How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205541 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 #450 on: 12/01/2014 20:47:53 »
Although it still makes sense to me, defining inertia as a constant?

There must be a way of making sense of 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 #451 on: 12/01/2014 20:50:33 »
It must have to do with what mass is, how it can come to exist, if it is going to make sense.
"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 #452 on: 12/01/2014 20:52:14 »
What makes mass able to accelerate?
"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 #453 on: 12/01/2014 21:02:16 »
As you stand on Earth you're being moved in time, the same definition is correct for all motions, none excluded. Assuming it all to come down to local principles etc, I then need to define this earthly gravity relative the proper mass I stand on, now ignoring 'infinite reach' of all mass acting on each other for a while.



"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 #454 on: 12/01/2014 21:08:02 »
What does inertia need?

momentum?
Displacements?
Mass?
=

Does a wave have a momentum? A photon? It has..
So not momentum, unless I want to define a mass to a photon.

Defining a mass to a photon also should define different 'time dilations', depending on energy. I don't like that one at all.
"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 #455 on: 12/01/2014 21:09:18 »
It depends though? If you imagine it as 'propagating', or as 'non propagating'.
=

Assume a very high energy, evenly distributed. Transform it into photons. Now assume that the higher the energy, the greater the mass. That should give you gravitational time dilations and Lorentz contractions, comparing between frames of reference, assuming frames of reference being applicable to such a scenario. That one depends if you trust a photon to be a 'individual', or not.

the speed may be the same, but their energy can differ. And in a Big Bang?
« Last Edit: 12/01/2014 21:52:06 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 #456 on: 12/01/2014 21:13:35 »
Is there some analogue to microscopic displacements possible, considering a proper mass from its particles? You should be able to define gravitational time dilations, and so Lorentz contractions, there too as it seems to 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 #457 on: 12/01/2014 21:18:18 »
That would move it from a constant uniform accelerations displacements being responsible to one in where we would use the definition of the time dilations and Lorentz contractions we find in both descriptions, wouldn't it? Those then being the definition of how a gravity comes to be?
"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 #458 on: 12/01/2014 21:19:27 »
But it doesn't answer how a rest mass comes to be.
"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 #459 on: 12/01/2014 21:27:33 »
You can use energy defining how a particle comes to be, shooting particles through a EM-accelerator, measuring if there is new interactions. But those interactions are short lived, decaying back into 'stable particles' as I get it. So there is a difference.
"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 #460 on: 12/01/2014 21:34:38 »
Using my definition we then find frames of reference, interacting, creating new but short lived rest mass (particles). And the energy of a particle, is that a temperature? It is when it interacts, so what is your definition of a particle? One single frame of reference, 'at rest' in/with itself? Or frames of reference, interacting?
"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 #461 on: 12/01/2014 21:59:12 »
Could you use 'energy' defining it? Nah, don't think so? The energy represented by Earth, relative its gravity, is infinite magnitudes greater than the energy your rocket spend, although it is increasing the closer you get to the speed of light. Thinking that way, where do we find a equivalent amount of energy, as the one represented by Earth? And is that a equivalence? Not to 'gravity' at least :)
"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 #462 on: 12/01/2014 22:17:54 »
Do you need rest mass to apply 'frames of reference'? That one I think could be translated to 'do waves interact', and they do, they quench and reinforce. But photons then? Don't really know, it depends on your definition I think. Two-photon physics thinks it can. "Two-photon physics, also called gamma–gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created."
"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 #463 on: 12/01/2014 22:32:16 »
If we define mass as 'energy' then everything must interact, the rest becoming a question of transformations and symmetry breaks, due to temperature? And then everything must have a equivalence to mass.

But the energy represented by a rocket at one uniform constant G, including the expenditure do not equal the energy represented by Earth.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #464 on: 12/01/2014 22:37:11 »
Well, maybe not a vacuum. It depends on your definitions, as long as no one can present a experiment proving it, one way or 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 #465 on: 12/01/2014 22:49:42 »
So, can gravity be a measure of energy? Or is it a measure of inertia expressed through time dilations and Lorentz contractions? Displacements inside a arrow? Or something all together different?

To the first question I will say no. Gravity is not a measure of energy, as I can't find a equivalence?
The next one is really tricky, and I just don't see how to answer it.

Displacements in them selves don't answer it either, as I can see.

The third? We have a uniform constant acceleration being equivalent to gravity? And there you can experiment to find it locally true. And that is displacements, and depending on how you think of it also microscopic time dilations and Lorentz contractions. You may be 'at rest' with your particles in a uniform motion, but you're definitely not 'at rest' with them in a acceleration.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #466 on: 12/01/2014 23:17:36 »
Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong angle? If it is a 'constant', it is a 'constant' related to mass, not to waves or photons. Otherwise someone need to show me how I define a inertia to a photon, or a wave. That makes inertia a function of proper mass versus accelerating displacements. All course changes from a geodesic should then represent a acceleration. But then we have this idea of a photon also being able to represent a 'mass'? Never felt really comfortable with that one, although there is a equivalence between mass and energy.

If a photon is equivalent to a mass, why doesn't it accelerate? you can only measure it in its annihilation, and possibly the 'recoil' of it leaving.

'Energy' being 'mass' then?
I don't know what 'energy' is.


"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 #467 on: 12/01/2014 23:30:14 »
Ok, I'll give you this. You can define a photon acceleration/deceleration as its energy becoming blue respective red shifted. And that one is related to frames of reference, and gravity. But that's not what we normally define as a acceleration. Looked at from frames of reference the blue/redshift is a result of your local frame interacting through relative motion, accelerations and gravity with whatever frame you define that photon to originate from.

Do you want this to be what 'energy' is?
"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 #468 on: 12/01/2014 23:34:48 »
Another way would be to define 'energy' from transformations. What it 'cost', and what it 'lose' doing that transformation. That's the one I like myself.
"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 #469 on: 12/01/2014 23:41:08 »
The isolated definition of a photon is something 'time less', able to pass through all of the time we think this universe to existed. Of a same energy the whole way, annihilating as soon as it interacts, with what ever result from that interaction, then becoming a new photon released as proven by the recoil. You can define it as 'elastic' interactions too, but that only mean that you can't find a difference between what's incoming and outgoing, and it's sort of questionable to me.
=

Maybe you could define a question here?
If a elastic interaction exist, can there be a recoil?

If there is no recoil, did it interact?
« Last Edit: 13/01/2014 03:13:30 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 #470 on: 12/01/2014 23:44:32 »
So the blue and red shift becomes just another description between frames of reference, the observer defining it. Not unlike a time dilation, and just as real for that 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 #471 on: 12/01/2014 23:55:27 »
Ah well :)

Nothing is as simple as one want huh.
"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 #472 on: 13/01/2014 00:41:03 »
There is the 'mass energy equivalence' in relativity though, defining it as the proportionality between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared (E=MC2). that enable you to translate a proper mass into a same amount of 'energy'. But, can we apply that one to this? To give the constantly uniformly accelerating rocket a equivalent energy to a whole earth, transformed to 'energy' via E=MC2?
"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 #473 on: 13/01/2014 00:44:43 »
Nevertheless, the equivalence principle is experimentally correct. Why gravity works this way? Or as I then would want it to be :) A inertia, expressed in time, becoming gravity? Beats 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 #474 on: 13/01/2014 00:49:33 »
That I look at it one way doesn't state I have any understanding of why a universe should be one way or another. You just look at the rules of the game, and try to define them so they make sense to you. And the more you learn about those rules, the more traps you will find :) but hey, it's not the game, it's how you play it, right?

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #475 on: 13/01/2014 00:59:28 »
What I'm certain of, well almost certain anyway, is that is that the equivalence principle capture gravity.  And that it defines it two ways, 'proper' rest mass (matter) and as a uniform constant acceleration. And so you can speak of Earth as 'accelerating' at one Gravity, constantly and uniformly. I find a Higgs field define inertia, but I don't see how it can define Earth in a uniform motion. It's solely about accelerations to me, it does not discuss proper mass in uniform motion.

"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 #476 on: 13/01/2014 01:07:02 »
Einstein doesn't tell you why those two are equivalent, but he differs between uniform motion and accelerations, defining uniform motion as 'relative' what you measure it against, and so all uniform motions becoming equivalent, a 'relative motion'. Also giving the concept of proper mass a much clearer definition. To me the Higgs field attach itself to the definition of accelerations, and from there expect a proper mass in uniform motion to follow, magically. But I don't see how it does?
"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 #477 on: 13/01/2014 01:19:42 »
If we want a Higgs field to cover a proper mass in uniform motion we also need to define how it can 'accelerate'. To see why a uniform motion isn't enough you just need to make some experiments in where you measure your gravity with a accelerator, and a scale, in different uniform motions, relative Earth. Would you expect to weight double your original weight, if we would give Earth double its velocity, as measured relative some distant star?

The acceleration needed will give you a added weight, but as soon as we go back to a uniform motion, no matter what velocity, you will weight the same as before, and your accelerometer won't react any more.

So in the acceleration you weighted more, both as measured from a scale, and from accelerometer. Well, a scale is a accelerometer too :) so maybe I should have avoided 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 #478 on: 13/01/2014 01:24:26 »
The difference here is that a Higgs field comes with presumptions. To me it defines a container universe in where we have a field, that field reacts with accelerations, but does not define how it reacts with uniform motion. Neither does it define how it assumes a equivalence to Einsteins definitions of a uniform motion, relative a constant uniform acceleration. Instead it seem to presume as Einstein defined Earth as 'accelerating' a Higgs field will hold true there 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 #479 on: 13/01/2014 01:28:01 »
Einstein defined things, and they worked, but we, or maybe it's just me, still don't know why. Why is 'c'  'c' ? Why is uniform motion relative? How does a uniformly moving Earth, in 'relative motion', accelerate simultaneously?

A hypothesis should move the questions forward, to new ones.
"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 #480 on: 13/01/2014 01:36:35 »
Ah yes, there is that other thing I don't see how it (Higgs theory) defines, and that is observer dependencies. The more you bury it in weird mathematical notions (and notations:), the better it may sound, and the harder it becomes to understand what you really mean. But, if you really think you found a way to make something work, you should at least give it the same time as it took you to get that idea, to explain it as logical and simple as you can. Einstein succeeded, and his theory is weirder than most :) So why can't you?
« Last Edit: 13/01/2014 01:40:29 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 #481 on: 13/01/2014 01:47:55 »
Read me right now :) I enjoy relativity, and I think the parts I understand to be correct. Doesn't mean I can explain the stress energy tensor 'works' though, even though it do, 'work' I mean. That's a mathematical description that I keep losing myself in, or maybe I'm just too lazy for it.

But I don't find the Higgs to address relativity, only accelerations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #482 on: 13/01/2014 02:20:59 »
Sort of a sign of the times isn't it, or humanity maybe? Higgs gets a Nobel prize for his idea, Einstein never got one for his theory of relativity. Higgs particles becomes, at best, a sub discipline of relativity, needed from a discrete bits theory of a universe. But a discrete bits theory does not state where those discrete bits come from, neither how they organize themselves into dimensions, they instead define them from a container, be it how many dimensions you want..
"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 #483 on: 13/01/2014 02:34:23 »
Then again, Higgs and Einstein isn't that separated in time. There are some decades between them, and Higgs shaped his theory wanting to incorporate relativity in it as I understands it. and the discrete bits theory of a container universe isn't that different from the way Einstein defined the moon, there even when I look away. It's when you use local definitions that the container model becomes really questionable, observer dependencies, and how to think of those, real or not? Defining it from a background of constants, locally equivalent, a container model stops making sense. But 'c' and relativity still works for you, observer dependencies works perfectly, but a Higgs field need to be 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 #484 on: 13/01/2014 02:56:23 »
And then the most confusing part of it all :)

You measure locally, you observe your universe locally. We expect differently made, equivalent, repeatable experiments to define it, and we find this idea to work. That makes for the foundation of physics. Then comes 'c', and introduce locality. But we don't question repeatable experiments, and why they still work? Neither do we question what constants becomes, in a universe always defined locally. How they can exist, from what frame of reference.

What I like to think of as, back to fundamentals.
"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 #485 on: 13/01/2014 03:29:56 »
Also, there is a universe of difference between discrete bits, and a universe existing through 'frames of reference' interacting. I too would like to be able to define one frame of reference, 'bits' of a sort, but the closest I seem to get to such a frame is when using local constants and properties, forming principles equivalent everywhere, leading us to repeatable experiments defining physics.

Einstein didn't define it from 'one bit', as I read it, he defined it from frames of references interactions. You need two frames for a universe, yours relative the one you observe.
"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 #486 on: 13/01/2014 11:59:21 »
been thinking about this idea I got yesterday:) The one that refuse to work out. Inertia becoming gravity under a arrow. It's absolutely lovely ::))

And I would like it to work. I can't put it on time dilations and Lorentz contractions though, that's a result of gravity, not a cause of gravity. Shows you the danger of not going to sleep when you should. Sloppy thinking.

I could use time dilations as described from a far observer though, but then I'll go against the definition I use of ones arrow to never change. Because locally 'c' will be 'c' in any uniform motion, and if I define a arrow from 'c' using it as a clock, splitting it in even chunks?
"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 #487 on: 13/01/2014 12:10:21 »
To get that one to work I then have to define it as 'c' being 'c' locally, everywhere, although assuming that from a 'eye of God', a 'global description' every observer will find time dilations, although not locally observable.

Can you imagine what that should mean for one observer, accelerating uniformly and constantly at one Gravity. Let's make two more 'far' observers of the first one. Each one measuring a different velocity relative Earth, going in a same direction as the one accelerating. Both finding the guy accelerating having a different (unique) time dilation and Lorentz contraction, none agreeing on the others findings without a Lorentz transformation. Assuming that time is the culprit also makes you need to define it from some 'objective definition'. Using locality I don't see how to do that, using a far observer I have to define which one that would be 'objective'.
"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 #488 on: 13/01/2014 12:14:11 »
What I need to make this make sense would then be something like a 'global time', a 'hidden variable' not resting on what observers, or Earth, define for this guy accelerating in form of time dilations. Something like a Lorentz transformation, keeping that 'global time'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #489 on: 13/01/2014 12:19:12 »
But it would not be your local time keeping, so I can't use a locally defined 'sheet of constants' for it. Neither can it be the other observer definitions of a time dilation and Lorentz contraction. And it doesn't matter what type of 'motion' they are in, making a whole universe able to give that guy accelerating different time dilations and Lorentz contractions.

In other words, it sux, badly :)
And I still like it.

It seems right.
"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 #490 on: 13/01/2014 12:23:55 »
And it won't help to define a arrow as 'non existent' either, as far as I see. What you have, assuming that inertia becomes a gravity under a arrow, is just 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 #491 on: 13/01/2014 12:29:25 »
I could possibly use something in where certain interactions, as entanglements are 'time less'? Allowing gravity to become one, similar to Mach principle, but now of a 'infinite speed', instead defining it as some Jungian 'gestalt'? In where gravity is what join a universe, 'c' being meaningful communication, relating 'gravity' to something like a entanglement?

Weirder and weirder, what would that make of a gravitational wave coming from a binary star, spinning around each other?
"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 #492 on: 13/01/2014 12:31:48 »
Then, using that nomenclature, a gravitational wave does not exist, or it becomes a 'meaningful information', as it obey '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 #493 on: 13/01/2014 12:41:21 »
How about this then.

Assume that light is non propagating. Use that sheet, paint a pattern of instants, each representing a static 'picture' of a universe on it. Then imagine the sheet to be exchanged at 'c', each instant existing let's say, one Plank time.

That gives us something similar to a gestalt. Assume this direction of exchange to be in one unmeasurable direction we call 'global time'.

Then introduce a 'side way' universe, defined by equivalent local arrows. In where we define gravity as acting and being acted on by all mass. Two ways.
"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 #494 on: 13/01/2014 12:43:09 »
That one might work.
"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 #495 on: 13/01/2014 12:45:29 »
And it seems to fit a description in where singular bit quanta becomes a very tricky proposition, where frames of reference must be defined as a observer, relative what he observes, I think?
"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 #496 on: 13/01/2014 12:49:22 »
Although :)

This definition leaves us to ponder what meaning consciousness will have in it. It gives us structures, from simplicity to complexity, that have very little to do with a definition of 'c', even though it comes from it. On the other tentacle, we already have those structures, anyway.
"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 #497 on: 13/01/2014 12:52:54 »
Then we have a ground beat, we call 'c'. On that beat we have our local interpretations, defined from this ground beat.
=

Well, possibly?
"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 #498 on: 13/01/2014 12:58:54 »
The 'forces' I define should then be a result of my definition of what I can measure, while the universe at large will be instants flickering at 'c', leaving me unable to measure 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 #499 on: 13/01/2014 13:02:11 »
Very theoretical that one, no way I see to prove it. It would be cool if it was provable though. as I could define it as a result of 'free will', I mean, there isn't really a need for a static gestalt to prove itself, is there? Unless we introduce something like a consciousness in it, feeling that need.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."