How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205464 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 #350 on: 09/01/2014 14:32:15 »
And then the fractal becomes you.
"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 #351 on: 09/01/2014 14:34:36 »
Don't like that one. I prefer one in where we can explain things, both as a pattern and from an idea of a 'linear' arrow including interactions. And I would prefer everything to be able to 'observe', as in interact, with or without me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #352 on: 09/01/2014 14:36:39 »
The difference being that patterns really evolve in the later approach. You have something with a direction defined by its evolving.
"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 #353 on: 09/01/2014 14:41:39 »
In the first approach this becomes a illusion. You being the definer of a arrow there, and that makes it truly irritating to me :) It's not what I call a happily accessible definition, more of a mystical one. Everything can be a illusion naturally, from both definitions, but evolving seems to be a aspect this universe needs, and if it needs it then I won't accept it as a illusion. Everything evolves inside this arrow, you and me too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #354 on: 09/01/2014 14:46:42 »
And we do it individually, we have patterns defining differences even though we can track them genetically to 'origins'.
"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 #355 on: 09/01/2014 14:48:18 »
So from some undefined idea of simplicity, to complexity.
=

Assume that there is a fractal describing it all. Then that fractal evolves, using a arrow. More interactions coming to be, with indeterminacy and probability (statistics) defining rules, and to that add relativity and constants, properties, and so principles .
« Last Edit: 09/01/2014 14:53:17 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 #356 on: 09/01/2014 15:04:20 »
A fractal is a pattern evolving in time, coming from simplicity into complexity. It fits the way I look at it. Even if assuming those fractals to be locally defined it doesn't state that there can't be a equation, able to describe them all. It should be possible.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #357 on: 09/01/2014 15:13:24 »
And I prefer mathematics before entropy for describing it. Entropy is more of a theory of temperatures to me. Fractals is just a way to describe something mathematically. A temperature is a relation between frames of reference. Fractals is just a pattern, evolving, when using 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 #358 on: 09/01/2014 15:19:43 »
Now think of the ability of tracking all seven billions of humans to some common origin. That is one fractal to me, you individually another, nested into the first. You belong to this fractal of origin too, but you're a individual.
"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 #359 on: 09/01/2014 15:29:36 »
To get from a fractal, to interactions, we need to assume that it 'laid out' on a sheet, have a way of allowing interactions between all points representing its pattern. How does it do that? It uses a locally defined arrow, equivalent to 'c'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #360 on: 09/01/2014 15:31:24 »
Defined this way the fractal change itself, constantly updating the pattern, using all points representing it. That's a non linear description.
"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 #361 on: 09/01/2014 15:37:13 »
We can't use a fractal as being one point, just as we can't describe the universe just using one frame of reference, as I see it. A fractal need something to start to 'move', to get frames of reference interacting. And that either is properties, constants and principles without a origin, although becoming a 'background' of sorts. Or you can define it at some linear process, needing 'opposites' from its very origin, frames of reference interacting inside a already existent arrow. Then again, according to my definitions, as soon as you have 'opposites' (frames of reference) you should have 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 #362 on: 09/01/2014 15:40:45 »
The description becomes non linear in that it should be impossible to define all points, as its pattern evolves in 'real local time'. Although if taken 'instant by instant' it becomes 'countable', not really though, just using that 'eye of a God' defining it now.
"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 #363 on: 10/01/2014 18:43:37 »
It's strange isn't it, that I reach such different conclusions. Not accepting dimensions for example, although we all know they exist each time we open a box :) Blame that on 'c', Einstein and relativity. You might say that strings and loops look at it in a similar manner though? See, if I'm right in that dimensions is a wrong concept then a lot of the definitions used becomes wrong too. And the reasons why Einstein never could find a mathematical way to describe this fifth dimension he thought to carry the four we observe becomes more understandable. He went out from a universe making sense, even though 'c' was there. And he went out from an idea of a universe 'containing us', so looking at the universe he found, time dilations and Lorentz contractions, he needed a construct in where there was no need to Lorentz transform anything.

I just run the opposite direction with his concept, assuming that we already had a universe without time dilations and Lorentz contractions :)

That's the 'strictly local' point of view. Problem with it is that it doesn't in-cooperate a clock, and there is no ruler to it.  The clock and ruler comes into existence, interacting with other frames of reference. You could call it 'time less' if you like. But it's not where you are, is it? So Einstein was right, still is, one hundred years later.

We measure relative clock and a ruler. We define both locally idealized. To do it we must assume them to exist, even though we can't measure it. Any other way, and you have no more repeatable experiments.
"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 #364 on: 10/01/2014 18:50:43 »
Time-less isn't the best way to put it though, as I differ between time as a property, and a 'arrow'. A arrow is what you meet interacting with frames of reference, time is what locality already has, a property of sorts, like spin, to me. What more is that in my eyes 'gravity' becomes a property too, idealized into one (local:) 'spherical point' of rest mass for example.

all property's, together with using your local arrow as equivalent to 'c'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #365 on: 10/01/2014 19:00:53 »
So what would a symmetry break be? I would say it is all we can measure. We measure this symmetry break in a arrow. Scaling it down we find it to transform, into something time-less, locally defined. That's not what a observer, usually does though. He goes out from frames of reference, finding a local clock and ruler to measure in. That's not, what I define as being 'locality'.

Looking at it my way the symmetry still exist, our universe more of a projection on it, than anything uniquely existing by itself. Now, if it would be this way, would that make us 'unreal?

Define reality.
"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 #366 on: 10/01/2014 19:06:24 »
Outcomes?

'c'

oscillation?

'a spring'

a geometry?

degrees of freedom?

dimensions

time

arrows

consciousness?

please define what a reality need, I'm really interested in that one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #367 on: 10/01/2014 19:20:06 »
Using my idea of a fractal, on a sheet, representing points interacting and updating this fractal behavior constantly it becomes a very non linear description very fast, assuming a arrow. And you definitely need a arrow, as well as frames of reference, for it. The 'sheet' it rest on are those 'local' constants and properties, giving us those repeatable experiments we define science and physics from. Without them we don't have a measurable logic. But we have one.

So reality needs logic?
Does 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 #368 on: 10/01/2014 19:21:35 »
this logic, does it remind you of something? A 'system' maybe? Something defined by your limits? Are the universe then a 'system' too
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #369 on: 10/01/2014 19:23:41 »
If it is, and I think it has a reasonable similarity to one, then degrees of freedom are so much more appropriate describing it, than any idea of dimensions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #370 on: 10/01/2014 19:29:20 »
Four degrees of measurable freedom is what we have, 'time' 'length' 'width' 'height'. And 'plastic' from a containing description. Our very own fish bowl. I don't think it is a fish bowl at all. On the other tentacle, described from a inside it is. And it makes us 'exist', crazy isn't 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 #371 on: 10/01/2014 19:58:57 »
To describe a universe, following different constants etc we then need to define how we would describe them, separated from ours. There is no arrow at the scale I'm thinking of, and so no distance, and so no 'dimensions'. Or how, if I would define this universe as 'point like' as that follows perfectly reasonable from this definition, I should be able to define how other 'point like' universes can exist, separated? Then again, looking at it that way, you also might have a possibility of allowing something 'super imposed' on our reality. Defined by other properties than ours.

although I can't define a outside to it as I don't find anything describing a outside, more than the way locality itself seem to exist, as some 'dimension less point'.
"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 #372 on: 10/01/2014 20:03:50 »
From a container idea you can, but the universe does not act as a container, what defines it to us are the limits of 'c', and 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 #373 on: 10/01/2014 20:10:08 »
A reality like ours though, definitely need a linear logic. And we got 'c', and that local arrow defining it, don't we? What more do we need? Distances, which mean a space, defined from? a vacuum? Or 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 #374 on: 10/01/2014 20:13:15 »
If I allow relations to build 'dimensions' I definitely need rest mass. And I use it to define the dimensions we see. But a vacuum becomes trickier to define.
"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 #375 on: 10/01/2014 20:17:02 »
You can't stretch a vacuum. And you can't tell me you can compress it either. If I would to assume that a vacuum contain a energy, how do I prove it? The only thing I know of is the 'Casimir force'? And that one isn't that convincing to me as it contain combination of rest mass versus rest mass.

What is 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 #376 on: 10/01/2014 20:19:21 »
What you can do in a vacuum though, and prove, is to create a repeatable experiment. And that we all assume to be correct, anywhere.
"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 #377 on: 10/01/2014 20:23:13 »
You have to look at it from 'frames of reference'. Would you say that a vacuum consist of one or several frames of reference? How would you then define it, if so? Using gravity? Gravity will disappear, scaling it down, isn't that a reasonable assumption? So what will you use, separating one patch from another?
"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 #378 on: 10/01/2014 20:24:57 »
What I think I will agree on is that a vacuum contain the same constants, properties, and principles as 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 #379 on: 10/01/2014 20:32:05 »
It's like the 'layer' unhidden, isn't it? Rest mass defines a vacuum. We measure a vacuum in distance, and as it exist all around, as well as inside, rest mass, it begets the same properties we define to a rest mass. Having three room dimensions with a complementary 'arrow', always locally defined.
"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 #380 on: 10/01/2014 20:33:44 »
There is no measurable pressure either, to a vacuum.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #381 on: 10/01/2014 20:57:29 »
A field is only observer dependent when the observer chooses to influence it by physical means. No hocus pocus mystery unintended quantum consciousness influence.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #382 on: 10/01/2014 23:37:34 »
Depends, although I would define all fields as observer dependent Ethos. Two ways to define it that I know of, the one where we assume the 'eyes of a God' which is theoretical, not measuring. The other is by measurements and there they must be observer dependent. Create equivalent observer dependencies (all other equivalences included:) and you should get to a repeatable experiment. You have mass and motion defining your observations.
"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 #383 on: 11/01/2014 14:22:39 »
A vacuum, does it exist? It has to, don't you agree?

From where does it exist?
From a 'inside' it does.

We have no other way of measuring it, than from this 'inside'. Geometry keeps giving us a definition of a inside versus a outside, doesn't it? And 'dimensions' are actually very similar in that they creates a container, containing four 'singular' dimensions, that somehow coagulates into a SpaceTime.

Forget that distinction for a while, exchange it for 'degrees of freedom' instead, and what experiments tells you.
"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 #384 on: 11/01/2014 14:24:41 »
Treat it as a 'point like' universe, each point defining relations relative all other points. We finding dimensions in our inability to ever pass outside those points relations and interactions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #385 on: 11/01/2014 14:27:04 »
It fits relativity. And it will work for strings and loops too as I expect. And you really becomes the 'center' of whatever universe you observe. Feels good, doesn't 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 #386 on: 11/01/2014 14:31:13 »
But it gives another definition to a 'outside'. It does not specify it as one geometry relative another. The difference is subtle, but you have no 'anchor', more than yourself and what you measure relative yourself. There is no objective 'center' anymore, to anything. And that's one reason why I think one have to assume a frame of reference as being a 'observer'.
"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 #387 on: 11/01/2014 14:34:14 »
If you want a 'center' to such a universe you need to scale it down. And it doesn't matter where you do it, you will reach that same 'center' from anywhere in the 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 #388 on: 11/01/2014 14:42:28 »
You could call that 'objective' possibly? But I don't see how you would give it a SpaceTime position?
"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 #389 on: 11/01/2014 14:45:21 »
How about this then?

Reality is defined by outcomes. No outcomes, no reality.
"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 #390 on: 11/01/2014 14:46:28 »
So how can I ignore 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 #391 on: 11/01/2014 14:50:17 »
Doesn't matter for this if we define super position and wave functions. You still measure outcomes, not wavefunctions, neither can you measure a superposition. You can draw a theoretical conclusion from circumstantial evidence, making you think of it this way. But using relations with you as a center, you, your experiment and your experimental outcome is one thing, not many superimposed upon this reality.
"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 #392 on: 11/01/2014 14:56:42 »
And it allows a two slit experiment giving you a duality of light. As a particle or as a wave, depending on what relations you and your experiment set up. What it should not allow, is to prove both simultaneously, meaning at a same SpaceTime position (same 'instant'), in one experiment. And what defines that is a real local arrow, equivalent to c'.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2014 14:58:54 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 #393 on: 11/01/2014 15:04:53 »
Think of it, you need something 'stringing up' those outcomes, because they are stringed up from your local observations. Forget simultaneity for this one, it doesn't discuss it. Your particles, creating you, interact, don't they? How else will you read this?
"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 #394 on: 11/01/2014 15:06:17 »
Simultaneity presumes a container 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 #395 on: 11/01/2014 15:11:16 »
It becomes a meaningless definition from a strict locality. There WYSIWYG.

And accepting locality defining my definitions of a dimensionality, we need to look elsewhere for why we find dimensions. It does not make the concept meaningless though, dimensions exist and becomes our 'inside' in my thoughts too, but as a local relation to constants, properties and principles interacting, giving us outcomes from where we define 'c', and 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 #396 on: 11/01/2014 15:15:14 »
So, what is 'reality'?
"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 #397 on: 11/01/2014 15:19:39 »
A reality is a logic, explaining outcomes?
With outcomes explaining us :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #398 on: 11/01/2014 17:40:09 »
The problem with strings, and all 'moving' things, is that you need a clock (and ruler) for it. You can naturally define it from our normal definition which assumes a macroscopic observer using a local clock. From such a definition you always have a arrow to find a motion in. From a observer definition, using 'c' as equivalent to a arrow you still should meet a scale in where that motion blurs out though, and that is what we do. Strict locally though, no distance can exist and neither can a arrow. The alternative would be to assume that there are no stop to a distance, and a arrow. Split it as far as you like, there will always be a part left, to split further.

HUP do not agree on that one, relativity doesn't either.
How you define a string as having a distance or geometric form seems subtly wrong to me, although it presumably work from a observer definition, using that local clock and ruler. And naturally, the same goes for something vibrating. Indeterminism is not vibrations.
"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 #399 on: 11/01/2014 17:46:28 »
If string theory insist on strings vibrating we must find that 'frames of reference' either is 'smaller' than strings, or that it is in a relation to a macroscopic observer using a local clock and ruler you define it, using a clock ticking better than Plank scale.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."