How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205533 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests 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 #50 on: 13/10/2013 19:19:52 »
Relativity is about measuring between points, you at A, me at B. When we compare our results we can agree on parameters explaining differences in measurements, as Lorentz transformations. Those parameters are not part of your local reality, neither of mine. Our local reality is the exact same as what our respective measurements will tell it to be. So where is the commonality? In a mathematical space?

Alternatively you use local definitions as your stepping stone, then use what is shared 'globally' (principles being equivalent) to define a commonality. Doing so you either try to keep a 'common space', or you don't. The later is simplest, let that space go. What you then have is your local definition of a space, but a space that due to communication also includes me. If I find a way to communicate rules for finding me in your space, also assuming that 'being at rest with' and sharing a same frame of reference is approximately true practically, and ideally a absolute truth. Then we come back to the space we have. the difference being that it is no container anymore, rather ways 'things' connect. The container gets its shape through the connections.

"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 #51 on: 13/10/2013 21:03:03 »
That one is crucial to how I'm staring to think. If we are defined from sharing some same local rules, those rules enabling us to connect, then that is a total different universe from one that is defined from some global point of view. In a 'global universe' containing us, dimensions and degrees of freedom being how we can behave inside it, we are fishes inside a fishbowl. In a universe constantly created and updated through information/communication the fishbowl is a construct. It's like everything else, a matter of where you stand and look at it.

but it can treat a universe expressing Lorentz transformations and time dilations better than the one in where we live in a fishbowl.
"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 #52 on: 13/10/2013 21:11:37 »
And as it is defined through principles that must be true in each local definition, as 'c' and as I think, as a arrow equivalent to the way we define lights speed in a vacuum, for any frame of reference. And I'm including accelerations for this, because if the arrow have a equivalence to 'c', then I need to include a acceleration in it 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 #53 on: 13/10/2013 21:13:02 »
So it should be easy to disprove :)
Just prove that 'c' isn't.
"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 #54 on: 14/10/2013 23:48:23 »
There are interesting possibilities to such a approach. One is hierarchy's, as in 'layers' upon 'layers' using scales to define it.

"In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:

decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s."

There is no set scale that I know of that limit a quantum approach from a 'classical'. But we see the results of a 'classical answer' in easily defined outcomes daily. And then we have consciousness, what would you refer that to? Is it a classical phenomena or a quantum logical? Or a little of both?

In a universe built on communication/information, assuming everything to be 'in touch' constantly, a hierarchy becomes a theoretical construct. In it a universe will be a construct from communication, creating definitions we use of dimensions, as well as of 'degrees of freedom'. Scaling as such is one logic way we find to probe this construction. another question becomes what 'local' should mean in such a universe as it is just information that are being exchanged.

from the universe's side communication should be communication as I think. It should not differ between hierarchies, and so could be seen as a 'flat network' of nodes communicating, the hierarchy/ies we find arising from the way the information is handled, meaning all measurements. Another way of expressing communication is that 'everything measures on everything' as I think. 'Locality' in that definition should then be a definition of what nodes communicate with what nodes under a experiment. And a hierarchy would be the way we define it to become, building a mental logical construction, either using a arrow, or not.

It's locality in the old way as it assumes that nodes 'close' to each other are those that communicate, now using a arrow for the definition. But it's locality in a new way as it does not use a definition of a dimension, distance etc, limiting it. The universe built from its communication, and our experiments, as it may be. In it, a definition of something being 'close' to something else, is resting on what experiments tells you, not on what its (the universes) 'dimensions' tell you.
=

Think of it this way. The experiment will define 'closeness'. Using the arrow, as I do, is related to outcomes as measuring in our classical way. The arrow ticks, everywhere, and its outcomes define a universe. But the experiment will define what is 'close', not an idea of dimensions.

A measurement is a outcome. Can't get around that, 'weak measurements' must also give you a outcome to draw a conclusion.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 01:12:31 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 #55 on: 15/10/2013 00:00:08 »
I want to keep a arrow, locally defined, and I use 'c' for it. Then you have a locally equivalent definition valid for each 'point' in a 'universe'. It's primary a theoretical definition as it under our ordinary paradigm today then must, for being 'measurable', be able to be related to some scale or other. And I am using 'points' for it, am I not? It's been a headache to me, trying to imagine how one should define some smallest common nominator for such a 'point', holding equivalent properties in itself, valid 'everywhere in a universe'.

But you don't need points for it, you can use a field. Although a 'point like particle' is one without dimensions a field is easier to relate to, possibly. You just need to treat it, scaling it down, to some common principles defining 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 #56 on: 15/10/2013 00:05:53 »
A field have another excellent property to me :) There is no set 'size' defining it, as in finding 'bits' at some ultimate scale. More than possibly the idea of scaling down to its singular excitations, but that will then be a question of your interpretation of a excitation. That means that it is a smooth phenomena to me, although possible to translate into 'bits'. The 'common universe' we measure on have so far proven to be smooth, astronomically tested. and it makes sense if you think of it as emergences defining scales.
=

Because in a universe of emergence, scales are a construct too. Something that allows us to probe different logical frameworks. A very weird universe indeed :)
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 00:34:34 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 #57 on: 15/10/2013 00:16:24 »
A field of equivalent 'time'/ 'c' (locally defined naturally, there is no other way you can measure) underlying the constructs we find :) It's a nice thought to me. the arrow exist.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 00:18:35 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 #58 on: 15/10/2013 00:43:12 »
One has to remember that I differ emergences from illusions. Time is no illusion, neither is the arrow, its' the structure on where you will find outcomes resting. Time dilations are emergences, not illusions, as they are measurable. The same goes for a Lorentz contraction. In a universe of communication dimensions are one way to describe what we observe, degrees of freedom another (as I think better) although dimensions are easier to understand in that it very well describes all objects in our 'common universe'.

A illusion must be able to prove wrong, a emergence though should be a measurable thing.
"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 #59 on: 29/10/2013 20:25:55 »
So why would I want to exchange dimensions and degrees of freedom as the dimensional canvas in where we move to some weird idea in where the connections is what makes us perceive dimensions? For me it's following 'locality' to where it should come from. 'Locality' is to me an idea of some scale in where we should find a arrow of time, and 'c', locally equivalent. It is a question of scales to me, possibly also without limits. If what makes dimensions can be related to some smallest meaningful points, and those related to equivalent properties, as 'c' and its equivalent arrow may make. Then those becomes a sort of nodes, defining relations interacting and so creating dimensions to us consisting of them.

Just think of it as principles defining what we see and measure on. What I call scales here then becomes the background from where a universe constantly becomes and gets affirmed through interactions. But it does not state that this is all there is. It just state that it is from those principles we find our ways to measure and communicate in the way we do. To me that seems to suggest that you might have several 'co-existing' realities, each one finding itself 'alone', having its own definition of what 'dimensions' and 'degrees of freedom' must mean.
"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 #60 on: 29/10/2013 20:35:47 »
Scales becomes something its own right there. In one way able to use as we normally use it, 'magnifying and shrinking', but also becoming an idea in where it is our limits of observation that defines what a scale means. As seen from the 'inside' of a 'universe', scales must exist. From the 'eye of a God', or 'outside' any such definition, scales should become an approximation of what a dimensional system contain, but a meaningless concept when described over 'it all'.

If it didn't presume dimensions, a canvas would be a good concept for describing it 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 #61 on: 31/10/2013 21:41:02 »
Let's consider it from temperature.

A temperature is 'vibrations' by matter. Motion of some sort. A 'perfect vacuum' is the absolute absence of matter at some geometrically defined 'space'. Does that 'space' exist? What about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) defining it such as you can't know both a particle's position and its momentum, exactly. Using that on a perfect vacuum, will that create particles? No, it won't.

"Virtual Particles

In many decays and annihilations, a particle decays into a very high-energy force-carrier particle, which almost immediately decays into low-energy particle. These high-energy, short-lived particles are virtual particles.

The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice.

The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed."

You need interactions by 'real particles' to define 'virtual particles'. But let us consider a vacuum as a 'fluid' then? Not good to me, it presumes that a vacuum has properties relating it to matter. Ever seen the statement that a vacuum can do ftl? If it can it must be a fluid, and of a extremely strange sort, as it then goes against relativity's statement that nothing surpass the speed of light, in a 'perfect vacuum'. In fact invalidating relativity, as we now have defined a 'absolute nothing' as possible to define a position in/to it, excepting any and all matter. Because that is what it state. That you can define a point in a universe consisting of a perfect vacuum, then follow its 'propagation' through that same vacuum, to find it 'move', and also move 'ftl'?

A temperature is matters motion, or interactions. So does a vacuum have a temperature? Not a perfect vacuum, unless you introduce mass, which is what you must do, to measure any possible temperature. You could imagine that a vacuum contain 'properties of matter' without creating it, unless you present it with real matter, such matter measurable over time as existing.

A 'motion' of matter is measurable displacements over time. A virtual particle is a displacement, not measurable over time, as I see it.

A perfect vacuum can not, in and by itself, be defined and constricted to displacements over time. All geometrical definitions of points need real matter, as your anchors, from where you define a motion of 'something', be it a 'hole' or a 'particle'.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 21:43:41 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #62 on: 31/10/2013 21:56:53 »
Maybe you can shorten this to the question: Does a perfect vacuum have properties, except geometrically? Can you scale a vacuum down? If you would, do you expect to reach some ultimate scale from where it can't be scaled down further? If you want 'bits', and if you want some common smallest nominator scale wise for both particles and 'vacuum', where do you expect it to exist? Planck scale?

Does a vacuum need to 'exist'? Matter exist, measurably so. Bosons and fermions exist, measurably so, a vacuum though? From a point of a universe, as a four dimensional container of it all, measuring from an 'inside' you might want to consider particles of all kinds as dancing on a 'energy' of the vacuum, defined through a arrow.

From a point of particles 'properties' creating the four dimensional universe we see, and measure on though? What would that vacuum become then?
"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 #63 on: 31/10/2013 22:15:59 »
So, what is 'energy' :)

From a point of 'properties' defining a universe, creating dimensions, energy becomes understandable to me. It's fermions and bosons properties, defining 'my universe', observer dependently, although taking observer dependencies further than what we normally means. From a point of a 'cosmic container' it has no simple answer to me. You're free to define it as only consisting of 'one container' or 'several containers' co-existing, alternatively 'splitting' (many worlds) etc etc. And what the two definitions also differs in is the way they treat a arrow. The first one assumes a arrow as a property, equivalent to 'c', existing in all 'points'. The second one?

The first one defines a universe by measuring, locally.

"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 #64 on: 31/10/2013 22:20:57 »
And constants then?

That should be the properties, shouldn'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 #65 on: 31/10/2013 22:35:08 »
What I mean saying "And what the two definitions also differs in is the way they treat a arrow. The first one assumes a arrow as a property, equivalent to 'c', existing in all 'points'. The second one?" Is that from the first definition a arrow must be what creates a measurable universe. We live inside a arrow of time, defining us and our measurements.

What you can't measure on won't exist for you. That's your 'container' of sorts, but not as seen from the normal point of view of a universal container, as that 'commonly shared universe' we think we observe. This universe is defined by what you can measure, possibly infinitely 'co-existing' with other definitions and properties we don't know how to, and possibly never can, measure. It takes on another aspect to me, 'co-existing', if you think of it as defined by measurements. And scales, as well as all other properties we might find a universe to consist of, then becomes a result of those properties. We becomes one emergence, of many.
"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 #66 on: 31/10/2013 22:37:24 »
What it does is to simplify things for me, and I like it as simple as I can get 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 #67 on: 31/10/2013 22:45:25 »
Then again, if 'energy' is bosons and fermions only, what would those other possibilities be? The ones 'co-existing' with us, although not measurable? I guess I would call that 'energy' too? That we can't measure energy by itself, only measure its transformations, supports that view, I think? 'Energy' is still a slippery thing, although as defined from inside a dimensional system perfectly simple, following the principles, constants, properties, defining transformations, which is what we measure.
"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 #68 on: 31/10/2013 22:57:54 »
'c', and that equivalent, locally measured arrow? At what ultimate scale could I expect to pinpoint them? Light is without a 'dimension', can you see how that could be, from a view in where those 'particles' create those dimensions? Maybe 'dimensions' is just our construct.
"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 #69 on: 31/10/2013 23:11:25 »
Because a scale needs dimensions, just as a fish needs water, ahem. One gets defined by the other so to speak :) If you are able to define a system, using whatever properties it have to decide a dimensionality, creating interactions following a arrow of time, defining degrees of freedom, then you have made a universe, and you should be able to scale 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 #70 on: 31/10/2013 23:22:40 »
And such a universe explains Lorentz contractions better to me, because those are observer dependent, and there is no 'commonly same universe' as some fishbowl containing us all. What 'contains us' are shared principles, constants, and properties. And the same must then go for that complementary time dilation, as what we really share, isn't what we measure on, as that rocket at that black hole, 'standing still' to us, forever. What we share is 'locality'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #71 on: 31/10/2013 23:26:22 »
Not 'locality' as in 'action and reaction'. That's a classically valid definition, but not the one I'm referring to. I'm referring to the way we measure, always locally. I'm referring to shared principles, constants and properties. Those are in a sense not 'observer dependent', although they will define 'observer dependencies', as your locally defined arrow, and '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 #72 on: 31/10/2013 23:56:28 »
So what about Hawking radiation, defined as a virtual particle pair created at the event horizon of a black hole, one part wandering inside annihilating some other particle inside it, the other then materializing inside a arrow, outside the event horizon, as needed by conservation of energy, creating that Hawking radiation?

Where was the matter involved there? If my definition of the procedure now is correct? It came about spontaneously, from a virtual pair production, didn't it? Doesn't that state that a vacuum must exist, as a real entity in itself?

Don't know, maybe? Or maybe you could define it as where particles 'energy' gets excited, due to properties as relative mass/ relative motion accelerations, rest mass gets created? All of it assuming that Hawking radiation exist. You can find a similar result in a cloud chamber, creating more particles than what went into the collision.

It's not that a vacuum isn't there, it's what it should consist of.
"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 #73 on: 01/11/2013 00:47:54 »
The mass of a black hole has a proportion to its geometry, or better expressed, it's when the proportion breaks down you get to a black hole.

"The Chandrasekhar limit (named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar) is the maximum nonrotating mass which can be supported against gravitational collapse by electron degeneracy pressure. It is commonly given as being about 1.4 or 1.44 solar masses. Electron degeneracy pressure is a quantum-mechanical effect arising from the Pauli exclusion principle. Since electrons are fermions, no two electrons can be in the same state, so not all electrons can be in the minimum-energy level. Rather, electrons must occupy a band of energy levels.

Compression of the electron gas increases the number of electrons in a given volume and raises the maximum energy level in the occupied band. Therefore, the energy of the electrons will increase upon compression, so pressure must be exerted on the electron gas to compress it. This is the origin of electron degeneracy pressure."

Passing this you get a black hole, defined by all paths leading to the same place passing its event horizon, and it is at that event horizon we have this virtual particle formation. So there is an abundance of mass, creating those virtual particles, or/and depending on definition, energy.  And mass defines what vacuum, or 'space' you will find existing measuring.



"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 #74 on: 01/11/2013 00:58:13 »
We get our forms from the 'relation' between mass and vacuum, don't we? Without a space no form. So? Energy?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #75 on: 01/11/2013 09:23:37 »
It's quite nice, isn't it? Just consider how things connect to things, consider 'forces'. The forces we talk about, at a small scale, create a form macroscopically. It's not about some universal container inside where we find mass and radiation, it's about connections, communication, and how it can create a measurable universe. We 'talk' with that universe constantly, through those forces, defining ourselves relative it, with the universe defining itself relative us. And we connect in so many ways simultaneously, communication existing as an abstract reality, as with speech.

And yes, I think simultaneously exist, locally defined :) The problem being defining what locally should mean there. Is it a question of some smallest scale? Or is it locally shared properties, principles and constants? Would you say a constant have a scale?
"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 #76 on: 01/11/2013 10:22:23 »
There is a problem with it, there always is. The question if what we see as forces must be what defines everything? And by everything I mean all possible connections, those that are measurable as well as those that might not be measurable. Assuming that quantum computer can exist, assuming that it reach a outcome 'instantly', would you say this involve a arrow? Logically some questions would take too long to answer normally, or be just impossible, but we do expect a quantum computer to be able to crack them. As asymmetric encryption.

So, did it 'think' about it? Did it 'test' for all possibilities?

What is 'energy'? Is it only those forces we find that defines it? Simplest solution is to define it as what we measure is what exist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #77 on: 01/11/2013 10:31:49 »
But if I define a arrow to 'c', then you might be able to argue that a quantum computer set this principle aside, as it reaches its outcome 'instantly'. If that is so, then I'm either wrong in finding the arrow equivalent to 'c' (locally defined) or it should be a indication of there existing possibilities outside our definition of a linearly timed universe, following different principles.

What would 'energy' be without 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 #78 on: 08/11/2013 17:34:58 »
And then we have 'c' itself. The speed of light in a vacuum, as locally measured, is the same everywhere. Doesn't matter what velocity you may define a object too, a light beam leaving that object should be at 'c', as measured from your frame, or any other non accelerating frame. And that light has a momentum is not synonymous with it having a rest mass, there exist no 'rest frame' for light in where you can measure a mass.

And 'c builds on two assumptions, one is a arrow of time existing, locally equivalent everywhere. The other is our definition of a distance, as locally measured. The really interesting thing with both local time and a distance are that, no matter time dilations and Lorentz contractions, they implicitly are assumed to have equivalent values locally measured. And, assuming they aren't, we can't prove any repeatable experiments anymore, unless you have a way to superimpose their 'frames of reference' upon each other, them becoming exact replicas, as 'one and the same'. And that really mean they have to be the exact same, inseparable from each other.

So we build science, and repeatable experiment, on a arrow of time, locally equivalent for all of us. You want to retract that arrow, you also retract our definition of a repeatable experiment
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #79 on: 08/11/2013 17:55:13 »
A 'virtual particle' is a 'possible particle'. Its definition rest on HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). The idea is that as its actual 'existence' is so short, it finds itself able to express a wide variance of energy levels (time versus energy, or, position versus momentum). What the duration should be for such a particle I don't know, but presuming its existence it should be of interest to define it. One Planck time is the time it takes for light to propagate one Plank length, so maybe you could find it around there?

The interesting idea here is the assumption that we can reach a 'end' of our arrow, scale wise. We scale it down and as we do another vista opens itself, free from our constraints. You can also ignore the idea of virtual particles for it I think, instead using indeterminacy for pointing out a same phenomena.
"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 #80 on: 08/11/2013 18:08:33 »
So, what do you think?

You expect us to be able to split the arrow? Is it a 'smooth phenomena', or can we treat it as 'bits'?
Both?
"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 #81 on: 08/11/2013 18:12:20 »
The arrow and 'c'.

They are equivalent, locally defined. So, you split the arrow, you split 'c'. You scale it down. What if what builds it up from Planck scale, also builds our universe? Including what dimensions and degrees of freedom we find?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #82 on: 08/11/2013 18:17:15 »
Try to use that way of looking at it, imaginatively 'rushing up' from Planck scale into the macroscopic world, creating a arrow and 'c'. ( You are now traveling 'faster than light' :)
"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 #83 on: 08/11/2013 18:38:36 »
Alternatively think of it as every point having its own stress, relative all other points, or tension, like being inside one part of a infinite amount of soap bubbles, from where we apply forces (tensions stress) on 'membranes'. Those membranes relating to distance and arrow relative other membranes, depending on local manipulation of forces. It's two ways to look at it, as a 'sideway communication' in a macroscopic universe at the same time as it is about how scales communicate a universe, and 'c', and a equivalent arrow. ( It's not a very good description I'm afraid, hopefully I'll find a better :)
"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 #84 on: 08/11/2013 23:01:44 »
And yep, alike a SF :)
Isn't it?

Then again, it fits Lorentz contractions better than a 'container', and so time dilations. That is, if you accept them? And it allows for a local representation of constants, at the same time as those becomes 'universally same' allowing for a repeatable experiment. It actually depends on defining local constants, principles, as what gives us that 'common universe' we 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 #85 on: 17/11/2013 12:46:18 »
Would you say that 'c' is a constant? A local constant, although shared by all (and in all) 'points'? If you now scale it down to Planck scale, is what you meet there a static field of 'c'? And that static 'field' if so, what would you call it? We're made up from it, aren't we? And if 'c' is equivalent to a arrow, then, as you scale it down that arrow 'diminish' does it not? Or better expressed, 'disappear' at Planck scale, locally defined. Now, if it was so, what would you expect to exist under Planck scale? A 'negative expression' of a SpaceTime? Negative 'time'? Or is that where it end, Planck scale?
« Last Edit: 17/11/2013 12:52:36 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 #86 on: 20/11/2013 15:44:37 »
Now, in a universe regulating communication through a local 'c', assuming a equivalence to a local arrow of time, you can't have superluminary speeds (FTL). What you instead have is question about what a vacuum and a 'room' is. If you define it as communication, created (and received) relative your local constants. And if you define it as your local measurements does not lie. Then a room isn't a 'set container', well, not 'globally defined' at least. It may very well be so that your measurements give you a locally set 'container', in which local constants and principles defines your limits, but there are no such thing as a commonly same universe. Instead we have to fall back on what limits, principles and constants we share. Those define the 'locally measured' room and 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 #87 on: 20/11/2013 15:51:52 »
What I mean is that although you might want to define the 'traveling twin' to do ftl, from your frame of reference, (ignoring time dilations) that one will be about comparing one frame (yours), to another (his), then calling the one you're not sharing 'ftl', using your local measurements to prove 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 #88 on: 20/11/2013 15:56:36 »
But we all can share a frame of reference. Not easily :) as we would need to super imposed, but macroscopically we all have one frame of reference that we are at rest relative, Earth. When we share that frame our arrow of time 'synchronizes'. That it is able to do so should tell you something.
"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 #89 on: 20/11/2013 16:01:13 »
And it doesn't matter what speed or mass you define to a frame of reference. When we join it, we will all share in it, equally. It's 'c', locally defined, a 'arrow of time', locally defined. And it won't change for you, you can't fool it, or your lifespan. It will be the same locally defined wherever you go, however fast.
"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 #90 on: 20/11/2013 16:06:52 »
What it tells me is that what really is 'global' is constants and principles. They are the same for all frames of reference possible in this 'universe'. If you would find a local representation of 'c' becoming different, so also locally 'elongating' your lifespan. Then I would say 'you're out'a this world' :) Because that one doesn't belong to the universe we see. And that makes it easy for me. I have a definition of 'c' and a 'arrow'. And anyone claiming that this is wrong :) well, 'you're out'a this world' ::))
"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 #91 on: 20/11/2013 16:11:02 »
And to then imagine a universe as a 'container' filled with time dilations and Lorentz contractions, as some do, actually craves a near infinite, possibly infinite, amount of universes. If you trust relativity? Because your measurements ain't mine. And those local measurements is what gives us science, and repeatable experiments, and 'global constants'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #92 on: 20/11/2013 16:15:46 »
Well, they are equivalent, the measurements I mean. But only when defined locally, as 'c'. Any comparison between different frames of reference will prove the statement made before though. That your measurements, ain't mine.
"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 #93 on: 20/11/2013 16:19:09 »
So we have two definitions, you can measure something from a same frame of reference, or you can use (for simplicity) uniform motion and from there locally define 'c', as well as what a distance should be, as using lights wavelength relative some arrow of time passing for you. It's all local though.
"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 #94 on: 20/11/2013 16:23:04 »
So where is the 'illusion'. Would you call a locally measured 'c' a illusion? And if a arrow of time is locally equivalent to that (and it is). Is that a 'illusion'?
"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 #95 on: 20/11/2013 16:26:13 »
Is it a 'illusion' that we all, by joining a same frame of reference, will come to a equivalent definition of distance, as well as of time. No time dilations comparing between us, and no Lorentz contractions.
"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 #96 on: 20/11/2013 16:28:00 »
What is the mystery here, is frames of reference.
"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 #97 on: 20/11/2013 16:30:55 »
It is 'frames of reference' that gives us 'scales'.
"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 #98 on: 20/11/2013 16:41:25 »
And it is when you scale something down you meet the foundations for quantum mechanics. "In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition.

One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:

decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary."

It's a tricky point this one. But if we define a single 'frame of reference' as something in a superposition, ideally. We get pretty close.
"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 #99 on: 20/11/2013 16:45:38 »
And Planck scale. I would say that this is a limit, for the observable 'universe'. It's a border to me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."