How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 207007 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #800 on: 27/03/2014 00:09:50 »
to see my ideal definition you just need to make 'c' equivalent to a clock, ticking away as a locally even and constant speed. Then assume that there is a limit to how far we can spit light into even chunks. That limit, or scale, at where light no longer is found to propagate is my definition of a frame of reference.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #801 on: 27/03/2014 00:12:31 »
and that frame of reference is the closest I can get to a 'bit'. It does not state that 'reality' stops there, just that the physics we have should break down, as I presume. and Plack scale is a very nice foundation for it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #802 on: 27/03/2014 00:14:34 »
And there I see it as you have a 'reality' in where light does not 'propagate', co-existing with your macroscopic reality. Neither one lying. All a matter of scales.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #803 on: 27/03/2014 00:21:56 »
So what do I mean? Without a arrow, where is the logic? Heh :)
 
I did say "If I would presume a logic unnecessary, I also would invalidate the need for a arrow. Because 'c' gives us a logic."

Yep, but I can still presume a logic without a arrow. That one is possible, but the one in where we assume there to be no logic, and so no need for a arrow, our 'magical universe', shouldn't be possible.

I mean, If it would be, I most definitely will arrive to a monumental headache.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #804 on: 27/03/2014 00:30:28 »
So what do we need for a universe, at all scales?
A arrow?

Not as I think. We may not need 'action and reaction' but we do need a logic, that makes it explainable. Changes is what define us macroscopically, but considering my view, we're also 'time less'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #805 on: 27/03/2014 00:31:42 »
Well, I'm sure I've told I'm weird :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #806 on: 27/03/2014 00:42:57 »
It's like you have a canvas on which a 'SpaceTime' builds itself, or get filled, with 'information'. The information uses constants as 'c', adding properties and principles, to join that information into a useful linearly describable universe. But I think we do need to presume principles for it, as chaos mathematics for example, entropy? It's a universe using information, not dimensions, and it goes from simplicity to complexity. The 'degrees of freedom' I think of those days seems more than spatial to me
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #807 on: 27/03/2014 00:51:58 »
You can also think of it as a symmetry between the measurable and the not-measurable. The not-measurable is 'one frame of reference' in where you are forced to superimpose the observer on the observed. We can't do that, we always have a local clock. The symmetry is the 'universe' to me :) and we're the ones confirming its existence. Well, you might prefer some less mystical description, but to me the last question becomes 'what's the use of it'?

The universe observes itself.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #808 on: 27/03/2014 00:53:33 »
And if you accept the idea of information being what the universe consists of, organizing itself into ever more complex patterns, you better accept ethics.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #809 on: 27/03/2014 00:54:44 »
Because what we ultimately becomes in such a universe is, as I think, a question of our ethics.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #810 on: 27/03/2014 01:17:26 »
But that arrow then, where does it come from? Well, I see it as coming from 'c'. And 'c' is the distance measured in time that light 'propagates' in a vacuum. Around 300 000 km per second. And all agreeable on for us all, locally measured. To propagate it must cross those frames of reference I'm discussing as 'local bits'. So we need frames of reference communicating, and behind that a principle. 'c' is what makes it happen but the principle, looked at from just one frame of reference, needs to exist there too. So 'time' is a local property, in my universe that is :) with a arrow becoming a result of frames of reference interacting.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #811 on: 27/03/2014 01:23:41 »
To assume it otherwise would to me crave a magical universe, one without logic. Frames of reference exist measurably, although they becomes a ideal definition as you scrutinize their 'location'. We measure between them, and we see the results of our measurements, validating the concept. So your local clock and ruler is what defines those repeatable experiments physics builds on.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #812 on: 27/03/2014 02:00:15 »
As an observer I exist as a one second frame of reference.  This co-moving frame is centered in time with my body's center of mass.  This co-moving frame also appears to have motion even when I stand still because my consciousness is co-moving with the photons while my mass is co-moving with the earth.  If emission only happens in the present then I as a receiver, observer, only see the past.  Our minds trick us into thinking we see emission with a pseudo-emission point within our eyes but make no mistake we all sense the past not the present.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #813 on: 27/03/2014 10:25:44 »
A kind of poetry Petm :)

not sure what the mind would be moving with, but 'c' seems as a limit, and it's correct that information carriers must obey it as useful information. and yes, you can only see the 'past', when thinking. Every instant you make conscious have already passed. On the other tentacle, without a present existing, how would we get to a past?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #814 on: 27/03/2014 10:35:25 »
That's a damn good question actually, if you think of it from a point of view in where a arrow becomes a result of frames of reference interacting. That's what your brain consist of, frames of reference communicating, just as all other objects you can find. Those that are defined as 'dimension less' is slightly different as I find it hard to define a frame to them. Need to think about that one :)
=

Nah, they're definable too, if we define dimensions from connections. In that universe we will use scales for defining a limit, not dimensions. We don't need them there, they're a artifact and archetype, an idea created from the things we touch. It's because that would be a universe of information, and you can't split useful information. A stone is a piece of useful information too. And without dimensions upholding our 'reality' we're living in a dream, of sorts :)

Hard to take, that one :)
First we made 'time' into a illusion, then we looked at distances aka Lorentz contractions, and made those into a illusion. Now we're going one step further and questioning dimensions.

But it is still a universe following a logic, with clear limits as described from a inside.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2014 10:48:36 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #815 on: 27/03/2014 16:38:08 »
the point of it is that we're always just as close to that 'surface' where there is no arrow, no 'c', and where light doesn't propagate. It's a co-existence, and there must be a dependence to create our SpaceTime.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #816 on: 27/03/2014 16:40:00 »
And as a arrow disappear there, dimensions does to. You can't define what's at such a scale from your clock and ruler, because you're using the wrong tools.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #817 on: 27/03/2014 16:44:53 »
And to get back to the past, present, and the future. Frames of reference, using them as what creates ones local arrow, can it contain a present? I'm not sure, I don't think it can actually.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #818 on: 27/03/2014 16:46:59 »
Ideally we can define a present naturally. Just as we can define 'one frame of reference' as needed to exist, for us to get to ones local clock and ruler. But practically?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #819 on: 27/03/2014 16:49:59 »
Thinking of a consciousness as a 'dimension less' focus, then that focus can be said to always be in the 'present'. Thinking of it as information needing frames of reference to create a arrow, that becomes a lie.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #820 on: 27/03/2014 16:51:49 »
Or we can get it both ways. As long as you're not thinking you're in the 'present' :) Use your mind and you slip away from it into a constant 'past' :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #821 on: 28/03/2014 05:54:25 »
Let's turn it about. If I would assume that there is a scale at where the arrow, and everything else that needs it, disappear. How would the place we exist in look from there? Would you be able to split it in a past, a present, and a future? I don't think so, and to be stricter, I'm not sure we can do it from here either. What we have is choices, and change, steered by properties, laws, rules, principles. A probability of something doesn't come from God :) given to us Earthlings, it's coming from our experiences of how things usually behave, at least the way I look at it. So, if you like, and I think I do, you should be able to refer to a probability of something as belonging to laws too.

Spin up or Spin down is a excellent example of something with a even probability (50/50) of behaving one way or another. But if we use my definition that still isn't a question of a free choice, it's a law somewhere, a 'hidden variable'. Now you might want to question that one, but if we can agree on that there is no way for us to untangle what law(s) that defines it, then it won't matter what we call it. Although, defining it this way it's not a equivalence to a 'free choice', in my eyes.

The point here is that maybe it's useless to try to define a free choice? In the end we get to a question if there are laws defining a universe, a logic. What would we call a logic that doesn't have underlying principles for how it behaves? I would call it magic. And looked at from that angle, all physics building on a idea of laws principles etc etc, would become a lie. Because if we assume that there is no laws and principles, then there shouldn't be it further away from some 'lawless origin' either. The red spot on Jupiter is not there by chance, although, it is :) I's a principle expressing itself, if not there, then somewhere else. You need properties, principles and laws if you want a order.

Would you call probability a law?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #822 on: 28/03/2014 06:00:38 »
Or maybe I'm wrong? Maybe Spin up/Spin down is a excellent choice of what 'free will' is?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #823 on: 28/03/2014 06:21:54 »
It also depends on what you mean by a hidden variable. What I mean by using it is that there must be properties, similar to the idea of spin, defining it. It won't come from nowhere. I do not mean that there is a 'hidden mechanism' defining the way a spin must be. There's a subtle difference in which way you look at that. The older meaning of a hidden variable is just such a mechanism 'deciding', and it fits the Newtonian era perfectly. My use of a 'hidden variable' is a assumption of there being properties laws and principles defining probability, nothing more than that. But it is still a 'hidden variable' in its cleanest form.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #824 on: 28/03/2014 06:26:32 »
And so it comes down to a question of free will. Is that spin a excellent example of free will, or not? Do you expect that there needs to be a linearly existing consciousness to have a free will, making a free choice? Or would you accept this as a example of free will too?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #825 on: 28/03/2014 06:32:36 »
Is probability by chance alone, or does it have/follow laws?
If it has laws, why do they exist?

Can anything following principles laws etc, be defined as having a 'free choice', as in that spins outcome? because that is how we define it, isn't it? As if there is no way knowing the spin beforehand, unless we somehow manipulate it (weak experiments).
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #826 on: 28/03/2014 06:47:32 »
Ok, from that we can look at ourselves. Do you expect us to be cut of from the rest of the universe, by us having a ability to consciously choose? And what makes that final choice, kismet? Or you, weighting alternatives against each other? Is the ability to choose the same as a free will? Depends on if you're following a logic or not, wouldn't you say? There's different types of logics, and what I think we use normally is colored not only by self interests, although they are a major part of how we decide. What you find important for yourself short term, may change if you think of it long term.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #827 on: 28/03/2014 06:51:42 »
Defining it this way, a really 'free will' must be proven to use no logic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #828 on: 28/03/2014 06:54:40 »
And that would most probably place the person enacting it into the category collected by nice friendly men, in white coats :)
"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 #829 on: 28/03/2014 21:48:49 »
And that would most probably place the person enacting it into the category collected by nice friendly men, in white coats :)
Exactly....................Every choice we make is bases upon information we gather from our environment and our senses. Therefore, the criterion we use in making these decisions is outside of our so-called free will. One must really ask; What does the term "free will" really mean? If it is based upon this external information, I suggest that it is not free at all. And if it is based entirely upon feelings irrespective of objective information, then the decisions made are done so irrationally and point to actions taken with no regard for the evidence.

I suggest we mistakenly elevate the sovereignty of the self when we assume our capacity for free will. There is nothing in this world nor the cosmos that is free, and that, in my opinion, includes the will of the individual. 
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #830 on: 29/03/2014 12:03:04 »
Maybe Ethos, but we use choices, and there are always alternatives. It may well be so that the universe is so filled with information that any attempt to quantify it, from where and how we measure, becomes meaningless. If there is no limit theoretically to what your choice might become, and you're the one deciding your path. Isn't that as close as we can come to 'free will'? Inside a logic. Think of how we use small and large infinities, a meaningless concept inside such a one, as it from the inside must be infinite any which way.

Or think of it this way, something chooses, your will or whatever one would like to call it. And for this it doesn't matter if your choices are limited or not.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #831 on: 29/03/2014 12:16:21 »
Let's go back to spin. If there is a principle defining spin, does it have to be a mechanism too? I differ between the idea of a 'hidden variable' becoming a hidden mechanism, and it being a property myself. In the second definition, as a mechanism, we have a way to predict the spin beforehand. In the one defining it as a property I don't think we will find a way.

And it fits my ideas, because a linear logic should disappear at that scale, although you still need properties defining what linear logic you meet 'inside' our SpaceTime.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #832 on: 29/03/2014 12:22:48 »
Assume that weak experiments work. That you can influence it to give you a predefined spin. Is that a example of spin being a (predestined) mechanism? Or is it a example of free will influencing that spin.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #833 on: 29/03/2014 12:31:31 »
And what does it make spin?
A example of free will?

I don't know, we just defined free will as something without logic, didn't we? Maybe that one needs to be redefined if so :) Let's instead call it something without a linear logic. No action and reaction.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #834 on: 29/03/2014 12:57:01 »
And there is one more thing. What does a free will need?
To be able to be defined as existing?

Outcomes?
And choices?
Laws, principles, rules and properties?

It definitely need outcomes.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #835 on: 29/03/2014 12:59:22 »
Without outcomes, does free will exist? We're going the other way here, aren't we? :) Using a linear logic to define what origin 'free will' might have.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #836 on: 29/03/2014 13:06:34 »
Outcomes need the SpaceTime we live in, defined by a arrow and 'c'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #837 on: 29/03/2014 13:11:16 »
So, how do I want to define a 'free will'? As something needing outcomes, or not? If I think outcomes must be there for it, then 'free will' becomes a description from and inside a linear universe, having no other application. If I disregard outcomes for it, then a ideal 'free will' is something not following a linear logic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #838 on: 29/03/2014 13:12:29 »
And if I think of it as a symmetry?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #839 on: 29/03/2014 13:25:46 »
"Assume that weak experiments work. That you can influence it to give you a predefined spin. Is that a example of spin being a (predestined) mechanism? Or is it a example of free will influencing that spin."

It's not a example of predestination, but it can be seen as using 'free will' to finalize a outcome, which then is the spin you will measure it to have. But I need to use the 'symmetry' to define it this way, or presume that only outcomes can define free will. And the later one is wrong in my eyes, A free will is not the outcome.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #840 on: 29/03/2014 13:30:40 »
A free will defined this way becomes very close to the idea of spin, as a 50/50 probability, not the exact same but close. It's not the outcome that defines it, although inside our universe it is just that, that once made us start to wonder about what a free will mean.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #841 on: 29/03/2014 13:36:50 »
It's the exact same sort of reasoning that I use to point out that you can't avoid your local clock and ruler, measuring. But scaling down, superimposing frames of reference into one frame, the clock must disappear. You need 'c' to get to the most ideal clock I can imagine inside this universe. And 'c' is a description of light propagating over frames of reference.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #842 on: 29/03/2014 15:13:35 »
So, how about a revolution :)

That will entitle you, starting to think by yourself. You ready for that? It doesn't involve weapons, or killing anyone. Just you, using that mind of yours. And it will crumble empires.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #843 on: 29/03/2014 15:23:22 »
You just need to understand that you are born here, and die here, for it. You also need to see that there is noting differing one birth from another, or one death from another. When you live you live, and when you're dead you're dead. It's nothing to be scared of.

That's all there is to a real revolution. The rest is up to you, and your ethics.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #844 on: 29/03/2014 15:35:12 »
A lot of people see Snowden as a traitor, or want to portrait him as a stupid geek, becoming a 'evil hacker'. I don't, I think he know about what I wrote, maybe not in the same terms, but I'm sure he thought about it. Actually, you can't avoid it, it will come to you sooner or later. And what he chose was one kind of ethics, following his own ideals of democracy and justice. I think they are mine too, and I find those ideas more important than any empire existing, now or ever.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #845 on: 29/03/2014 15:41:22 »
you see, in the end you're here to dream. And those dreams will define you.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #846 on: 29/03/2014 15:48:09 »
have you ever thought of those not wanting to live here? You will find a lot, if you just look, you never wondered why? Or do you think you know? Then you also have a definition for what differ one birth from another, right? :) and one death from another I'm sure. And in your mind a revolution will not be possible.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #847 on: 29/03/2014 15:49:06 »
It's all in your mind.
"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 #848 on: 29/03/2014 19:18:53 »
you see, in the end you're here to dream. And those dreams will define you.
I agree yor_on...........And in reality, maybe this place of dreams is where true freedom of will resides. The limits that reality puts on us in the physical world evaporates in the realm of our imagination and our dreams. Maybe this is where free will has it's proper domain, for there is little to be exercised during our waking moments.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #849 on: 18/04/2014 12:23:20 »
Ah well, been wondering about two things. Pete's definitions of mass, and photons :)

Pete defines mass as everything including a energy, and uses 'relativistic mass' to describe it. He has a really good point in that the mass of the sun also must include the 'photons' momentum as well as particles kinetic energy. Using this definition we also get a new understanding of the stress energy tensor. On the other hand, the definition of a rest mass is also a very understandable concept.

A invariant rest mass is good for me from the point of avoiding to define what I refer to as 'container ideas'. A container, in my thinking, might be seen as something proposing us all to be existent inside some sort of containing reference. What I suspect Einstein might have felt when saying that the moon must be there even if he looked away. Although it's even deeper that that to me. A container model is a archetype to me, inbuilt into us, even when referring to a 'limitless universe without bonds'.

I think I can use restmass for both descriptions, locally described as well as from a 'container model', but I find it harder to use relativistic mass, unless as used as a mathematical book keeping. You might say that from my view relativistic mass is a description of interactions between frames of reference.

Then we come to photons. Read a guy wondering about how 'seeing something' would be described, if we now only used photons to describe it? I don't think that's possible, you need to introduce waves to make it possible. On the other hand, that is what lights duality is all about. Two 'simultaneous' descriptions of a reality, depending on experimental setup/observer.

So yes, physics isn't about one singular definition of reality, it's adapting to you, in a way. This is not a popular attitude to it. Most want to find a mathematical expression, equation, that will cover it all, and explain observer dependencies. But maybe that will be found lacking, I think that point of view is lacking. It's not accepting the experiment, instead passing them by to look for some deeper, possibly theoretical, unification.

And that, as I see it, has to do with how much you rely on experiments, to define reality.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."