How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 207350 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #400 on: 11/01/2014 17:55:18 »
A tension though, does it need to 'vibrate'? Something that vibrates normally have a interaction, as molecules and atoms. If you want to define strings as being over Planck scale then? Well? That would give me my 'theoretical Plank threshold' wouldn't it. But I will not define that as some building blocks you fit together, instead i think I'll let them be as points on a sheet, each one defining the others, locally. And then take the sheet away as it only is a prop, helping me describe it :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #401 on: 12/01/2014 14:36:57 »
I started this some years ago, as I started to wonder what a 'frame of reference' really mean. That lead me to scales and Planck scale. Because I'm not discussing 'at rest' here, well, depending on definitions and scale then, not yet at least. And I assume Plank scale to mean something physically meaningful here.

"Experimental observations on the wavelength distribution of the energy emitted by a black body as a function of temperature were at variance with the predictions of classical physics. Planck was able to deduce the relationship between the ener gy and the frequency of radiation. In a paper published in 1900, he announced his derivation of the relationship: this was based on the revolutionary idea that the energy emitted by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta. The energy for a resonator of frequency v is hv where h is a universal constant, now called Planck's constant."

"What is a Planck length?  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. The physical significance of the Planck length is an argumentative topic of research. Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is currently no way of probing this length scale directly"

I don't expect us to be able to measure at that scale, ever. According to how I look at it measurements shouldn't be possible at this scale. Then again, maybe this is wrong. Maybe we can pass it? Doesn't really matter actually. Frames of reference then 'move' down to some even more 'fundamental' scale.

It has a relevance no matter how you define that scale.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #402 on: 12/01/2014 14:38:49 »
Why would a wave universe be limited to discrete magnitudes of quanta?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #403 on: 12/01/2014 14:47:45 »
Would you say that there is a limit to the differentiation of waves we expect to exist, in radio transmissions for example. Does the universe limit the waves we observe? Should we think of this the same way we use Fourier transformations? http://www.dspguide.com/ch8/1.htm Analogue to digital, and then back?

Using that we then define this universe as having less information than being possible from a analogue definition. Bits do not contain the same information. That's why you can 'compress' the old 'LP' into something more compact, a MP3.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #404 on: 12/01/2014 14:55:29 »
And a 'bit universe' should at some scale dissolve into bits, shouldn't it? A 'frame of reference', scaling it down to a bit, must then be this discrete 'bit quanta'. As that should be where a universe end.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #405 on: 12/01/2014 14:57:22 »
But if you want it to 'vibrate' then, having a tension? Why would a bit be able to vibrate?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #406 on: 12/01/2014 14:58:40 »
Which is more fundamental, bits or frames of reference? I think it must be frames of reference.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #407 on: 12/01/2014 15:06:53 »
Frames of reference does not confuse itself with wanting to define a physical dimensional 'quanta' of a 'size'. What it does is to define the universe as being a result of frames of reference interacting. I use scales for defining it, but I'm not sure you have to stop there. It's my limits of imagination restricting my definitions here. What a frame of reference ultimately might become I'm not sure. But it's a very valid definition, and scaling it down we reach something similar to a 'bit', but we can pass that one into a analogue definition, without bits. A undifferentiated 'sheet' of constants properties and principles giving us a universe.

Analogue as there are no 'bits' to define there,
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #408 on: 12/01/2014 15:12:26 »
It's not a strict definition :) but it gives you a flavor of how I think of it. Assuming we would like to stop at those bits though, ignoring the constants etc? Do you expect that bit to 'move'? Relative what?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #409 on: 12/01/2014 15:18:45 »
You want something to move, you need dimensions (degrees of freedom) to move in. You need frames of reference, in where we now have defined one 'bit' as becoming one 'frame of reference', interacting with another frame of reference, inside something containing, and enabling, them to observe each other.

You need a arrow, you need a sheet, you need a observer. Or, you need a sheet, you need a arrow, if you define each frame of reference as able to 'observe', as in interact, even without us defining that 'motion'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #410 on: 12/01/2014 15:21:04 »
Can't 'vibrate' outside a arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #411 on: 12/01/2014 15:25:04 »
So assuming 'one bit' to exist at that sheet, it then must use the sheet to define a vibration from, and it must find a arrow to do it in.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #412 on: 12/01/2014 15:25:47 »
But that's not relativity.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #413 on: 12/01/2014 15:41:37 »
So either we use a sheet, defining that plane in where something move, or we could use frames of reference interacting, defined locally.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #414 on: 12/01/2014 15:45:46 »
Does a hologram enable you to define a position to the things it depicts? From the 'inside'? Or is it a interaction between 'frames of reference' giving you those positions? Don't want to use hologram for it really, this is no hologram to me, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #415 on: 12/01/2014 15:54:00 »
We need interactions, and interactions presume relations between what interacts. And that 'between' could then be described as a vacuum, with what interacting representing 'frames of reference'. Degrees of freedom defining dimensions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #416 on: 12/01/2014 15:57:35 »
Assume the sheet to be a vacuum, then define one 'bit' inside it. Now tell me how it knows it 'move'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #417 on: 12/01/2014 16:17:28 »
Then tell me how it will define a dimensionality to this vacuum?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #418 on: 12/01/2014 16:20:53 »
Two ways. Mach principle or as a 'property' of a 'rest mass'.
Inertia.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #419 on: 12/01/2014 16:24:14 »
That's what you have left here. Using my definition of gravity as able to define as a 'down welling' in each point, locally defined, well? I would say that what I define is the 'origin' if you need one, but I would not define it as Mach principle being wrong either. You want to use that arrow defining it, don't you :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #420 on: 12/01/2014 16:27:02 »
Ok, we have a third, assuming you able to define what rest mass you have into a geometrical shape. Then you also get to 'dimensions', but that one would then consist of frames of reference, interacting, finding degrees of freedom relative each other.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #421 on: 12/01/2014 16:42:46 »
And Einstein should be correct in defining a 'motion' to gravity, as Earth acting on us at approximately one Gravity, I think? :) 'inertia' as a property, times a arrow, becomes gravity. We are 'rushing' through 'time'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #422 on: 12/01/2014 16:45:12 »
And if that is correct, then assuming 'c' locally equivalent to a arrow? Well, it will give us inertia as a constant too, won't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #423 on: 12/01/2014 16:47:16 »
Sweet one. I really like it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #424 on: 12/01/2014 16:58:38 »
You have a added difficulty counting on that one though. And that is mass. Inertia is related to what mass we give something before we try to move it, inside that local arrow you measure it from. But it should still be possible to add in a arrow (another constant, locally equivalent to 'c' in my thoughts) to find inertia as being a constant too. And it simplifies what gravity is, as gravity is inertia, counted on over a arrow. And it fits both a acceleration, and you standing on Earth, 'feeling' that gravity act on you.

Yep, I'm very pleased, so far, with this one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #425 on: 12/01/2014 17:02:48 »
I know, it seems to destroy 'gravitons', doesn't it :) It's all about your definitions. Even with gravity becoming a 'down welling' in my thoughts it does not exclude gravity having a 'infinite reach' acting on all mass in a universe. One way does not exclude the other.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #426 on: 12/01/2014 17:23:28 »
So, let's see. I've defined three things as being constants so far? The speed of light in a vacuum

'c'

Then this arrow, as being locally equivalent to 'c'.

So 'c' and 'a' ::))

And possibly, still need to wonder about this one.

Inertia being equivalent to a gravity, when described by/in its local arrow, defined as a 'local observer' of a universe, in a collision for example. I think this is right but also described in simple terms. Then again, I like simple?

That should mean that inertia, just as a vacuum, always is there as a property and constant. But to get to 'gravity' you need that arrow 'pushing you' into a future :).

And no, I don't know if a vacuum would be some sort of 'constant', although it makes sense from my ideas, don't it :)
But I could go out on limb here defining it as being of a same quality, property etc everywhere. and yes, a 'constant' of sorts. But not really, to me a vacuum is undefined, unless we introduce mass.

Any way.
I like the way I defined inertia.
==

So 'c' and 'a' and 'i'.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2014 17:25:48 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #427 on: 12/01/2014 17:50:25 »
Then again, a property or constant is what it has. and that one defines a constant as something being the same everywhere you go. And as I also define distance as a effect of frames of reference interacting, and with that motion as it needs that distance as well as as a arrow as a global illusion, although locally as real as it can be?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #428 on: 12/01/2014 17:52:17 »
Sounds mystical doesn't it :)

You need something as a vacuum, and rest mass, to define dimensions. But you can, using my definitions, also relate to it as a 'constant', a axiom able to be proved anywhere you 'go'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #429 on: 12/01/2014 18:03:48 »
A Higgs field is expected to define inertia right :)

Hmm. Inside a arrow?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #430 on: 12/01/2014 18:07:48 »
 I can relate to it as describing a way to define the inertia of rest mass, then again, it becomes a  'side way' description of a container universe, where you find 'forces' acting on you. Whereas, in my ideas, you have local constants and properties, creating 'globally valid' principles that defines inertia and gravity. Two ways, in which mine is the one zooming in on local definitions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #431 on: 12/01/2014 18:09:27 »
And a 'field' is always locally defined in my way of thinking.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #432 on: 12/01/2014 18:24:16 »
The point enabling one to see it better is the question of what a inside is.

You are here, ain't you? And everywhere you look things seem much the same. A isotropic and homogeneous universe in where we, and everything else, exist. Or have you seen a 'wall' defining where this geometric universe stops? From a point of inflation taking 'place' everywhere there is no limits to this universe. You do not need to go out to the right to come in at the left, as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go.

And there is no container to it either.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #433 on: 12/01/2014 18:28:16 »
"as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go." And tell each other about it, that is :)
A Black hole is not included in this description, as there will be no telling of what it is like inside.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #434 on: 12/01/2014 18:32:06 »
Although, assuming it to have a same background of constants, properties and principles, namely that classically defined non existent vacuum, well, as a way to make it 'touch able' imaginatively? Then we might assume it to be describable, possibly? Or maybe that is a place where those constants we find breaks down? I don't know what I would prefer there?

But if there exist walls to this universe, a black hole must be one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #435 on: 12/01/2014 18:33:43 »
Although :)

The wall consist of information, just as 'c' becomes another.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #436 on: 12/01/2014 18:41:13 »
You could say that what defines a universe isn't the idea of dimensions, but the idea of information. And the idea of information is not entropy, it's 'c'. The speed of light in a vacuum defines the speed of information. and that one should be applicable on everything. A entanglement is not information, not unless you find a way to define what the spin is, before measuring. That one you won't find. In the universe I think of, that is :)

It may seem as a boring universe but it isn't. It's a projection, defined by informations speed, as locally measured.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #437 on: 12/01/2014 18:48:16 »
And we have ways of traversing it, expending 'energy'. But you won't be able to shrink a dimension, because dimensions does not exist in my thoughts. What you have is degrees of freedom, and they are a relation to your local constants, properties and so principles. We all have those equivalently as a 'back ground', and so we agree on a 'inside' in where we all exist. But it's not a container defined by dimensions. Maybe I could call it a container of constants though?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #438 on: 12/01/2014 18:56:46 »
Well, maybe you can use dimensions too? But not as a global container of a universe. You define a distance between rest masses relative your clock and ruler, and that will vary relative motion, mass, and 'energy'. You can either define that relative some expectations of a universally (globally) existing measure, making it a container universe. Or you can define it relative locally existing constants, properties and principles, equivalent no matter where you are. That makes the background for your experiments the same, everywhere, doesn't it :) Then you introduce parameters as motion, mass and that pimpernel 'energy' to define how the universe you observe will behave. And it will be true, and you do not need a container anymore.

But it makes it important to define what a 'motion' should be, as well as mass and energy, locally.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #439 on: 12/01/2014 19:06:50 »
What we have so far is 'c', a equivalent arrow, and inertia combined with a arrow, giving us gravity. All local definitions, although equivalently shared everywhere. Not much is it? Well, we have the idea of scaling and decoherence too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #440 on: 12/01/2014 19:10:43 »
Scaling becomes something different to me, thinking of it as meeting a background of constants, etc, also losing that arrow. The local arrow gives us our linear definitions, as distances, dimensions and a measurable universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #441 on: 12/01/2014 19:14:58 »
Isn't it strange to you too? I imagine that by scaling down a universe loses all definitions we find macroscopically. I also define it such as you can't include a observer of it in this definition. For relativity everything evolves around observers, and so it does in all experiments we do. There's alway a locally defined clock and ruler involved. Even theoretically we involve arrows, as bringing us outcomes.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #442 on: 12/01/2014 19:20:06 »
You can't ignore the observer, the only thing you can do is to clarify his/hers/its involvement. And defining it this way the observer must have a relation to what he measures. Is there a difference between a detector and a observer? You can either assume that consciousness must be involved for any measurement to take place, or you can define it as detecting is observing. The last one is the one making most sense to me, and it accepts everything, able to interact with something else.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #443 on: 12/01/2014 19:25:08 »
What it does is two things. It ignores consciousness as a prerequisite for observing, and it defines all 'observers' as being as important for the experiment, you included. It doesn't split it into different categories, instead it assumes that a outcome is a result of relations, where everything defining it has a relation to that outcome.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #444 on: 12/01/2014 19:25:43 »
Your clock and ruler too :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #445 on: 12/01/2014 19:35:28 »
It is your clock and ruler that finally put a stamp upon that experiment, is it not? And a repeatable experiment is a equivalently made, defined, experiment, although done at another location and time, at a different position inside this SpaceTime if you like. And when we do them we define 'laws' by them, if they truly gives us the same outcomes.

For this we ignore the idea of a arrow 'pushing us' into a future, but my own definition of inertia can't do that. And neither will a 'container idea' of a SpaceTime. Because in such a one the dimensions 'adapt' to each other.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #446 on: 12/01/2014 19:38:32 »
There my idea of a arrow can be used more simply though, as it presumes all arrows locally equivalent, even though we will ignore accelerations for this, just looking at time dilations, as defined in uniform motion.

Locality builds on constants, locally measured.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #447 on: 12/01/2014 19:49:32 »
Although, using inertia as becoming gravity due to a arrow interacting with it? What would a acceleration become?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #448 on: 12/01/2014 20:30:30 »
You can't define a rocket accelerating at a uniform constant one G, the same way you can define it standing on Earth. Or can you? Locally defined it should be the same? And, if I now define a arrow as being locally equivalent anywhere, then also define inertia as being a local constant?

Then you have two locally unchanging constants. What you introduce that differs is then a acceleration, which is displacements, and assuming a constantly uniformly accelerating, gravity.

That states that motion should be gravity. Locality defines a uniform motion as being no motion at all, as I think I discussed before. Locally defined you only can get to a 'gravity' through acceleration (deceleration). Also you can consider all particles as, more or less, being at rest with each other in a relative (uniform) motion. It becomes harder from gravitational time dilations to do so, but macroscopically it works. If it didn't you shouldn't exist :)

So, using that definition the only 'motion' we need to consider here should be accelerations, right?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #449 on: 12/01/2014 20:44:24 »
So using accelerations we find the displacements to grow over a defined time period right? Maybe we should look at it at a particle level though? Maybe introduce local clocks microscopically instead too? Instead of using a fuzzily defined 'local' macroscopic clock?

Then each microscopic clock should find a constantly uniformly growing displacement relative the other as a constant uniform acceleration builds up, displaced space growing between them each 'instant', if you see how I think there. Which then would make gravity a result of displacement? But where would that displacement be standing on Earth?

Damn :) I really liked that one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."