How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 206850 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #550 on: 18/01/2014 13:05:59 »
One way is to define a container universe, and you need one for it, don't think you can get away from it. Then you assume that all relative motion takes itself out, then you apply an eye of a God to it and define it as there is 'global' definition of this energy 'propagating' in the vacuum, that is constant and in a equilibrium.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #551 on: 18/01/2014 13:08:24 »
When this container model meets observer dependencies it breaks down into multi verses though.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #552 on: 18/01/2014 13:10:07 »
The container model is described through 'dimensions'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #553 on: 18/01/2014 13:12:29 »
A degree of freedom, described locally, what would that be? Could I define some center to it and then displacements from that center describing a 'motion', as in a degree of freedom. relative me (someone/thing) observing it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #554 on: 18/01/2014 13:16:38 »
So where is that 'energy' you find the sun to have stored?
In the detector?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #555 on: 18/01/2014 13:21:37 »
You see, assuming lights propagation, you need to define different patches of a vacuum containing different 'energy' in each instant of measuring 'energy/rays etc' propagating through it. That one hurts my head, what happened to the neutral aspect, and equivalence, of a vacuum here?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #556 on: 18/01/2014 13:25:14 »
You can't use a container model, with dimensions, at the same time define the vacuum as being neutral, while defining it to contain different energies, propagating? What are you doing here? Imagining the vacuum to be some sort of ocean with 'streams of light'? Then you must differ 'bosons' from a vacuum, and 'energy'. What do that leave a perfect vacuum?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #557 on: 18/01/2014 13:27:56 »
So you then must define 'bosons' as something different from the concept of 'energy', if you want a vacuum to contain it. Or you split it in two, 'bosons and 'energy' ' and then, a perfect vacuum.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #558 on: 18/01/2014 13:33:11 »
I guess you prefer the first, letting a 'energy' differ from bosons. Can you prove that one?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #559 on: 18/01/2014 13:36:32 »
Can you prove different patches of a vacuum containing different energies then?

I don't think so, neither the first, nor the last question. What you can prove is that using a sun (source), then placing a detector (sink) somewhere inside a defined vacuum you will find proportionality. It is from finding the relations we define the propagation.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #560 on: 18/01/2014 13:41:37 »
As soon as you introduce a proper mass, it start to interact with bosons. Using a mass closing in to gamma radiation, you should find a retardation of motion, as the photons create a pressure, through their momentum.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #561 on: 18/01/2014 13:43:37 »
What is a perfect vacuum?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #562 on: 18/01/2014 13:49:44 »
All would be good, possibly? If we had this container defining it, and naturally so 'dimensions'. But the container, and the dimensions, are observer dependent giving us locally defined 'multi verses' here, and now.
=

That's what Lorentz transformations is all about, translating observer dependencies.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #563 on: 18/01/2014 13:54:23 »
And if you want to connect 'energy' to different regimes, defined by temperatures, then that to the 'dimensionality'? Including that perfect vacuum?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #564 on: 18/01/2014 13:58:44 »
I would say ones definition of a perfect vacuum is a relation, to mass and motion, locally defined. What we may agree on is what we think defines a perfect vacuums 'property's'. And that is it containing degrees of freedom, as defined from a observer, and so distance(s). You can define it as having a relation to energy too, but 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!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #565 on: 18/01/2014 14:06:56 »
light has a vector, doesn't it? We give it a source, then define a propagation and vectors for it (speed and direction). Then we define it to have a momentum, giving it a pressure on mass, acting in the direction of its propagation.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #566 on: 18/01/2014 14:08:25 »
That's a pretty robust argument for lights propagation, isn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #567 on: 19/01/2014 14:44:28 »
My universe becomes pretty weird, doesn't it? It assumes that as soon as a arrow is gone, and that you do by scaling, every 'direction' must point to a 'center'. And as there is no arrow, any definition of distance, so splitting that center into 'points', must lose their meaning. If something is perfectly homogeneous, equivalent in all aspects, without a arrow. How do you introduce it to get to the isotropy (distances and dimensions)?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #568 on: 19/01/2014 14:45:50 »
It's a 'sidereal universe' we live in. There is no up or down to it, ignoring gravity. Any direction is as good as any other.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #569 on: 19/01/2014 14:47:33 »
And what makes it possible to define a distance is a arrow. So how do we introduce that arrow?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #570 on: 19/01/2014 14:51:34 »
The observer, isn't it :)

From relativity's point of view you must have a observer. You can replace that for needing two frames of reference, one frame defining the other, from its local clock and ruler.

That's your 'time' in a sidereal universe, becoming your arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #571 on: 19/01/2014 14:56:33 »
Decoherence becomes really interesting to me, for defining it. It's what 'evens out' QM ,becoming the laws of Newton and Einstein macroscopically. Decoherence needs a arrow, and the arrow becomes decoherence.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #572 on: 19/01/2014 15:05:21 »
Then we have this assumption that laws are time invariant, meaning that you can play the movie backwards. I think it is correct, but I also define it such as it is a logic you must find, if you want a universe such as ours. I do not jump from there to a definition in which as a shadow creeps forward on a sun dial, it will be as true to say it also should be able to creep the opposite way. I differ between a needed logic, giving us repeatable experiment, and a presumption that you should be able to use that logic for reversing your arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #573 on: 19/01/2014 15:09:03 »
What I suspect I'm saying here is that I would expect 'time' to have a direction, a property of time, or possibly as a result from properties interacting becoming a arrow. Mathematics can prove all sorts of things, depending on your system of logic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #574 on: 19/01/2014 15:15:57 »
Can you see why 'time travels' becomes impossible from such a definition?

It's about a whole universe played backwards, from using an idea of decoherence. You can't lift yourself out of the fractal.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #575 on: 19/01/2014 15:20:01 »
Consciousness and linear logic is also a result of a arrow. To define this 'consciousness' without thoughts you may experience meditating you actually need to get out of it, starting to think again, don't you :) No way to define it being there.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #576 on: 19/01/2014 15:21:03 »
so what you define belongs to the arrow, never mind what you would like to call it. We use a arrow, always.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #577 on: 19/01/2014 15:28:09 »
It's the exact same experience as you will get from realizing that we only can define something from a 'inside'. Every thought you had, every experience you know, is defined from a inside of this universe. It does not tell you that there is a 'outside' though. That presumption comes from our definitions of 'dimensions' inside this universe. From there it is easy to assume that as a box has a inside as well as a outside, so must every 'inside' contain a possibility of a outside. But that is a fallacy of logic. Define a universe from relations defining 'dimensions' and the outside becomes the inside, what we call 'inside' defined by measurements, and repeatable experiments. 
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #578 on: 19/01/2014 15:34:52 »
But light has a vector, doesn't it? And a pressure? so it must 'propagate'?

So the universe is as I see it intuitively, looking out at the stars at night. Nah, it's not.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #579 on: 19/01/2014 15:35:43 »
At least not from where I stand :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #580 on: 19/01/2014 15:48:19 »
Using relations you will get to a definition of a universe, as being a linear logic, definable through a arrow and what repeatable experiments you find setting its limits. The relations becomes it all actually, dissolve decoherence (as a probable) and the universe should disappear.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #581 on: 19/01/2014 15:54:13 »
It also becomes meaningless arguing what 'reality' is. We define ours from a inside, and it is as real as it ever can be from that inside. When you die you die, you are no longer 'inside' unless you want to count in 'energy' as a countable. Your consciousness, your definition of yourself, needs a arrow. That doesn't state that there can't be anything more to it though, but whatever that would be it won't use this arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #582 on: 19/01/2014 16:06:48 »
A slight release, isn't it :) Getting away from oneself I mean, the last and biggest adventure you'll ever make. If we use fractals for defining how simple becomes complex, then the universe should be a mathematical fractal to my mind. A fractal that is described as evolving by a arrow, defined by decoherence, and constants. Properties and principles arising from it interacting.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #583 on: 19/01/2014 16:10:49 »
And free will then, well, what is HUP?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #584 on: 19/01/2014 16:13:09 »
All of it defined locally naturally, over frames of reference.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #585 on: 19/01/2014 16:17:16 »
So what 'glues' one frame of reference to another? Forces? Constants, properties and principles? I prefer the last.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #586 on: 19/01/2014 16:21:12 »
But it depends on from where you look at it. Forces exist, gravity acts not only as a point like experience, having one direction 'down wards' into some center. It acts on you and you act on it, which allows us to define why our solar system hang together. EM is the same way, you can exchange frames of reference there too, defining it differently.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #587 on: 19/01/2014 21:33:06 »
So, we have us a universe in 3-D, with a local arrow giving us four dimensions, but I suspect you can add one local direction downwards to it. Doesn't matter where you are either. Five 'dimensions' if you like :) the most important being the one you get to, scaling it down.
==

All depending on definitions naturally.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #588 on: 19/01/2014 21:40:45 »
Or two?

If you imagine it as a plane, then scaling down that plane gets a direction of its own. I don't like dimensions that much. I think it's better to define it from what a observer, locally defined, can measure over frames of reference. Then it should be the behavior you find that define the degrees of freedom something have. And so we find four macroscopically but a microscopic lattice might be defined to have two. And going further down, how many degrees of freedom can there be?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #589 on: 19/01/2014 21:44:19 »
Can you define a dimensionality in where there is no possibility of scaling? Should a string be impossible to scale?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #590 on: 19/01/2014 21:48:33 »
The point to it is that a string is below any measurements, but if you truly think them to exist, then there is no reason I see why you can't imagining them able to scale, down and up. Scaling becomes a direction of its own to me, although part of the three dimensional space we define macroscopically.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #591 on: 29/01/2014 12:56:15 »
How different does a universe becomes if you disallow dimensions, instead using degrees of freedom? For example, a orbital, can you describe that in 'degrees of freedom'? Well, you can describe it as a result of how the atoms are organized, as in a lattice. It becomes a statement much alike the argument Einstein presented. Relativity being frames of reference interacting, having the addition of the importance of the 'observer', meaning that the observer always has to define it locally, using a locally defined clock and ruler for measuring in comparing between frames.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #592 on: 29/01/2014 12:58:39 »
Then we have the idea of being at rest with something. Assume that gravity in 'reality' will come down to just one direction. The direction shown by a singular 'point mass', inwards.

That gives us one degree of freedom, doesn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #593 on: 29/01/2014 13:03:02 »
And a lattice then? Two degrees of freedom?

And to that you need to add observer dependencies, but I can't see how that could influence the degrees of freedom you find something to have? Maybe it can though? As in imagining myself 'speeding relativistically', very close to lights speed, trying to define the degrees of freedom for suns, moving relative me in the vacuum. Would they be found to move?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #594 on: 29/01/2014 13:06:19 »
We have two ways to define reality. One is through observer dependencies, and experiments of course, the other is from a thought up 'objective standpoint' in where I apply what I call the eyes of a God to a universe, and so a imaginary 'outside'. Is there a outside, if you only have degrees of freedom to define it from?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #595 on: 29/01/2014 13:14:13 »
I think that a field picture is acceptable from a definition in where we use local constants combined with the degrees of freedom we can prove, as defined by the observer. When different observers agree on each others observations, and their 'equal setups' we come to a definition of a 'commonality' in this universe, and 'repeatable experiments'. Those then must define the 'common universe' we agree to exist. But there will be no outside to it, unless you define it such as only what we directly can measure is 'inside' it. Which in this case should disallow a Higgs boson/field.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #596 on: 29/01/2014 13:18:04 »
So what is then degrees of freedom, and where do they end? Can you scale them away?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #597 on: 29/01/2014 13:23:33 »
If you use a local representation, ignoring dimensions, how many degrees of freedom do exist? We use four dimensions in relativity, three room dimensions, and one 'time' dimension. That becomes the container from where I define the degrees of freedom to that lattice. Would we be able to see more degrees of freedom than the ones defining the container? Doesn't seem possible, does it? If we could the container would be differently defined.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #598 on: 29/01/2014 13:29:46 »
There is no size to this universe, but there seem to be a scale. You can scale it down, and according to my thoughts then, the 'distance traversed' in scaling down should be approximately the same everywhere. You could also define it from observer dependencies as mass, gravity, motion, energy density etc. But I'm using the prerogative of applying 'eyes of a God' for this :) And so I expect the 'distance traversed' to be equal, everywhere.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 13:31:17 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #599 on: 29/01/2014 13:34:50 »
It's a different universe than the one we see. We see it without including observer dependencies, and we assume that what 'I see is what you see too'. That makes applying the eyes of God real easy, and thinking of it as having a inside and a outside real easy too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."