How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205466 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #650 on: 01/02/2014 13:59:39 »
The 'sidereal universe' we define normally is a container. I don't think anyone will argue against that? A container containing regimes and forces. The reason I ignore that part is that I'm wanting to define locality, and that should be some ideal point mass when it comes to gravity. And I also want a universe to be built from locality, so the 'sidereal universe' we started from in physics is to me becoming more unreal, as I burrow myself down in locality :)

It would be a nice SF.
"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 #651 on: 01/02/2014 14:02:57 »
It just needs a reason to how frames of reference can co-exist, to become 'real', doesn'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 #652 on: 01/02/2014 14:08:16 »
A dimension is a archetype. You start from a archetype as a sheet or plane, then use it as a Lego, to build more dimensions from, you twist them against each other, somehow glue them together, to define three room dimensions. and to that we add a time dimension, or a local arrow. I've never liked archetypes, and I don't think this is the way dimensions comes to be. I think they are a result of local constants, communicating. Those constants, properties etc, create the dimensions we find. To me they become limits, just as as 'c' is another.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #653 on: 01/02/2014 14:10:09 »
But without a outside, it's a limitation of measuring that define what is real to us. The geometry 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 #654 on: 01/02/2014 14:14:12 »
heh, I don't like archetypes, do I? But I do like constants, don't I :)
Ah well, we need some rules, don't we?

Unless we want magic?
"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 #655 on: 01/02/2014 14:21:29 »
If we apply this on strings, or loops, then we just move it one step further down in scale, don't we? Instead of a sheet, we use a string, or a loop. But, what if there is a background of constants, and what if there is no arrow to it? one equivalent local background, scaling up to a multitude of localities, communicating over frames of reference, and a local arrow, using 'c' for 'meaningful communication'. Information might be different, but meaningful communication should to me be everything obeying '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 #656 on: 01/02/2014 14:28:35 »
Your lifespan is a meaningful communication, isn't it? You can't change that one, doesn't matter if everybody rush past you time wise. Your life span will be the exact same relative your wristwatch. That's meaningful to me :) And if 'c' is a local definition, so is that lifespan.
"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 #657 on: 01/02/2014 14:40:10 »
The closest to this concept might be loop quantum gravity. In it the quanta of the field builds 'spacetime', according to Carlo Rovelli. Well, where he speaks of quanta, I want to define a frame of reference :) Maybe it's all the same, a reductionary approach to locality, or maybe not? It depends on what you think exist there? A background, or loops?
"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 #658 on: 01/02/2014 14:44:14 »
Without a arrow, I don't see how I can 'split' the extremely small into loops, or anything? To me it becomes 'dimension less' as a arrow is needed, and meaningful communication, to build that SpaceTime? So you got yourself a nice mystery in that something timeless, as I see it, creates a (local) arrow, and distance. And from that now is able to introduce 'relative motions', and accelerations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #659 on: 01/02/2014 14:54:48 »
You could say that what consist of a background is whether you presume it to exist some blueprint for how things should behave or if it is the things themselves that become the blueprint. I use a blueprint of constants, that I define from a strict local outlook. That becomes a background of sorts, but as I also expect the local arrow and 'c', as I set them equivalent, to expire (disappear) around Planck scale, this 'Background' must become 'distance less' and so 'dimensionless'.

It's a matter of personal taste if that is a 'background' or not? I call it a background 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 #660 on: 01/02/2014 15:03:42 »
SpaceTime is 'Background independent', meaning that it is itself that creates it. It's about dimensions, three room and one time, defining geodesics that everything 'moves in'. The only way to break those, accelerating. Then there is frame dependencies defining what you observe, always locally made. But the concept seems still to be one of a 'container', to me, although you easily can redefine that as I do, using only local definitions. Einstein used both, local definitions and this idea of a SpaceTime as a 'entity' in its own right. When he spoke of the moon always existing I think he thought of SpaceTime as a entity, not from locality. but you can argue the same locally I think.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #661 on: 02/02/2014 13:34:06 »
Can't help wondering about regimes and temperatures. A gamma gamma universe, populated by energetic light/photons interacting how? A 'energy density' of what? As waves they quench and reinforce, would it then be when they reinforce each other? That they make matter? And why seems atoms to be time less? At least very long lived, how do they do it?

And another thing, if you think of two objects exchanging light signals in uniform motion, they both will define the speed they exchange it with 'c'. What a light clock shows is a 'twisted geometry' from the observer, induced by motion. It's not a result existing for the observer, locally measured. You might say? That the geometry change with somethings motion, as defined from the observer. The problem is that it is measurements we use to define what is correct, and they are always local. You might want to argue that the far away observers motion isn't only a motion, but also a distortion of the space you define him to be in, traveling.

If it was so, and we introduce different observers at different speeds, then that distorted space we find one to traverse is either a geometrical illusion, or it gets redefined, differently depending on observer.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #662 on: 02/02/2014 13:43:27 »
And that one goes directly back to the question of how we define a dimension, doesn't it? If everything would be planes, then what that light clock shows us, measuring it locally, indeed would be a changed geometry. Think of it as a sheet moving away from you, upon which light paints a picture of this light clock ,'ticking'. It would be the geometry that distorts the speed of those 'ticks'.
"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 #663 on: 02/02/2014 14:36:47 »
Actually, the sheet doesn't have to move at all, as I think. It's enough if everything you observe gives you a information consistent with 'motion'. But that's a very strange idea :)
"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 #664 on: 02/02/2014 15:07:53 »
You either could see the concept of light clocks a good proof of a vacuum containing three dimensions, or, you might ask yourself how it is this way, if it isn't three dimensions?
"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 #665 on: 02/02/2014 16:21:02 »
Causality demands symmetries. It's a logic, in where you follow the 'dotted line', called a arrow. The arrow is 'time reversible' in that you find a symmetry of sorts, allowing you to play causality backwards, at times, also depending on what limits you set.  But I think of it more like a mirror (symmetry) to the way a arrow works, and from logic there must be a certain reversibility. Or do you know how to create a logic universe, using a arrow, without reversibility?
='

The fact is that I have never seen physics define a universe where we won't have a time reversibility existing, and still present us a logic. From pure logic that is one of the things what you need to prove, before giving this time reversibility its present status as a 'proof' of a arrow being a 'illusion'.

We better define what magic is too. It's not ' very advanced technology indistinguishable from 'magic' ', it's the opposite of logic. It won't make sense.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2014 12:27:45 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 #666 on: 04/02/2014 11:53:17 »
So what do we have so far in my universe :)

A arrow equivalent to 'c'.
A definition of dimensions as coming from 'degrees of freedom', defining dimensional limits, always observed and defined  locally.
A argument about 'arrow' in where I state that you can't ignore your 'wrist watch', always giving you a 'time', even for things that is unchanging in themselves. This meaning that there is no way to prove anything, measured over frames of reference', to not having a arrow, that I can see?

I think the equivalence, and the way to define a dimensionality, is the ones I like most, this far :) Doesn't mean that there isn't dimensions, it's just back tracking them to what I think makes most sense from observer dependencies. And that is 'degrees of freedom' defined by the observer.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #667 on: 04/02/2014 11:55:44 »
Then we have gravity, in where I'm ignoring our sidereal universe, instead defining it from a point mass. That one fits right in, into a 'back ground' of sorts, that we can reach by scaling.
"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 #668 on: 04/02/2014 11:59:13 »
Inertia should be gravity, expressed in accelerations. What is weird with this is what 'motion' becomes, in such a universe? From an idea of 'origins' of locality, gravity should be the 'original concept', inertia coming into existence through acceleration.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #669 on: 04/02/2014 12:02:47 »
So a 'motion' is no longer a 'motion'. A relative motion a equivalence to 'being still', and experimentally provable too. A acceleration becoming inertia, becoming a equivalence to gravity. What the he* is motion?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #670 on: 04/02/2014 12:06:43 »
All of it defined locally. Proving why I use locality by referring to the way we define 'repeatable experiments'. Always a local definition, also as a result demanding 'constants' to exist, and from that getting to our definition of physics being the same everywhere inside a SpaceTime, that we can communicate.
"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 #671 on: 04/02/2014 12:09:56 »
And it's all local. Repeatable experiments proving that SpaceTime use a logic, as differing from 'magic'. Chaos can be a logic, but magic 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 #672 on: 04/02/2014 12:14:25 »
Which leads us to question how a frame of reference join another, and why they at all co-exist? I really don't know how that can be possible? For lack of better words, it seems like 'magic' :) to me, so far. We need something defining the 'observer dependent mosaic' a SpaceTime becomes from ideas like mine, and others.
"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 #673 on: 04/02/2014 12:19:41 »
I have two arguments there. One in which there is no other definition than accepting that a single frame of reference can't exist, at least not experimentally. That one is Relativity.

Another in where we might assume that singular frames of reference do exist, as described by a loop, a string, a geometrical knot, or as a 'quanta/bit'
"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 #674 on: 04/02/2014 12:22:39 »
A outside third which then is some sort of projection, holographic or not. Maybe that one can join with any of the other two. A lot of it rests upon your definitions. Which is why I like the concept of 'meaningful information', and defines that to everything obeying 'c'. A entanglement may be information too, but it's not meaningful to us, obeying '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 #675 on: 04/02/2014 12:30:44 »
You see, to me 'information' is what I observe. And as I can observe a entanglement it too becomes information. But it's not meaningful to me, in that I can't use it for communicating.
"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 #676 on: 04/02/2014 12:33:51 »
Heh, so many post and so little done :)
Ain't that just like life.
"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 #677 on: 10/02/2014 03:35:52 »
Local definitions can only be as good as the limits allows it. NIST have put a gravitational time dilation to centimeters, clocks 'ticking' differently depending on gravity. What does such results mean? That there are gravitational time dilations inside my body too? It should be so, and each time I move I must wander from one time dilation to another, add infinitum, as relative earths gravity. So does this make time a illusion? Not really, the problem is how frames of reference interact. Because mine, and yours, local arrow is always there, of a same measure relative oneself, wherever one go.
"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 #678 on: 11/02/2014 18:02:06 »
Time dilations should be a result of frames of reference interacting. But my local arrow can't be so, or maybe it can :) It depends on how you define it. If you like an idea of time, or a arrow, as a result of frames of reference focusing at some ideal local point, adapting and becoming your arrow. Then 'time' is a result of frames of reference, and it becomes a 'illusion' of sorts as it then doesn't have a anchor in a constant. But as I define the arrow to 'c' :) well, then I have to redefine 'c' too, don't I? If the local arrow still is equivalent to 'c', and that it will be to all tests possible. You will always find that 'c' is able to split in even chunks of 'time', becoming a clock.

So using this definition 'c' also becomes a variable, adapting the same way as ones local arrow. Heh, this one presumes that you have a 'continuum' similar to how I believe Einstein thought of it, because we're now using 'forces' focusing at wherever you measure, giving you that ideal local clock.

Or I keep 'c' as a constant, and a arrow. Then time dilations still are a result of frames of reference, but that local arrow becomes a background. It depends on what your taste is I would say :) myself I like constants, and find them weirdly fascinating.
"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 #679 on: 12/02/2014 00:48:07 »
For the moment, and it's rather late here, I think both will work with a concept of locality. But I still prefer the one where we use constants, becoming a sort of background. Instead of referring to each point in a SpaceTime as a 'equilibrium', focused to present us with a same balance, meaning your arrow equivalent to 'c'. I really need to think some more about this one, don't I :) But it would become a interesting universe if it was so. Symmetries and equivalences defining it, not constants, although you might be able to look at it as possible to describe, from both sides.

What is a constant?
"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 #680 on: 12/02/2014 01:01:30 »
what would it make constants as 'c' if it was that way? it would become a expression of a symmetry if you also define it as your arrow. From the 'eye of a God' there would no longer exist a 'c', which I suspect might fit my thinking about there being no 'outside' to this universe, only a 'inside'. Measurably defined through, and by, constants, rules, principles and properties. But that it already is, my definition, even if accepting constants as I usually think of them?

But it would make even more of a local symmetry, if it really was a 'mosaic/equivalence' to 'c', although? It would definitely 'split a SpaceTime' into frames of reference, interacting to give us those constants. I don't know, it's a very tricky idea and I better look it over, after a good nights sleep.
"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 #681 on: 12/02/2014 02:14:55 »
What I really mean is that even though we might labor with an idea of 'c' only being a local expression, not existing from 'an eye of a God', it also follows from it that there can't be a 'eye of God'. That's what makes it interesting to me. It becomes a argument for it only existing a 'inside', no 'outside' to it. And in that way a validation of locality, if you follow my thoughts there? Because, without constants, what have you left that's not observer dependent?

Even using those arguments I think I would define 'c' as a constant. Because it's the closest to what I think a constant should be, without a 'container universe'. And it's like mirrors to each other, those two ways to look at it. But it won't work from a container universe.
"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 #682 on: 12/02/2014 02:22:29 »
I can't really argue against Einsteins 'continuum'. It's what makes frames of reference interact, isn't it? But it's also a good argument for there not existing a 'outside' to me. So what I think, for now, we got from it is a SpaceTime, as a continuum, without a 'outside'.

Let's see if we can make it weirder :)
"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 #683 on: 12/02/2014 02:36:01 »
I wrote this earlier "I can construct three observers in different uniform motion at different velocities, and they all will define two different time dilations per observer. They also will define a different energy which now either is defined to exist inside this continuum 'simultaneously', which I think it has to be defined as, if I want it to be a SpaceTime continuum, or it all becomes a illusion to me

A Higgs field is either a local definition or I should meet a same problem defining what this acceleration is. And that is locality to me. The one place where you can define things, and agree on measurements."

And I won't argue against it. I just want to point out that what we use for defining what I wrote above is the idea of constants. Losing constants makes everything observer dependent, and what will then be our leverage? We know that constants works, 'forces' exist.

'Repeatable experiments' is what becomes physics, and we know it works, it's what makes the Internet exist, amongst other things. But what I stated in my earlier posts can actually, and correctly, be interpreted as there existing no 'repeatable experiments'. Well, If we insist on defining it from a thought up 'outside', what I usually refer to as using 'eyes of a God' :)

But locally defined we have constants, as long as we leave a 'outside' outside of it, eh, sort 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 #684 on: 14/02/2014 19:10:52 »
ever thought about democracy? As being where politics should come from?

I'm probably becoming a grumpy old man :) Nowadays I can't have a beer, without starting to get angry. Democracy is simple, at least as I interpret it. It's 'one voice, one vote, everyone equal'. And you can use it on any political suggestion, or decision, to see if it is democratic. Simple, isn't it? And you do know that you can't take anything with you, don't you? Do you find a lot of democracy in your country?

Let me ask you a question, why do you think so many interests, having political and monetary clout, want to 'own' the Internet? And why do you think they tell you they want to make it a 'safe place' for you and your kids? Is your neighborhood a 'safe place'?

No crimes there, is it? No fights? No bad feelings?

Tell me, why do we need a democratic Internet to be sanitized? Because, if you use that mind of yours, do you know anything coming closer to the ideal of democracy, as I defined it, than the Internet?

So, and use that mind again. Why do some groups feel such a overwhelming need of sanitizing a Internet?
Is control power?
« Last Edit: 14/02/2014 19:13:15 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 #685 on: 19/02/2014 04:49:28 »
Been reading a good friend of mine :)

He's always interesting, sometimes hard to follow, but interesting. He's discussing weak experiments, as applied on entanglements. And what he says has a relevance for communication. Even though it obey 'c', to set up a communication protocol, once it is set up it might be used for ftl communication. At least that is what the idea of weak experiments is hoped to realize.

You do it by measuring weakly on related 'relations' to the entanglement, not directly on it as that would break its wave function and lock it into a finalized state. Although when measuring weakly you do have a influence on the entanglement, as it is described in those ideas he takes up. If you now can find a way to make those changes to it on a continuous basis you then have come a first step, to be able to put in, and 'read out', meaningful communication from a entanglement, while still leaving it intact.

It's a thing I've been wondering about before, but now it seems as if there are experiments proving the idea to be valid. I don't know though? What would it make of 'c', as a limit of communication? The protocol/code for it must still travel at 'c' but once you have this protocol and entanglement set up, on both sides, you constantly will break 'c', as being a limit for information.

So information will then after be ftl.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 04:53:45 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 #686 on: 19/02/2014 04:56:32 »
If that is correct then the idea I had of any measurement also 'transmitting' a 'energy' as it probes, must be correct. If it is so you transfer 'energy' instantaneously, by probing any entanglement. And that leaves us with the question how the 'energy' at the other end comes to existence. I love that one :) and it makes my head ache terribly.
"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 #687 on: 19/02/2014 05:03:15 »
If we accept a four dimensional space, populated with matter and light. Then we define something that I should be able to use the eye of a God to describe. In that universe the 'energy' I instantaneously transfered should become doubled, as I 'break' the wave function. Alternatively you will have to find a way to half it, one half of the probes kinetic energy 'staying' where you actually probe, the other half then expressing itself at the entanglements other 'end'.

Both are as weird, none of them makes sense to me. In the first instance you would 'create' energy from nothing by probing, in the other you should break the physical laws we use.
"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 #688 on: 19/02/2014 05:06:57 »
Then again, I don't think you can use an 'eye of an God' on this universe we exist in. And if you define it from locality, using local constants as the ground, creating our impression of four dimensions and a SpaceTime? It's a strange universe we live in.
"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 #689 on: 19/02/2014 05:13:26 »
to take it into absurdum. Imagine everything to be entangled. If it is so, then we all become probes, probing each other. Which then means that this universe is creating 'new energy' continuously, assuming the first scenario. Otherwise 'splitting it' in half. Actually the later would make more sense to me then, and also allow your set up entanglement to 'send energy' as you probe it. But it then will assume that what we define as somethings kinetic energy is only half of what it really should be.

As I said, into absurdium :)
=

'We all become probes' should actually be read as 'everything able to interact' becoming probes, btw. But I was thinking of it in terms of your eye 'probing' the light it uses to create a visible universe. And as it 'probes' it also gets 'probed on' by the light itself. and as that light is entangled in this scenario, 'new energy' comes to be at the entanglements other 'end'. And your eye is then also entangled naturally :)

So the probe that you probe with is also instantaneously transferring a 'energy' in such a scenario, not only your entanglement doing it.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 05:27:13 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 #690 on: 19/02/2014 05:30:31 »
At least it fits my definition of a observer. A observer should to me be anything able to interact, animate or inanimate, doesn't matter. What matters is that it consist of one, ideally imagined, frame of reference interacting with another. And that makes a frame of reference into a minimalistic definition of a 'observer', in my universe that is :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #691 on: 19/02/2014 05:48:36 »
Decoherence is interesting. It's about how things come to be, solidity, classical physical laws that works on a practical plane. Assume that this is how we find a arrow too. The idea of a arrow comes from a 'constant', a 'time', a value you arrive to by splitting 'c' into Planck scale. That's yours, as well as mine, local definition which when interacting with frames of reference,  macroscopically becomes your clock, ticking.

Scales. They make us 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 #692 on: 19/02/2014 06:09:13 »
Now find a way to define how it does this, sending this 'energy'. Doesn't matter for this if it doubles it or half it, or any other definition as long as we agree on that it 'sends' it, instantaneously. Each time it does it either can be represented by weak measurements, or by annihilations of wave functions as you probe. It doesn't really matter to me, because to get to a change of this entanglement you need to involve 'energy used' aka 'probing' no matter how weakly, how else would the entanglement change? But the really interesting part is how it do it, and what those 'paths' might represent?

Gravity?

Weird stuff.
"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 #693 on: 19/02/2014 14:55:40 »
Don't know if you noticed it but science is going in a circle, philosophically. It becomes more alike a philosophy of logic for every step we take. Decoherence can be a result of wave functions breaking down or, as I think then, also a result of scaling. If it is a result of scaling something, then you have to look to what parameters increase with scaling, as the possibility of macroscopically defining all possible parameters for a ball. Because that is what differs it, isn't it? From Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
"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 #694 on: 19/02/2014 15:00:11 »
You need to see just how weird this ability of 'magnifying' really is, to see why I find scaling so important. To me it becomes its own unique direction, 'degree of freedom', or 'dimension'. Treated that way we can ideally define that direction as being just as far from you everywhere in a universe. And defined that way, just as reachable anywhere. And down there we find entanglements.
"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 #695 on: 19/02/2014 15:18:48 »
An Entangled Drama, a refresher :) and to get our minds working a little, after that one. Try The Early History of Quantum Entanglement, 1905-1935  Short and concise..

What is the corner stone of a entanglement is the realization that no matter what of two spins, up or down, I measure. The other 'end' of my entanglement must become the opposite spin. And you have a even probability of your first measurement to be up or down, meaning you can't know until measured. Either this relation is set before a probing, although unknown to the experimenter, or it becomes as a result of you probing. The interesting thing with a weak experiment is that it assume that you can influence a entanglement, then also read its 'other end' without probing.

Which would you choose if that assumption would be correct? The first one, or the second?
"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 #696 on: 19/02/2014 15:36:13 »
If you assume a 'entangled universe' also defining it my way, as everything 'probing' everything. Would you then define the complementary spins as a result of probability, or of a hidden parameter set unknown by you.
"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 #697 on: 19/02/2014 15:41:52 »
If you define it as a result of a probability, then that probability of complementary spins of individual photons, created in a entanglement ideally becomes a hundred percent.

How is that possible?
"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 #698 on: 19/02/2014 15:56:40 »
How about forgetting 'individuality'? Treat a entanglement as a 'spatially elongated' relation? But a whole universe of 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 #699 on: 19/02/2014 15:59:28 »
A universe of rules, constants, properties and principles, 'creating' us? And remember that it always is defined locally, this universe.

All those rules are defined locally.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."