How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 206738 Views

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #700 on: 19/02/2014 16:01:09 »
How do we get it together? forgetting 'individuality' for this entanglement, yet defining it observer dependently, locally?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #701 on: 19/02/2014 16:06:15 »
you have to give up 'space' as a distance traversable in a defined time, I think? It's about a suddenly ill defined 'locality' when described from the view point of a 'spatially instantaneous' entanglement, or outcome, isn't it? :)

so ordinary 'motion' becomes a very weird idea in this entangled universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #702 on: 19/02/2014 16:07:56 »
And a 'Einsteinian' acceleration becomes even weirder, as it is applicable to both Earth and a uniformly constantly accelerating rocket. The equivalence principle.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #703 on: 19/02/2014 16:13:25 »
Gravity as accelerations stressing entanglements? But what about Earths gravity? uniform motion being no motion at all, locally defined. Matter then also must stress the entanglements if we were to argue such a relation.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #704 on: 19/02/2014 16:49:05 »
all frames of reference are equivalent, ideally and locally defined. We then scale 'upwards' from one frame, now finding a multitude of frames, interacting with my local definition(s), presenting me with time dilations and Lorentz contractions. We also find inertia and gravity.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #705 on: 19/02/2014 16:52:01 »
You could see a entanglement as something 'time less' maybe? If you like, representing a scale where a arrow disappear.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #706 on: 19/02/2014 16:55:58 »
From locality and a arrow disappearing, everything must be entangled. As it seems to me there can be no less than a total equivalence 'down there' at that place where distance disappear. Distance needs a arrow, and dimensions and degrees of freedom too. Without a arrow there is no degree of freedom.

So scaling?
How does it exist?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #707 on: 19/02/2014 17:11:36 »
Or maybe that's not correct, let us assume a equivalent ground at some minimalistic scale. A entanglement can be described as two 'separate' photons, each one existing in a indeterminate superposition as long as there is no measurement done. After measuring one you 'force' the superposition(s) to fall out in a definite outcome, characterized by those photons giving us a opposite spin. You break, or collapse, the wave function describing them, and the opposite spin we see is a result of conservation laws. In this case conservation law of angular momentum. A symmetry if you like.

so what is indeterminacy? Maybe we should define it as indeterminacy when a arrow disappear?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #708 on: 19/02/2014 17:20:21 »
This one is a pleasantly nice read Entanglement: From the information philosopher.

You read this one you start to see.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #709 on: 19/02/2014 17:42:36 »
You can think of it this way. A original photon is indeterministic, neither 'up' or 'down', existing in a indefinite state until measured. You pass it through a beam splitter, in where it gets split into two photons, each one of half the energy of 'its origin'. Both assumed to be in a same indeterministic state as we have no measurements made. The important point is that they both origin from this original 'indeterministic' photon, getting split, and to keep the equilibrium their spins now has to take themselves out, and so be found to be opposite. From such a point of view those two photons still are 'one original', just expressing itself localized differently spatially defined.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #710 on: 19/02/2014 17:57:34 »
So, 'meaningful information'? Does it obey 'c', or does it not? Until I see a experiment proving the concept of sending meaningful information through a entanglement I will expect what's meaningful to obey 'c'. Which then also either makes the idea of 'new energy' transfered through you probing a entanglement wrong, or defines 'energy' as being non meaningful information.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #711 on: 04/03/2014 03:55:58 »
The same idea that define  'c' as a constant, same for all of us measuring from a uniform motion, is also the very reason to why we get time dilations and Lorentz contractions. What parameters differing them is mass, speed, 'energy density', and those they acquire through frames of reference interacting, relative locally measured constants.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #712 on: 08/03/2014 13:03:40 »
How about this, define the universe as a clock, one dimensional :) Or, if you prefer (I do, I do:) having one degree of freedom to 'vibrate in'. That's where your local constants, as 'c', comes from. One degree of freedom does not define what this degree is 'free' in, and that one seems better to me than assuming 'preexisting dimensions', as some original in where things 'exist'.

Becoming a 'field' through frames of reference interacting, if you like. Then that is our 'global definition' of what makes 'repeatable experiments' come true. Still local though
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #713 on: 08/03/2014 13:18:20 »
Let's get back to entanglements. Injections of energy 'teleported' to another location. It has to be wrong, because if you destroy one 'side', the logical conclusion if it was right would be that the other side should be destroyed too, unless we assume some restrictions. Another way to use this example would then be to consider, if it is wrong, what it says about hidden parameters. If it is so that you by weak experiments on one can influence both, without destroying the entanglement, at the same time as we assume that injecting energy into one (measuring) does not carry over to the other? Weak experiments as an idea for communicating 'instantly' becomes questionable here, wouldn't you agree?

And what does it say about the possibility of there being a hidden parameter?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #714 on: 08/03/2014 13:21:58 »
This is using 'energy' as some minimalistic common nominator in all transformations. Also assuming that change costs.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #715 on: 08/03/2014 13:29:34 »
One more point to it. Assuming that it is right, and that you can inject energy, actually presumes a hidden parameter too, doesn't it? As it won't matter 'how' we destroy the original entanglement, the other 'side' of it must still exist, until measured. So if you want to 'inject energy' you now have to define why it won't destroy both sides. On the other hand, if the entanglement indeed are(is:) one entity, as is presumed by me, then? Forgot what I thought :) Getting senile here.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #716 on: 08/03/2014 13:37:16 »
Ah yes, maybe this? If we want it to be a result of hidden parameters, and we want, if we want to be able to inject energy in it, then we have to consider how those limits can come to be. It becomes some weird sort of 'degrees of freedom' too? To me that is :) Anything that express itself one unique way, not definable any other way, has somehow a unique degree of freedom to me. As not allowing the entanglement to disappear, by you measuring and so injecting a energy in it. That then craves a definition for why.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #717 on: 08/03/2014 13:46:03 »
The hidden parameter, in my universe, would then be rules, constants, properties and principles. The question becomes if you can take it any further than that? Why are there rules? How can 'spin' exist (QM). Why doesn't measuring a entanglement destroy 'both ends' of it. Does the rules consist of definite, arbitrarily set up, limits? Or are they expressions of something more fundamental, creating them?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #718 on: 08/03/2014 13:48:47 »
You might say that I'm questioning what indeterminism mean.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #719 on: 08/03/2014 13:57:09 »
Can you see how I think there? If 'weak experiments' are possible to influence a entanglement, allowing communication 'ftl'. Then 'injecting energy' should be possible too. If it is not, although the first still works we need to redefine what we mean by 'energy'. And that somehow splits this idea of 'energy' into two domains. One in where you can influence by weak experiments, another in where your measuring doesn't influence any 'energy levels' for the other end at all.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #720 on: 08/03/2014 14:59:52 »
alternatively it becomes a question of hidden parameters. On the whole I very much doubt this possibility of redefining a entanglements spin without collapsing it, then again, I don't know.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #721 on: 08/03/2014 15:21:50 »
There exist entanglement swapping though. Although that one is a very tough one to digest. "Taking a joint measurement on one photon in each pair (A1 and B1), these photons fall into an entangled state." Why? Do you by measuring then force them into a same spin?

Let's test the logic.

Assume that the universe consist of entanglements. Then we should have a 50/50 probability of spins up, and spins down, as 'it all' is entangled. I can now take any two of those incalculable entanglements in the universe and by forcing them into a same state by my measurement tell you that I now have entangled photons that never 'meet each other', as in first getting split by a beam splitter. I can further create experiments in where one of the original pairs photons, is 'gone', re-entangling the other with another pair through my measurement simultaneously destroying and measuring the first one.

Is the logic satisfying to you?
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 15:23:41 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #722 on: 08/03/2014 15:30:55 »
It's not to me, done this way there is nothing strange about it. What we know of a entanglement is that the subsequent measurement should be opposite the first, do you agree? If the first is 'spin up' the second in a entangled pair must be 'spin down'. If it isn't your entanglement is a failure, right :)

Heh.

That's a rule. And that rule allows what I wrote above to be true, The measurements do not 'teleport' any spins, although if you can force a 'known before' spin on a one part of a entanglement, then by necessity you have also made a measurement. To have it both ways, proclaiming that the entanglement is in a indeterministic 'unknowable state', before measured, at the same time proclaiming that I can force it into a known state without measuring, lack the most fundamental logic necessary to me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #723 on: 08/03/2014 18:45:59 »
The point is simple. Either you can know a entanglements spin, or you can't. I say you can't, not without measuring. And if it is so then it won't matter how many generations of photons I use. And any time I make that measurement, destroying one side of that entanglement, 'collapsing the superimposed wave function', it's a measurement made, locking the other side. Because that is what defines a indeterministic state, that you do not know, until measuring. The other way, described by weak measurements, is to assume that there is some threshold for collapsing it, and that as long as I stay under it I can both eat the cake and keep it.

But it's not logic.
Indeterministic states that are known are no longer indeterministic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #724 on: 08/03/2014 18:57:53 »
The second question is, does this matter? If now the universe is entangled or not? Well, it should if it can be used to send 'meaningful information' shouldn't it? That's what we use 'c' as a limit for, separating stuff that is usable from non usable. A entangled universe with the ability to communicate meaningful information would be a new thing. And thinking of it that way, the concept of injecting energy through your measurement, collapsing its wave function, do state something to me as it doesn't (collapse)/annihilate all of it, just the part you measure on.
=

This one is possible to take into absurdum too. You just need to imagine a universe of entanglements, obeying the principle of 'weak measurements'. What you now are left with is a universe probing itself constantly, and depending on how you define it, also 'changing' the other sides spin to fit whatever spin of the last probe, constantly. And as nothing then is 'indeterministic', as we just need a weak experiment to prove what spin there is? Plus that there will be nothing left indeterministic as this situation continuously involve both 'parts' in a entanglement, probing, and getting probed at the same time.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 19:06:03 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #725 on: 08/03/2014 19:17:21 »
Look at it this way. A field is communication, but what makes it useful to us is 'c'. 'c' also define your arrow, aka clock. When you communicate useful information then that is the limit for it, as I expect. So the field may use entanglements, but not for constructs we find meaningful. The type of information using information carriers belongs at and under 'c'. It's a result of the regime we exist in, the SpaceTime we find.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #726 on: 09/03/2014 13:56:47 »
It's hard for me to pinpoint what information really mean. Is your thoughts information? If it's not, why write them down? Does it matter what you think? Another example is that equation written on a cube of ice. Was it information, and where did it go as it melted? We used to use verbal recitations, and books, in digital format nowadays to store information, we use schools to share it with new generations. And it changes the world we live in. Is thoughts useful information?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #727 on: 09/03/2014 13:58:28 »
We are information carriers too, aren't we.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #728 on: 09/03/2014 14:04:33 »
Maybe the universe is a quantum entity. Maybe all information existing already is stored, us mining it under out local arrow. If it is so, would that give us a reason to exist? You as a individual is a information carrier in several senses, biologically, information wise as from your thoughts and experiences, all of it has to be counted in.

Why would the universe do it this way, if all the information already exist?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #729 on: 09/03/2014 14:05:23 »
What would venture into the unknown mean :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #730 on: 09/03/2014 14:10:31 »
A free will, is that what HUP is? A wider description would be indeterminacy. And to get to a outcome from those we need a observable. those make outcomes. What defines those outcomes? We need a arrow stringing outcomes up, don't we? I think we do. How about free will then? Do we need that?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #731 on: 09/03/2014 14:12:03 »

 Is thoughts useful information?
The simplest way to define information is the equation. At it's basic level, all information can be expressed with math. If we ask the question; "Are thoughts useful information?", one could say yes if they understand the thought process to be mathematical in nature. Our minds are computing devices and computers define reality using the logic of math.

In my opinion, thoughts are useful in that they are constructs in mathematical logic.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #732 on: 09/03/2014 14:15:40 »
Maybe.

If I give you a circle and a pen, and tell you to draw one line, from its center to its circumference, is that finished product you deliver a example of free will? After all, there's a lot of choices of how to draw that line inside the circle.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #733 on: 09/03/2014 14:16:22 »
A free will, is that what HUP is? A wider description would be indeterminacy. And to get to a outcome from those we need a observable. those make outcomes. What defines those outcomes? We need a arrow stringing outcomes up, don't we? I think we do. How about free will then? Do we need that?
My own feelings about free will are that it is very limited indeed.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #734 on: 09/03/2014 14:25:15 »
I would probably want to define it as logic being what we build from, and what creates our mathematics. That, and experience (repeatable experiments). All of it following a linear universe, meaning ones local arrow. I don't know Ethos, as with so many other things free will becomes a question from where you describe it. From a quantum entity's view there should be no 'new information' as all information already is stored in it. From a individual point of view, under a arrow, every new instant brings you to a place new and unique for you. And if we to that individual add the possibility of making choices then those choices must matter.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #735 on: 09/03/2014 14:36:57 »

 And if we to that individual add the possibility of making choices then those choices must matter.
One must also ask themselves, how these choices are made. The brain is a chemical computer and we view our decisions as personal and of choice. But if that is true, we must at some level be controlling the function of the brain from somewhere outside of it's realm. If free will is determined from somewhere outside the mind, where would that be?

I believe the chemical processes in the brain are controlled there and free will is an illusion constructed by the brain to express it's sovereignty over the material world. This view is, of course, a bit far out there but one must concede the purely chemical nature of the mind. If not, then we are forced into the spiritual realm of our reality and that view can't be dealt with scientifically.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #736 on: 09/03/2014 14:46:50 »
:)

Everything is more, or less, possible Ethos. Myself I prefer a universe, in wherever you are, the distance to the microscopic is the same, down there finding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and indeterminacy, up here, individual choices.

Let's turn it around. How about a magical universe. No laws, no logic. Nothing, more than choices. Those choices becoming 'laws' that exist 'momentarily'. And with no arrow under which to find linear outcomes. Would that then be a 'ideal free will'?

What I'm asking is what do we need to be able to define examples of what free will is?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #737 on: 09/03/2014 15:04:39 »
:)

Everything is more, or less, possible Ethos. Myself I prefer a universe, in wherever you are, the distance to the microscopic is the same, down there finding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and indeterminacy, up here, individual choices.

Let's turn it around. How about a magical universe. No laws, no logic. Nothing, more than choices. Those choices becoming 'laws' that exist 'momentarily'. And with no arrow under which to find linear outcomes. Would that then be a 'ideal free will'?

What I'm asking is what do we need to be able to define examples of what free will is?
Actually yor_on, I have a great deal of respect for you my friend. I've been watching this thread for some time now and have recognized the depth of thought you've been applying to it. I suppose if I were asked on what level I agree with your ideas, I would place that percentage at around 98 per cent. The other 2 per cent would have to placed there because I'm rather unsure about many things myself. In any case, I do like the way you think and am convinced that you are sincere about the search for truth. And truth for many of our cookie cutter scientists seems to be only what they feel comfortable with when rubbing elbows with their peers.

My point about free will is really focused on the issue of the spiritual. And we both know that such a topic is not very welcome here at NSF. In all truth, contemporary science has evolved to a point now where it is moving very close to the boundary lying very close to the spiritual. Take quantum mechanics for an example. How are we expected to believe in the old concept of cause and effect when quantum interactions defy the logic. Maybe we've reached the limit of logical science and find ourselves moving ever closer to the mystical explanations for reality? What ever the future holds for rational explanations about reality, it appears to be far from the logical view science used to hold.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2014 15:10:03 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #738 on: 09/03/2014 15:58:03 »
I think it's a question that one need to define too Ethos. After all, it's information. The 'spiritual point' is no different from any other question of information to me. We all know, to some degree, that we're going to die. And it would be a strange individual that never have wondered about what it means. That you disappear? All experience gone? Never to be retrieved unless it's been stored for later generations? And then we have society, living its own 'life', consisting of us individuals. The individual disappear but I think we have to presume that society continue to exist even without us. To do otherwise would draw the continuum very near a magical expression, in where I become all there is. But it's a hard thing to quantify, and even harder to define what importance my existence have. I guess that's where from some of the doubts about 'free will' comes too, looking around you and seeing that things and ideas somehow refuse change, no matter how wrong one might find the present situation. But it has changed, and we are evolving. And the values we are choosing are 'spiritual' as I see it, belonging to ethics and questions about what a civilized society should consist of. People often use behavioral science today, also wanting to believe that it's solely logic that defines it. But I would say that those developing experiments, those days, have defined their goals ethically, although perhaps not consciously. It comes down to ethics to me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #739 on: 09/03/2014 16:21:49 »
Better say, 'most of those developing experiments, those days, have defined their goals ethically, although perhaps not consciously." The ministry of defense for example may have different goals and values than a university. It's about being conscious, and making choices to me, adapting to what we are. But we're evolving, although ever so slowly.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #740 on: 19/03/2014 14:47:14 »
Ever wondered how a inflation can be ftl? That depends on your definitions, we only have a 'inside' from where we can measure. Doing so ftl becomes very strange if we look at it from action and reaction, the idea of 'information carriers' propagating in a space. Exchange it for a SpaceTime in where 'information carriers' also becomes our dimensions, not meaning that what's outside of this definition isn't here, instead define those as unmeasurable and we might get an idea of how SpaceTime both can become a 'instant symmetry break' as well as having a inflation 'faster than the speed of light in a vacuum'. If SpaceTime is a 'regime', then that regime we can measure is just one part of it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #741 on: 19/03/2014 15:07:32 »
And another thing, this indeterminism we see at a quantum level, does it disappear at a macroscopic level? Also a question of how you define it. If we assume action and reaction for it, as 'information carriers' interacting from a quantum level up to our macroscopic 'reality', then there is no 'split' between the quantum mechanical behavior and the macroscopic. We're still 'indeterministic' :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #742 on: 19/03/2014 15:13:24 »
Can you see why scaling is weird, seen through my eyes? Ones ideas of distances becomes strange from a view in where the distance always is the same, equivalent, when it comes to scaling. A 'dimension' of its own, well sort of :) equivalent in 'distance' everywhere.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #743 on: 19/03/2014 15:29:28 »
Think of it as QM surface of sorts, on which a SpaceTime becomes projected. And us as something created together with this SpaceTime, measuring it the only way we can, 'inside' as defined by its 'information carriers'. That does not define a outside, because it does not give 'dimensions' a objective existence, except as measured from that inside.
=

As locally measured, from that inside, is more correct. And why we then find a Lorentz contraction and a complementary time dilation is also a result information carriers, obeying 'c'. It's important to understand where the limits come from, and for me that is 'c'. If there is a limit that is inexplainable by itself, then 'c' got to be it.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 15:38:15 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #744 on: 19/03/2014 15:44:15 »
Probably it ('c' and SpaceTime) is more explainable from an idea of symmetries? But a symmetry between what is measurable and what is not also seem to become a circular argument, as a cat chasing its own tail. Each side explaining the other. You might say that this kind of explanation has no beginning, and no end. A new sort of thinking to us, as we're used to measure in time, using a local arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #745 on: 19/03/2014 15:51:32 »
But to get to a consistency for that SpaceTime projection we need to assume a 'equivalence' of 'QM surface'. Laws, properties, rules, constants all being equivalent in that origin. We do not need to assume that what we find to be a distance must have its exact counterpart in that minuscule milieu though. That's also why I sometime think of it as a cone, with its point resting on this absolute QM surface, defining SpaceTime properties and laws. After all, distance is a local definition even macroscopically.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #746 on: 19/03/2014 16:38:36 »
Alternatively one could assume it to be a balance, dynamically changing. But that should then also crave a arrow existing on both 'sides', as I think. Can't see how to make it work otherwise? What I mean is that if a arrow disappear, locally defined, at some QM scale then there is no 'linear time' to discuss from a symmetry. Only as measured inside SpaceTime. And the problem is also that a assumption of our arrow being a macroscopic phenomena is very hard to proof, as all experiments we can do will use a local arrow (the experimenters), no matter what scale we measure on.

What I'm trying to get to is that locally defined there is no 'size' to that scale where QM exist. We define size from distance, we define distance from our ruler, as measured in time. Without a arrow a distance becomes a meaningless definition.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #747 on: 19/03/2014 16:53:53 »
If you think of it you must find just as me that the arrow is no illusion. But also that it is a local definition. The next step is then to ask yourself if there is a proof for all 'local arrows' being of a same origin. And that we have in joining frames of reference, superimposing them. There one arrow will be the exact same as the other. So yes, all arrows are locally equivalent. And the step after is to ask yourself, equivalent to what? and there you will find 'c'. This is assuming that 'c' will be consistent in a acceleration too, which is the view I have. But I don't need to have it, as long as I can prove a 'balance' between aging, the arrow, and acceleration, relative aging, the arrow, and uniform motion. So you're free to define it any which way, but the most consistent is to give 'c' the status of a local constant through all motion, and your local arrow a equivalence to 'c'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #748 on: 19/03/2014 17:03:25 »
But that then defines a relationship that seems unchanging, doesn't it? 'c' and your local arrow (aging) being equivalent? Where then does a twin experiment come from? Why do the twins find a different biological age? Would then 'c' have to change as I move?

Not locally defined.
And that is the only way I can see to define it, practically and experimentally. Puts an awful lot of emphasis on local definitions, don't you agree? As compared to the older 'global definitions' we're used too. As one universe of one unchanging time ticking away, containing us all. Here it all becomes a local reality.

But where this local reality is shared, as in 'repeatable experiments', we now can find a new definition of what 'global' should mean.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12316
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #749 on: 19/03/2014 17:13:18 »
So yes, we're definitively 'indeterministic' :) Think of it, the 'global definition' is actually existing in a collective mind space, although the repeatable experiments we do to prove that 'global reality' does not, all made locally. But, it is also so that your measurements of the universe you exist in have  a fit to my definition, as when using Lorentz transformations. But assuming time dilation and Lorentz contractions at uniform motion too, there is no 'frame of reference' more true than another. What gives us a minimalistic common nominator is actually the idea of superimposing 'frames of reference', finding them to become 'one same frame'. And, as I think of it then, when using scaling.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."