How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 206873 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 #600 on: 29/01/2014 13:39:21 »
So, what do you think?

Can you use the eyes of a God in a universe defined by the observers local measurements?
Only when defining it locally, then adding in other observers locally found constants.
Defining a commonly same universe from those repeatable experiments.

That should be 'the eye of a God'.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 13:42:31 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 #601 on: 29/01/2014 13:48:43 »
To me the eyes of a God should be to look for what we otherwise won't notice, or recognize. A bare bones map to a universe, and the bare bones would then be constants, although you from them, or if ignoring those, might be able to argue that it is repeatable experiments that are those bare bones. But 'c' is a constant, and that constant creates observer dependencies, gravity is another, creating observer dependencies. Newton is right.
"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 #602 on: 29/01/2014 13:51:58 »
None of this explains why we have frames of reference though. If now locality is where 'reality' stops.

What allows a frame to communicate with another frame of reference?
'c' is one answer, but it doesn't tell us how they exist.

Dimensions as some container is not a good answer from observer dependencies. Degrees of freedom doesn't tell it either?

So, what make one frame of reference able to 'co exist' with another?
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 14:02:50 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 #603 on: 29/01/2014 14:08:17 »
The universe I think of is locally in-differentiable. At some ultimate scale 'smeared out' into a total sameness, and no arrow to it either. So you can't discuss that place from a macroscopic definition of clocks and distance. But somehow, scaling it up, we get to the universe we know?
=

Actually you just need to take the idea of constants to its logical conclusion to see that all points must be 'equal'.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 14:55:27 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 #604 on: 29/01/2014 14:42:56 »
consider that you always bring in your 'ideal' local clock and ruler in everything you measure, over your frame of reference, no matter the scale you look at. There is always a arrow involved. And you can't use a definition in where motion 'vibrations' decides time, or rather, you first then need to prove that for example 'vibrations' measurably is 'its' arrow. That means a experiment. Meaning that just because what you observe won't change, you can't regard it as 'time less'.

As there is no experiment possible, without you involving your local arrow ?
How would you prove it?
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 14:49:13 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 #605 on: 29/01/2014 15:16:39 »
To see why I think of all arrows as locally equivalent. Assume it gets its reality through interactions, frames of reference interacting. Scaling it up into a arrow. Can't we then also assume that depending on mass, gravity, speeds etc etc it must change, although being the same locally defined? Yes, maybe we can, or we can argue that as it decides your life span, and as that one never will change relative your wrist watch, the simpler approach is to define it as equivalent to 'c', a local constant.
"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 #606 on: 29/01/2014 15:20:55 »
Now you just have to decide if 'c', locally measured, is equivalent everywhere in a uniform motion. What makes it differ will be inertia 'gravity' and accelerations.
"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 #607 on: 29/01/2014 15:47:27 »
There seems a logical fallacy in assuming that uniform motion at different speeds will introduce different aging. As we now assume 'c' to be what we locally will measure, in both 'circumstances/places', when defining 'c' equivalent to a local arrow. Although we can see far away 'light clocks' ticking at different paces, depending on the speed of their uniform motion, relative ones own. If 'c' is equivalent to your arrow, then you can't have a 'twin' of another age, just by him having a different uniform motion, can you?
 
On the other hand, I take those light clocks seriously and find them to describe time dilations. As well as there is no way to test it, as you must introduce accelerations, to get to a different 'relative motion' between you.

And actually, as long as you think constants exist, then they must be locally equivalent in all circumstances, doesn't matter if you introduce accelerations in it. 'c' should still be 'c', strict locally, even though we can't do a 'one way experiment' to prove it. It's about 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 #608 on: 29/01/2014 15:55:49 »
The real reason for constants is simple. Without them there can't be a order, and without a order no causality, there just won't be a definable universe anymore.
"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 #609 on: 29/01/2014 16:01:51 »
You need a structure, you need the 'bare bones' first, the rules and principles defining the game.
=

Or if you like, as we here are involved in a more deductive science. 'Backtracking' this universe you must arrive to rules, constants, properties and principles. Because if you ultimately fail in this, you shouldn't exist :)
==

Well, not logically exist anyway. A universe without ground rules is a universe without logic. Anything should be possible in such a universe, which would make it quite confusing, for us at least. We expect things to be the same tomorrow as today don't we? The ground under our feet, the sky above etc. And if I would want to apply a 'hidden logic' to it, I actually want to introduce 'order upon chaos', don't I :)

(wording sux bad at times here)
« Last Edit: 29/01/2014 16:17:45 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 #610 on: 29/01/2014 16:31:04 »
You could say that what I do here is to try to justify why I would like to define one frame of reference as equivalent to an idea of a constant. They go together (in my mind).
"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 #611 on: 30/01/2014 23:02:18 »
Why do I think 'c' is 'c' in all motion? One good reason is that motion is weird :) If you look at it classically motion is one thing, about displacements measured in time. But if you use relativity we get to several new conclusions. We have uniform motion, also described in relative motion, then we have constant uniform accelerations, and finally all other types of accelerations. Let's call it three types to start with.

But the first definition, uniform motion, also becomes a relative motion. Relative to what you measure against. And locally there is no proof of this first type of motion existing, you need to introduce frames of reference to prove it. That means that you need to pick something not locally to compare against, to get to a uniform motion. But we probably agree that as soon we have tree objects in different uniform motion we have a proof of different uniform motions existing. You can also use incoming lights blue and red shift, or the CBR, for defining the same.

But :) You're at rest in any uniform motion, and being at rest is translatable to still. So now we got four types. Where two is about the same type of motion, uniform 'relative' motion.

If we want to define 'c' to a arrow, I think we can do it two ways. One is a very strict definition of locality in where we can assume instants of displacements as being 'still' in any acceleration, connecting those instants to the idea of 'constants', and 'one frame of reference'. The other is different, and not as satisfying to me. In that one we also will use 'locality' but now define it as this local focal point 'frame of reference' can be transformed by motion, mass, energy etc. That means that this frame of reference still exist, but also should be locally adaptable to the relations around it, 'adapting' in some weird way. What talks against this one is the fact that you can introduce a accelerating rocket together with three uniformly moving objects, being at different uniform velocities. Each one of the uniformly moving will define different time dilations, and Lorentz contractions to the one accelerating.

You don't need a twin experiment, you just need to decide if you believe in different clocks measure over frames of reference, or not. And the choice isn't even there, NIST has already proven that one, conclusively here on Earth at decimeters.
"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 #612 on: 30/01/2014 23:07:55 »
That does not take away the strangeness of Inertia though. Let us start with assuming that although we find different speeds existing in geodesics, all of those are also being 'still'. Because, according to inertia they all are, 'still' that 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 #613 on: 30/01/2014 23:11:14 »
You might want to look at that as another proof of uniform motion being without 'motion'. Relative motions are locally no motions, even though we can define different speeds to those, comparing 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 #614 on: 30/01/2014 23:15:35 »
We define Earths relative motion versus other objects, existing in a vacuum. We define the vacuum as being of one equivalent piece, it together with mass creating a objective universe. We either need a container model existing doing so, or we need to understand how one frame of reference can connect with another. 'c' in no answer to that one, 'c' is a definition from locality, using a local interpretation of a container model, defining it as equivalent for all 'inertial' frames, aka uniform 'relative' motion.
"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 #615 on: 30/01/2014 23:26:35 »
Now ask yourself, if Earth would accelerate to double its velocity, to then move uniformly again. Will it then cost you more fuel, to lift with your rocket in the direction of 'motion' we defined earth to have? Or we can ignore any added velocity, and just ask ourselves if we think there will be a higher cost to lift a rocket in the direction we define earth to move, as compared to lift from a opposite direction? The other side of Earth, where Earth 'disappear' from us, relative whatever velocity we defined earth to have.
"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 #616 on: 30/01/2014 23:34:21 »
Then look at "'c' is a definition from locality, using a local interpretation of a container model, defining it as equivalent for all 'inertial' frames, aka uniform 'relative' motion."

The container model you use can not be mine. Not even in a uniform 'relative' motion.
How many 'containers' will that make?
"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 #617 on: 30/01/2014 23:44:19 »
So what do we have that is constant there? 'c' is constant, your life span is constant too. It's a local definition naturally, but valid for all of those container models.

Then we have inertia.
accelerations

uniform constant accelerations.
gravity
"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 #618 on: 30/01/2014 23:56:03 »
In a nutshell. There is no 'absolute frame' that Earth moves relative, in its uniform 'relative' motion (geodesic). Therefore it is still, inertia got it correct. And for a uniform constant acceleration to perfectly equivalent with gravity, it must be able to be described as being directed 'inwards', which in that case place the direction from its acceleration, towards its stern. This is assuming the best direction to describe it from locally, as in a 'point mass', should be 'inwards'.
"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 #619 on: 31/01/2014 00:00:37 »
And defining it so, we find that Earth is 'still', but 'accelerating' at one measurable gravity. The other type of 'motion' we assume is not locally measurable, unless we define it comparing Earth to? Our Sun maybe? The Magellan cloud? The CBR? And that's relativity, comparing between 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 #620 on: 31/01/2014 11:58:00 »
I know, a lot of rambling around here :) But I'm slow, so I need it, this is actually a minimum of rambling so far. The point about how to define a frame of reference is rather important to me. because if you define it as 'unchanging' which is what I want to, then everything becomes a result of relativity. A relativity in where you won't be able to pin a change to any single frame of reference, only to them interacting. That gives us a static universe, and some form of 'bit', although 'bits' disappear if the arrow isn't there.

The other possibility is one in where there is no single frame of reference. That one is also relativity, but makes it very hard to define a existing focal point, as a singular frame of reference, as a 'bit'. If you think of that 'ideal local clock' we always use, where does it 'tick'? It all comes down to interactions creating the focal points, that we then define as 'bits'. And a frame of reference from this definition is just a result of interactions giving us opposites. I'm having a hard time with that one, as it would be a very different interpretation.

I don't know :)
« Last Edit: 31/01/2014 12:03:53 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 #621 on: 31/01/2014 12:12:31 »
The other point I'm getting to is the one Higgs and those other guys found important. Inertia.
I'm in total agreement on inertia being important. And if we stop considering relative motion, just looks at what express inertia then we find accelerations.

Earth accelerates too. Without a 'motion', but it accelerates. So a reasonable question should be in what it accelerates?
There's only one thing it accelerates in, and that is a 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 #622 on: 31/01/2014 12:20:25 »
Time becomes a relation to mass. one point mass giving you one representation, and as you let them together into macroscopic pieces, them redefining that 'point mass' time, as related to other frames of reference. The point mass is still there, but in this piece of matter his relations to other frames of reference change.

Maybe focal points would be a giving subject? because you can give a point mass one focal point of 'time', a earth another, a neutron star a third. Locally defined they should be the same though, in my thoughts.
"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 #623 on: 31/01/2014 12:27:46 »
Build it up from point masses. Let a arrow be a constant referable to 'c'. All point masses keeps this ideal definition and as we put them together we find a need for a ideal clocks. We have ideal clocks, everything has it, but as you break matter down you should reach something irreducible. A 'point mass' or ? A infinite center if we use a black hole for it. but there must be a back ground to 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 #624 on: 31/01/2014 12:38:18 »
What is a illusion, in 'my universe'  that is, :) is not yours, or mine, local arrow. We need them to be equivalent to get to repeatable experiments, otherwise they won't exist. But the idea of a macroscopic even flow of time is incorrect. And that idea comes from the way we perceive the universe, 'commonly same' to us all. The universe is a mosaic, 'interactions/relations' between pieces giving us time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But it does not change the fact that we all locally have a equivalent 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 #625 on: 31/01/2014 12:47:22 »
If you want you can see it as being 'here', happening all the time, all the way. Our arrow becoming a back ground scaled up into a macroscopic universe. and when you scale it the other way, finally reduced to constants, properties and principles, rules. So your background becomes 'time less', and this, your play for a audience.

Yeah, sounds good doesn't it :)
ahem
"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 #626 on: 31/01/2014 12:54:51 »
You can also relate it to information.

If you assume there being something striving for the concept of 'meaningful information', then we and the universe we agree on existing is 'it'. We're all meaningful information. but then we have information that's not 'set up', and that one you find as you scale down. Another way to express it would be from simplicity to complexity. What defines our universe is a need for logic, for 'meaningful information'.
"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 #627 on: 31/01/2014 13:02:02 »
What we can notice is that the idea of this other type of arrangements fails our logic. It breaks down as we close in on it. That's also what combine the idea of a event horizon to the idea of the very small where the mathematics becomes just as impossible without using renormalization. When we expect the inside of a event horizon to behave the same as its outside, we're doing a renormalization, based on the statistics we have of SpaceTime outside it. That all physics works the same, no matter where you are.
"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 #628 on: 31/01/2014 13:06:36 »
So we can answer one question at least. Can mathematics describe everything?
No, if it could there would be no need for renormalization, and statistics.

Even if we would get the most elegant equation from using those two, describing a universe, it would leave us with the same dilemma as 'c' does. It explains it, but it doesn't explain 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 #629 on: 31/01/2014 13:15:34 »
There is a catch to this though. It might be possible to create a mathematics truly explaining things, looking at what statistics and renormalization tells us to work. And so refute what I just said. But I'm not as interested in what might be possible as I am in what is possible. And there mathematics does not give us a tool that unerringly lead us to the right conclusions. If it did we would all become mathematicians :) Then again, maybe we all are? When you reach for something you mostly catch it too, don't you? Well, that's a pretty good intuitive mathematical computation you must have made, to arrive at that point in space and time.
"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 #630 on: 31/01/2014 14:02:41 »
What do we call it when a baby learns to walk? Trial and error? A statistical approach to how to learn to walk? somewhere inside that baby there is something 'weighting' the results of all this trial and error, not only related to its brain but to muscles and tendons and ? All about relations. As Jung would have had it, the gestalt becoming something in its own, a 'ideal' and a 'synergy'. Epigenetics is a new field in genetics, or maybe not so new, but once more taken seriously. It's about much the same thing.
"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 #631 on: 31/01/2014 16:24:53 »
Then we have this about what information should be. I differ it in meaningful information and useless information, from logics. Entanglements then becomes useless information, until someones proves that we inject energy, that can be taken out at 'the other end' of the entanglement. As an idea 'energy' is very interesting, and I would refer it to a interaction. So do you inject energy into a entanglement at 'both ends' as you measure? You should, and that's what makes that idea so phreakingly interesting, as well as confusing, to me :)

What the idea suggests, is not only that we inject 'energy' in all interactions, but it also allows you to collect a same amount at another SpaceTime position. If we now treat this as a photon hitting your retina (eye), does the retina inject energy into the photon?
"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 #632 on: 31/01/2014 16:28:41 »
We can test this proposal by thinking of light passing a glass, does it lose or gain energy by doing so?
"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 #633 on: 31/01/2014 16:40:22 »
Whatever else it does, I've never seen anyone arguing that it gains energy by passing through matter, or getting absorbed and re-emitted by the glass molecules, atoms, electron orbitals, etc. On the other hand, a often used argument to why HUP is so confusing is that you by probing something disturbs it, forces it into a state, but that is not the exact same thing as injecting a energy, is it? It's confusing ideas all of them I better admit. But I don't think it possible for the glass to inject energy into the light, passing it through. Because that should then cool a window in the sun, and it doesn't.
=

There's one more point to it. Photons doesn't 'interact' with 'photons', as far as I know, unless we refer to the 'energy' in a gamma gamma reaction where you might find short lived 'new' particles. But then we have waves too, in where they can reinforce as well as quench each other. It is confusing, isn't it :)
« Last Edit: 31/01/2014 16:47:28 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 #634 on: 31/01/2014 17:15:22 »
Take a field of light. does it have a temperature?

Not as I know, it have a energy that can be expressed in temperature, but to do so you need to introduce matter, don't you? You won't find light interacting with light producing a temperature without matter. So what was the temperature in that primeval 'photon field', and, is that even a meaningful question?

I don't think it 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 #635 on: 31/01/2014 17:20:55 »
A better question then would be how 'energy' of a 'photon field' can produce stable matter, matter that will continue to exist as the temperature falls. Also why that matter doesn't break down, due to the immense temperature we can imagine it to be produced under. The same energy that creates matter, should as soon matter is 'produced', start to act on it as 'temperature', shouldn'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 #636 on: 01/02/2014 01:08:30 »
Then we have this idea of gravity transferring energy. A photon is defined by a recoil at its origin, and its own annihilation arriving to its 'sink'. It's Newtons 'action and reaction', as well as a result of the conservation laws. A sun has a lot of photons leaving it constantly, they should then act on this sun in the classical way by recoils, dampening its 'motion', although that 'reaction' should even out over a spherical body, shouldn't it? You can apply the same idea to 'gravity' as it transfers 'energy', as Earths tidal forces. It seems as a good argument for something being transfered by the 'force' of gravity, doesn't it? Another way to view it should be that what we see as tidal forces are the geodesics defined for those spacetime positions, meaning that what rips you apart is not a force, but your body's particles diverging geodesics due to gravity. The 'forces' keeping those particles joined into you are split by gravity defining different geodesics for them.
=

(Hmm, not sure you can use 'action and reaction' for it? The recoil is explained through conservation of momentum, if I get it right, those days. It's about a symmetry needed, but action and reaction is about forces, and ? Demands a acceleration possibly? And a photon doesn't accelerate. I'm not sure, although I'm sure that Newton thought of action and reaction as a result of forces, making it inappropriate here any which way. So forget 'action and reaction', although it still fits somehow.)

Ok, back to black holes tidal forces :)
« Last Edit: 01/02/2014 01:39:17 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 #637 on: 01/02/2014 01:13:47 »
You can view this as being a force too, but when those particles follow their separate geodesics there are no force acting on them, the same as there is no force acting on you in a free fall. It's when you're at rest with (and on) Earth there is a force acting on you, and you can measure that force by a scale. In a free fall the scale won't show you a thing.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2014 01:46:26 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 #638 on: 01/02/2014 11:42:07 »
Forces are tricky, dimensions are tricky. That force can exist, acting on you, what does it mean? A stream acting on me, have I transformed away the stream by becoming at rest with it? Is it gone? Depends on how you define it I think. Locally it is gone, ideally defined. From a perspective of someone standing on a bank watching you, it's still there, just taking you with it.

But that is what relativity seems to state, that everything is frame related. Well, almost everything. A acceleration is not depending on what frame of reference you choose to accelerate in. A acceleration is always a local experience of inertia, and 'gravity'. Will gravity disappear as you scale something up? A piece of Earth you're standing on, 'magnifying' it, will gravity disappear? I don't think so, but it might become unmeasurable by your scale.

If you can't measure it, is it gone?
"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 #639 on: 01/02/2014 11:50:36 »
I try to use a strict locality, I hope :) and then what ever experiments I know, for making my views on it. So, to me gravity is gone, if you can't measure it, just as that stream is gone, locally measured. Because this is the way the universe is fitted, it uses time dilations, Lorentz contractions, 'motion' and accelerations, and on it imposes limits that are local, not 'global', as standing on that bank might be seen as.

'c' is a local description. That we make it into a constant means that we accept locality. Otherwise it can't be a constant, as your 'motion' then would have to be taken into account, relative some arbitrarily defined frame of reference, as for example the cosmic background radiation.
"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 #640 on: 01/02/2014 11:57:18 »
So, am I right in that if we take one perfectly spherical evenly distributed point mass, then try to define its 'gravitational direction' it will point inwards? And what happens as you scale it up?
"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 #641 on: 01/02/2014 12:01:34 »
What will happen if we place two point masses aside each other in a formerly 'flat space'? Will they 'interact'? In what way? By force?
"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 #642 on: 01/02/2014 13:10:36 »
It's strange isn't it? Whenever we get mass we find that 'gravity' final direction must be inwards, and what is it about this inflation we hear about? Directed 'outwards' is it? in each point? No origin to it, is there?

Is there a 'origin' to the directionality of gravity, ignoring mass :)

Nope, no 'origin', unless we use mass, and 'constant uniform accelerations'.
"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 #643 on: 01/02/2014 13:14:09 »
I leave energy aside, because I still don't know how to define that, and I probably never will.
"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 #644 on: 01/02/2014 13:16:31 »
'Energy' makes sense to me from a 'container model', a container in which we can define some magnitude of 'energy'. But without a container, what is 'energy'? If the inside is the outside?
"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 #645 on: 01/02/2014 13:26:09 »
So we have 'gravity', and then we have all other types of accelerations, becoming inertia. Which one covers the most? Gravity or inertia? If all types of gravity can be related to inertia, what would it make of Earths gravity? And what does Earths gravity need to exist? I think it needs mass, it needs a arrow, it needs a way of communicating over frames of reference. Is there anything I'm missing? Does it need a vacuum? Don't think so. And 'frames of reference' should be read as distances, measured locally.
=

Then again, a atom is 99.99 ~ vacuum?
I'm not sure I can ignore a vacuum for it?
« Last Edit: 01/02/2014 13:29:14 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 #646 on: 01/02/2014 13:32:05 »
Why does mass consist of so much vacuum? Because the 'bits' we're made of doesn't have the ability to clump together? Or are those 'bits' excitations? If they are, what makes them continuous and consistent? Forces :)
"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 #647 on: 01/02/2014 13:41:10 »
That makes us into some sort of ghosts, doesn't it? Being  continuous coherent excitations in a field, dressed as 'matter' or fermions, using bosons. But a field demands a objective reality to me, a defined SpaceTime having limits, or you can let it build from local constants. If you do that you need to define how frames of reference comes to be, 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 #648 on: 01/02/2014 13:45:51 »
The point is that you can't have a 'objective' description of a Einsteinian SpaceTime. You can only have a local. If you do like me then you will define the local description as the 'objective', then it just becomes trying to see what is equivalent for all 'local' frames of reference. Constants, properties and principles/rules. That makes a field the result of information. Locally 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 #649 on: 01/02/2014 13:53:41 »
The only 'displacements' existing for Earth uniform acceleration is in time, am I not right? And if we define a arrow the way I do, then it exist. Purely local definition, but so is all other definitions I've seen, making sense to me. So each point mass making up a earth, has one direction inwards to some 'center', even if unmeasurably so, and one timelike direction, using a local arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."