How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 207020 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #750 on: 19/03/2014 17:23:20 »
So, what do we need to get to 'meaningful information'?

'c'

equivalent to

A arrow.

You're free to exchange those two any way you like, they are each others mirrors.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #751 on: 19/03/2014 17:33:41 »
You need that arrow, but does it have to be 'c'?

Well, assume a equivalence locally between 'c' and your local arrow. But then also assume that there was no possibility of superimposing one frame of reference on another, finding them becoming equivalent. Now translate this into Lorentz transformations becoming impossible too. Then apply this on a Earth. That Earth can't exist, there would be no informations carriers keeping to any logic anymore. 'c' wouldn't be there, neither would it be possible to agree on a local arrow. And 'repeatable experiments' would lose all foundations.

In short, we've now created a magical universe.
=

heh, rereading myself I got confused :) Hope it makes more sense this time.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 17:53:10 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #752 on: 19/03/2014 17:38:23 »
The universe has a logic, it is local. But it is also subtly 'global' in that repeatable experiments do exist, and that we can agree on them. They are the foundation of physics. But the 'global definition' of a SpaceTime is in fact existing in our minds, not as a objective reality. What is my reality, is what I measure.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #753 on: 19/03/2014 17:44:43 »
We can break down 'does it need to be 'c' ' into, yes, at least it need to be something equivalent to other definitions of what they call 'c', able to superimpose. It also need to present us with a even 'speed', to make it into a SpaceTime. What we then define that speed as is up to each one of us, although we have agreed on common definitions.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 18:10:03 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #754 on: 19/03/2014 21:02:58 »
Then there is another thing. A universe built from connections, or if you like, Dimensions built from connections aka interactions, should be background independent. Same as there should be no 'outside' to it. You need a objective definition of 'dimensions' to reach to a 'outside'. Loops seem to define it similarly, as if the loops themselves create the universe we measure on. The difference between the older idea of time being a illusion here being that I take the local arrow very seriously, and give it a equivalence to all other locally measured arrows, connecting it to 'c'
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 21:05:34 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #755 on: 20/03/2014 23:24:44 »
One way to describe it would be to say that this universe works on two planes. One is the local, your local reality. There we find what makes repeatable experiments exist, the way every point in this universe, locally defined, present you with a arrow and 'c'. 'c' is the information carriers between the particles making you up, and the information carriers enabling what I call meaningful or useful information between all sorts of particles. The other 'plane' (find no better word for it) is the one allowing one frame of reference to communicate with another, aka interactions. So instead of four dimensions, or adding to it depending on view, we find those two expressions coexisting, creating a universe. The local, and then something allowing local expressions to interact. That's what makes the dimensions we find, as I think. Freeing yourself from the idea of four 'objectively (globally agreeable on) existing' dimensions, allows you to look at scaling differently. It also allows for the idea that a local speed increase indeed can shrink a universe, not only shorten the time it takes you from A to B, but shrink it, locally measured.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #756 on: 20/03/2014 23:33:40 »
Because, and here I'm getting into very deep waters :) It's not 'energy', it's information. If it was a question of energy I see no way your local speed increase should be able to shrink a universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #757 on: 21/03/2014 16:43:11 »
Yeah I know, I use a lot of strange words. I'm not really interested in your wealth, that's a human joke. And I have dreams :) I'm sure you have it too. If you didn't you wouldn't bother to read this. Life is strange. And I'm finding that I like poetry too :) Not sure what is wrong with me. I mean, we're sheep's, right? Leaded by the Shepard into oblivion. The Shepard is the guy next to you, with a big mouth filled with certainty, telling you how 'it works'. F** him.
=

Ok I know. My English sux. Lead, not 'Leaded' :)
On the other tentacle, maybe it's middle English, belonging to the ages when we were free.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2014 16:52:40 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #758 on: 21/03/2014 16:48:11 »
There is more to life than money. There's justice, not a popular subject. There's love, also  a weird idea. And there's trust. Today people seem to find a joy in abusing trust, and it's easy. We can all do it, nothing especially hard about fu*'ng someone up. I can do it, and so can you. Those that don't are the heroes of this age, in my eyes at last.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #759 on: 21/03/2014 16:55:22 »
Can you see what a injustice we're doing each other? Wanting to become more and more. the joke of the bible, 'populate the world'. And such a lot of us that never use their minds, unless it gives you that boost. It's a insult to them, and to us.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #760 on: 21/03/2014 17:40:39 »
Justice, does it exist?

Don't know. Then again, I use my mind, and I'm willing to see. It's nothing special about using your mind, but people tend to get bothered if you open your mouth :)
"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 #761 on: 21/03/2014 17:59:51 »


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?

I do agree, and if we refine the idea of local definitions, we must move to the quantum realm. Nothing is more local than the Planck length, associated with Planck time. This of course is all determined by c, without this speed limit, these basic units would not have any significance at all.

But there remains one really important question for me about c. What is it about the nature of the cosmos that determines this speed limit? It's not about the energy involved because photons are produced with many variations of energies. There must exist a medium thru which the photon moves that limits it's speed. I suppose one could surmise that it could be the universal field but exactly what do we mean when we use this term; "Universal field" There are many different magnetic and electrical fields in space that vary to an extreme degree thru which light passes and c still remains constant in the vacuum.

If we remove all dust and gas, and all magnetic and electrical fields, light still passes thru the vacuum at c. In final analysis, it's the universal vacuum field that determines the speed of light. I think we need to uncover the true nature of this medium before we can truly understand c. When we do, I believe it will answer many questions about reality that remain hidden to us even yet.

"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #762 on: 21/03/2014 18:01:45 »
It's nothing special about using your mind, but people tend to get bothered if you open your mouth :)
I like that quote yor_on, I must try and remember it.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #763 on: 21/03/2014 18:13:04 »
Thanks Ethos :)

We're all here together, and we communicate. That's the really interesting thing about Internet, and the very thing those of small minds want to discredit.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #764 on: 21/03/2014 18:23:04 »
As for a medium Ethos? I don't know, I like to think of it as a game. The game is not about breaking the 'barriers' of physics, although that is a very essential part of it. It's about evolving into what we can be. And we're not trustful, are we? As a species we're defining things from our self interests. Then we try to see a pattern that explains the way we allow our interchanging self-interests to sway us :)

Well, maybe 'enlightened' behaviorism is one way, but in the end we're all living for love. Love of ourselves, and others.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #765 on: 21/03/2014 18:36:45 »
Let's make it easy. There is only two people left on this Earth, standing on a garbage heap, one dies the other says "I win". Or we have two people, both remembering loved ones, none of them wanting to be the last on a garbage heap.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #766 on: 21/03/2014 18:59:00 »
As for the physics you're perfectly correct. I'm using Planck scale for defining my thoughts. It's nothing special with Planck scale, although the mathematics we use breaks down around there, as I understands it. In a way you could use any limit you like. It's more about the limit, and assuming that where we meet it something different steps in. You could assume that 'time' is able to broken down in ever smaller pieces, never ending too. But I don't, although I differ between the idea, or 'property' of time, and a arrow. The property needs to be there.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #767 on: 22/03/2014 11:13:59 »
In a way it will seem as a 'bit' universe. discrete bits of 'time' creating a arrow. But 'time' becomes my property :) and that one you can't split. It's just a property making a local arrow able to exist. In a universe like mine the bigger mystery, at least as I think, is how those local representations can interact. This as I assume that it is those interactions that will define our dimensions. The other way might be to presume dimensions able to exist on their own, no interactions/connections needed. But it's not what I see.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #768 on: 22/03/2014 11:20:52 »
Another way to see it might be to think of it in forms of outcomes. Then 'time' is what doesn't use a outcome, the arrow we live in will though. That's what I mean by properties, 'laws' and rules, becoming a background for the ticking universe we live in. And I think it's easier to think of that as if we have a symmetry with something that we can't measure on. Us being a part of that, dependent on it. A symmetry break, defined by the breaks origin. And as I can't use a arrow there, then this symmetry break we live in should constantly be 'happening', as well as being 'gone' too. Outcomes define the arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #769 on: 22/03/2014 11:35:17 »
Looking at it that way the universe we live in becomes one, set or defined through probability, possibly. It has a probability of existing, amongst any other uncountable amount of universes you ever can imagine. Each probability setting its own limits, defining what is possible 'inside' it, and nothing I see now hindering those probabilities from 'co-existing'. The only thing I'm assuming for this is that there is a logic existing, as some origin.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #770 on: 22/03/2014 11:59:38 »
I think we can let them co-exist if one define dimensions my way? The distances we measure on are valid inside, although that 'inside' becomes something different without a arrow defining it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #771 on: 23/03/2014 09:49:51 »
Let's take a look on what a background dependence may be.

"Background-independence is a loosely defined property of a theory of physics. Roughly speaking, it limits the number of mathematical structures used to describe space and time that are put in place "by hand". Instead, these structures are the result of dynamical equations, such as Einstein field equations, so that one can determine from first principles what form they should take. Since the form of the metric determines the result of calculations, a theory with background independence is more predictive than a theory without it, since the theory requires fewer inputs to make its predictions. This is analogous to desiring fewer free parameters in a fundamental theory. So background-independence can be seen as extending the mathematical objects that should be predicted from theory to include not just the parameters, but also geometrical structures."

But, can there be a dynamic structure that 'solves itself', without a cause? Yes, and no. We use constants for defining what is our common origin. Those are constant properties, principles, laws and rules, defining every point in a SpaceTime. Without them we get another 'physics' where nothing is true, everything a 'locally valid solution' but not joining it into a 'common SpaceTime', in short a 'magical universe'. You need something, that will join this SpaceTime. And then we have measurements.

My clearly defined measurement is what defines the reality around me, when we find us agreeing on them we finally get to repeatable experiments. But to me it's a 'sandbox of logic', 'inside' of which we find those constants rules etc etc. You can either choose to imagine dimensions as something existing in their own right. A 'commonly same global' sandbox', then also able to exist without interactions, aka connections, needed. Or you can do as I'm trying and define dimensions, aka SpaceTime, as a result of interactions (connections).

But there is a 'background' as I think, although of a very weird sort. I think I would like to call it 'information, constants, principles, rules, physical laws.. Joining a local definition of a SpaceTime into a common. Repeatable experiments.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #772 on: 23/03/2014 09:52:43 »
All of those have a common origin, and we find it when scaling.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #773 on: 23/03/2014 09:57:30 »
So what makes our universe can be described as a 'dimension less' point, containing all information needed for the reality I find.
=

Eh, that's a strictly local definition though :)
The mystery to me, is how to get to this 'globally agreed on, commonly same' SpaceTime we expect us all to exist in. Because we do.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2014 09:59:44 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #774 on: 23/03/2014 10:02:43 »
What joins it is interactions, regulated by information carriers. And that is 'c', locally defined.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #775 on: 23/03/2014 10:07:00 »
But in my universe the only correct definition is the local. I won't see the universe 'die', just by imagining my self at a event horizon, will I? The local is the correct one for me, then there is something more, the way it seamlessly join into the universe we all agree on, so we need a principle for how a strictly local definition can co-exist with another, split by Lorentz contraction and arrow. Because without this no universe would be here.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #776 on: 23/03/2014 10:08:49 »
And that principle is best described by repeatable experiments, and those constants.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #777 on: 23/03/2014 10:11:26 »
If you assume that a Lorentz contraction is complementary to a time dilation, then you get to a 'fractured' reality. Not only that 'illusionary time', but 'illusionary distances' too. And we can prove time dilations, here and now.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #778 on: 23/03/2014 10:20:42 »
So how big is that local anchor of 'reality', that defines your arrow, and 'distance'?
Dimension less?

Sure, why not? Alternatively, using Planck scale, defining you, as well as disappearing, at that scale where light is defined to take one 'Planck step' in one 'Planck time'. At that scale, if we define it this way, mathematics breaks down and 'light' stops 'propagating'. One step is no step at all as I see it, it's just a instant unmoving.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #779 on: 23/03/2014 10:23:30 »
What this mean is that the arrow is a result of frames of reference communicating.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #780 on: 23/03/2014 10:25:41 »
But it needs a arrow to communicate, doesn't it :)
A cat chasing its tail.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #781 on: 23/03/2014 10:28:36 »
If there exist a principle for explaining this, we have to look for it outside our arrow. And we have to question dimensions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #782 on: 23/03/2014 10:36:59 »
It's a strange universe. Maybe it is a universe of information, forcing a measurably local, as well as commonly agreed on global, reality. I don't think it is 'walled in' though, unless you're describing it from a 'inside', in which case it must be.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #783 on: 23/03/2014 10:41:26 »
'Walled in' is referring to the limits that defines it, not if there is a physical wall defining it. It's perfectly acceptable to go out to the left, to then come in to the right, seamlessly, in such a universe. What decides it is connections.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #784 on: 23/03/2014 10:43:33 »
But it's not 'magical', it has laws, properties and rules. There's a logic to it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #785 on: 23/03/2014 11:08:07 »
There is one other possibility, assuming a whole universe, acting on each point of itself. The 'focus' of a whole universe, defined in each point, a sort of 'Mach'ian universe. But, as long as we agree on that we can super impose frames of reference on another, finding them absolutely equivalent, we still will find constants.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #786 on: 23/03/2014 11:13:02 »
The local definition is the simpler one though. Assuming a universe acting in a 'Mach'ian fashion does nothing for explaining where it comes from.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #787 on: 23/03/2014 11:19:27 »
It's rather possible, to me that is :) that the 'Mach'ian point of view can come to be from local principles also. I'm using scales for it, assuming that there is a equivalence at some very small scale, but that doesn't explain the differences, as time dilations and Lorentz contractions, and so 'c'. It's that principle I would like to see, the one defining how frames of reference can 'co-exist', creating a SpaceTime.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #788 on: 26/03/2014 22:40:16 »
You might say I want to do away with dimensions :) but keep degrees of freedom. This makes little sense from where we normally observe objects. They all have dimensions that we can measure and feel, and as they are objects they also have clearly defined limits. But going down to a very small scale this isn't as clear as it becomes macroscopically, down there everything smears out. What differs might be what we call a vacuum, a perfect vacuum should stay a vacuum no matter your magnification. Any way, it's easy to see why we think of dimensions the way we do.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #789 on: 26/03/2014 22:47:48 »
So what would a degree of freedom be? Only the way we can find it to 'move' spatially? Or is there more ideas to include in it?

"Almost by accident in the mid 1970s, theorists realized that they could obtain a quantum gravity theory by postulating that the fundamental building blocks of nature are not point particles, a traditional notion that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, but instead are tiny strands of string. These strings are not simply a smaller version of, say, our shoelaces. Rather, they are geometrical objects that represent a fundamentally different way of thinking about matter. This family of theories grew out of the physics of the strong interactions. In these theories, two quarks interacting strongly are connected by a stream of carriers of the strong force, which forms a "flux tube." The potential energy between the two quarks, therefore, grows linearly with the distance between the quarks" from http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=4&secNum=3

Now, what is the degree of freedom for this one, if it is correct?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #790 on: 26/03/2014 23:01:59 »
Well, I would like to add the idea of there being measurable, and non measurable degrees of freedom. With a addendum of not using dimensions for describing it. Dimensions is a archetype to me, it's about 'limits'. Well, I don't think there are any 'limits', probabilities sure, 'insides' too. But not 'dimensional sand boxes' containing us, with a 'outside'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #791 on: 26/03/2014 23:32:51 »
We define dimensions from a inside, assuming that we can have more, unmeasurable 'insides', coexisting, which I'm afraid I'm doing here, for now and this :) Also defining 'them' from some probability of existing, as measured from some 'inside'. Although, don't ask me to define how this 'probability' comes to be though. I'm just making a presumption of probability being the most correct way to describe it, just as I like to think of it as properties, principles, rules, creating those SpaceTimes. It makes for a very interesting universe at least :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #792 on: 26/03/2014 23:34:36 »
And now we stop light from 'propagating' too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #793 on: 26/03/2014 23:36:33 »
But let's keep logic, and a arrow for it. you need both. If I would presume a logic unnecessary, I also would invalidate the need for a arrow. Because 'c' gives us a logic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #794 on: 26/03/2014 23:40:47 »
A strictly local logic naturally, but one that we all can, and must, agree on. Without there are no repeatable experiments possible. And as I think of 'c', locally measured, as being my arrow, it narrows it down, scale-wise, doesn't it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #795 on: 26/03/2014 23:46:10 »
So we stopped light from propagating. Now, where are those dimensions? Use my definition of locality and define them from that, I don't think you can.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #796 on: 26/03/2014 23:50:50 »
I can't do it any way. I can still find degrees of freedom though. And connections. Also called 'frames of reference', and to my eyes those are questions about scales, and the question interesting there is naturally the question if one 'frame of reference' exists? Does it? It must, if we're referring to the idea of ones local clock and ruler. Is that then a 'bit'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #797 on: 26/03/2014 23:56:30 »
I can relate the idea of bits to a sheet, a 'plane' of some sort. Maybe we could call that a dimension if it wasn't for the fact that, at this extremely small local scale, the 'bit' might exist, in fact a 'ideal plane' to me, 'time' as something ('c') 'propagating' and so 'ticking' should disappear. Without a arrow, how do you measure?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #798 on: 27/03/2014 00:04:11 »
To measure locally at a extremely small scale you need to free yourself from your 'local clock' to fit my ideas of scaling. It can't be there as I see it. You would in fact need to superimpose yourself, the 'observer', on the observed. and doing so? Will there be a local arrow?

Your local arrow always exist as a macroscopic local complement to what you observe, we have no other way of defining it that I can see. But assuming a frame of reference to exist, magnified into a ideal configuration, you must accept it to be what defines that local clock you use to measure with.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #799 on: 27/03/2014 00:06:18 »
Weird isn't it? What makes that clock 'tick', doesn't 'tick' at all, ideally defined? So why do we think it 'ticks'? Because it does.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."