore that one should be obvious from the rest of my ideas.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #241 on: 02/01/2014 13:19:30 »
So what gives us a arrow?
Decoherence too?

Don't know. It's somewhat of a local property to me, that I call 'time'. But I do assume that we get to a arrow by this property interacting, finding relations, in a similar way that decoherence is thought to work from probabilities microscopically to predictabilities macroscopically.
=

You most definitely need to introduce scales, and so 'frames of reference' to see my reasoning here.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 13:22:57 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #242 on: 02/01/2014 14:25:43 »
Why accelerations and decelerations are assumed to be a reason for a 'real' twin experiments age difference, I foremost relate to the idea of 'dimensions' as a container, containing us, and everything else we can measure. It's that one that defined most of what we think is 'real', and also that one that makes people doubt relativity most. The idea of different observers observing different 'times', and not only that but also different 'universes'. It's a hard one to accept from a container model, if I may call it that. But as soon as you turn it around, defining observer dependencies from your local definition, then it makes sense. But you need those constants for it. and you need them to exist everywhere, locally the same (equivalent).
« Last Edit: 02/01/2014 14:34:50 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #243 on: 02/01/2014 14:31:19 »
Either there is a rhythm to a universe, as defined by 'c', or the rhythm comes to be macroscopically. Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #244 on: 02/01/2014 14:41:37 »
And Einsteins ideas must still be valid, but you no longer need to look for where that 'tension', relativistic mass, should be able to be measured, using different uniform motions defining it. If it all is a question of relations then the relations creates it as needed, in a collision for example. Not unlike a computer model over objects colliding, presenting a kinetic energy, the programming defining how it will behave. The 'programming' here should be constants, properties and principles.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #245 on: 02/01/2014 14:46:39 »
What can 'bump' (collide) here is matter aka restmass. As far as I know, there is no experiment proving radiation able to 'bump' with radiation. Radiation, treated as waves, can reinforce and quench each other, but not 'bump' into each other.
=

But it interacts with matter (rest mass)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #246 on: 02/01/2014 16:44:09 »
"Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes."

Well, that's relativity isn't it? 'two interacting', and symmetry breaks.
Eh, and 'observer dependencies' :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #247 on: 03/01/2014 12:38:11 »
How about this then :)

Assume that you need 'two frames of reference'  to get to a interaction. Well, now I think you've defined a 'clock'. A 'clock' is a relation between two states. The one that fires the 'emission' and the one that does not. Very simplified naturally, but that is what I like, I'll freely admit.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #248 on: 03/01/2014 12:42:02 »
All oscillations are 'clocks'. They 'tick' and they need to be observed to exist, do they not? Or can we assume a universe where they 'tick' even without observations? If we define a observation as one frame of reference interacting with another we get to a 'system' in where the frames confirm each others existence. Quite nice, and very meta physical.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #249 on: 03/01/2014 12:42:58 »
Before you laugh, define entanglements, and tunnelings.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."