How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205337 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #850 on: 18/04/2014 12:34:52 »
But after reading this guy I started to think about photons, as caught on a photographic frame. I could assume that a photon has a limit (Planck scale preferably:). I then could imagine photons propagating as such 'frames' reaching the photographers device, getting measured (caught) as a photograph. So, where should such a description break down?

And what do you need for it?

Time, right? A arrow. You have those 'frames' propagating. Assuming that there is a limit for exposure, giving you a coherent image on the photographers photo. Where does this limit exist?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #851 on: 18/04/2014 12:38:35 »
But I still don't think that the 'energy' in those photons propagating will be enough to explain the image you observe. And that gets me to a point :) Photons are locality, waves are descriptions over frames of reference.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #852 on: 18/04/2014 12:43:37 »
Using this I would now want us all to ponder 'from simplicity to complexity', and what scaling really is?
=

Pompous me middlename :) Nevertheless, just think about it. If dimensions are frames of reference interacting. If arrow(s) defining your SpaceTime comes from frames of reference interacting with your local 'constant' 'c', which also is your, and mine, definition of a time keeping.

What is scaling?
« Last Edit: 18/04/2014 12:52:45 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #853 on: 18/04/2014 12:56:39 »
So photon's doesn't propagate, waves does though. Well, in my universe that is :). Now you can argue that you have a device letting of singular photons propagating. But, I don't think you really need that argument. Photons are always local 'excitations', no matter how you reach their existence. But the idea of a wave must cross 'frames of reference' to exist.
« Last Edit: 18/04/2014 13:05:26 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #854 on: 18/04/2014 13:11:36 »
To get to a commonly described universe, or SpaceTime, from reasoning like this I must accept the idea of there being co-existing descriptions, both as valid. The simplest one, I think, is lights duality. And if you accept this you do not need pilot waves, or an aether. The only thing you need is a explanation what joins frames of reference. And 'c' is a description of the limits for that joining, but not the reason why they coexist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #855 on: 21/04/2014 00:28:17 »
I think there is a additional element to the question how we can see. If we imagine a photon annihilating at/in my eye. then the original annihilation, as well as the subsequent, all should take place at 'c', don't you agree? The electrochemical processes will take longer as the information is transfered and processed. So we have a element of time involved here. The 'local arrow' as it is. And a wave should to my thinking be a representation over frames of reference, and so I would like to describe that arrow, as a result of frames of reference interacting. Let's get back to those frames of photons 'moving' towards the photographers plate.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #856 on: 21/04/2014 00:37:36 »
Is there a possibility of using two values, in this case 'energy' and 'momentum', creating a grid, to be processed into a image having colors? The momentum is reliant on the energy, so in reality we have representations of energy only, but of varying discrete energies, right? How do you get to colors from that?
=

Could I define a color from one photon? Wouldn't that be a interesting experiment? It's a question of your local arrow to me. No matter if photons propagate, or not. They still 'tick' at 'c'. As the shutter of your camera, delivering you photographic plate after photographic plate at 'c', processed by you electrochemically at a much slower rate 'consciously'. As if your eye would become a grid, constantly filled with new discrete energies.

A really weird thought? The arrow, could photons arrangement (energies) in time result in me also defining colors to them? That doesn't seem very probable, does it? Different types of receptors see different wavelengths, so photons can't be the answer, can they?
=

Ouch, maybe it is possible? After all, photons are adapted to the receptors, and vice versa :)
Weird idea this one. Two ways then, either I can define a color to one singular photon, or I can't. If I can't I still have receptors adapted to specific types of photons energies, right? So, assuming this we can get past the question of different wavelengths (frequency's) for different eyes. But how would it create colors? A combination of energies over some specified time slots, as processed by my brain? Weirder and weirder said Alice. (afraid this has became a double post as it originally belongs to that other guys question, but it's pretty interesting to me)
« Last Edit: 21/04/2014 01:25:08 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #857 on: 21/04/2014 14:45:58 »
There's a really nice experiment in where you look at a photo on a computer screen. Each time you blink, and we all do that, something is taken away from it. A tree, a buss etc. Asked if something have changed in this photo, most all says no. Why?

It has to do with the way the brain process information from the eye, right?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #858 on: 21/04/2014 14:54:39 »
Then you have taste. Taste is a geometry, translated by your brain into sweet, sour, etc etc. You have receptors in your mouth having different 'fits' to the small particles giving you a taste. So the taste you experience is a result of the brain processing a geometry, as far as I can see.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2014 15:10:17 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #859 on: 21/04/2014 15:01:19 »
But it doesn't change the fact that we can agree on a color, or a taste. I think I can go anywhere in the world? And find people agreeing on that sugar is sweet, or that the night is black, blood is red. How much of it is archetype, and how much of it is real?

Da*'d if I know :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #860 on: 21/04/2014 15:04:37 »
It doesn't really matter as long as we can agree on what we see as being a same color, does it? Even if my 'red' isn't yours processing, as long as we both call it 'red' we agree.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #861 on: 21/04/2014 15:06:52 »
So, we can agree on things, all over the world. Colors is one of those things, although, if you're a painter you might disagree :) But let's presume we can.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #862 on: 21/04/2014 15:46:14 »
Let us assume that taste and colors have much in common. They are then a expression of complexity, created by, and in, your brain, answering to some simple original blueprints, as the geometry relative your receptor.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #863 on: 21/04/2014 15:49:50 »
And with different energies, treating my eye as a grid with excitations, over a time period I must get to a image(processed and synthesized by my brain). But how do I get to a color? How can the brain differ there?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #864 on: 21/04/2014 15:54:22 »
We have the spin too, naturally. A very weird thing spin, everything spins. Integer spin particles are bosons like our photon, following Bose-Einstein statistics (taking no place), while half integer spins are called Fermions like electrons, following Fermi-Dirac statistics (they take a 'place').
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #865 on: 21/04/2014 16:09:03 »
Take a look at the explanation for Why don’t “cheats” ever work on the uncertainty principle? Particularly to how it explains polarization, because that is a spin as far as I know.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #866 on: 21/04/2014 16:25:37 »
Then look at What is “spin” in particle physics? Why is it different from just ordinary rotation?

Then I got interested in something called  Thomas precession, as it seemed integral to the idea of some sort of modern equivalence between ordinary angular momentum (i.e a carousel spinning), and the idea of a atomic, or otherwise, microscopic spin.

That finally lead me to look at Regarding Llewellyn Thomas’s paper of 1927 and the “hidden momentum” of a magnetic dipole in an electric field 

You can read it, without solving the equations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #867 on: 21/04/2014 16:31:50 »
So?

Can we use spin?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #868 on: 21/04/2014 16:49:09 »
Actually the question if there is a real equivalence between spin and classical angular momentum, or not, is something of a sidetrack to that question. Never been that good on walking the straight line :) But I got interested, and so I had to see what I could understand from it. And if you read it I'm sure you're interested too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #869 on: 21/04/2014 16:58:19 »
The most important part of a polarization, or spin, I find to be given in Why don’t “cheats” ever work on the uncertainty principle? for this question at least. It's a mindtwist of sorts, a way to describe a polarization as a result of matter interaction with light, giving it 'two directions'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #870 on: 21/04/2014 17:16:37 »
I had a really concise description of interference combined with Feynman's approach to 'sum over paths', that actually presented interference as a way light must act. As usual I can't find it when I need it :) but it connects strongly to the link above, in my mind. You need both I think, to twist your mind the right way. This one take you through a longer journey than the one I had in mind, but at a first look it is very similar in its final conclusions. Just allow it some time, and thought. Reality Is—The Feynman Path Integral.
==

I'll throw in this one for free, just because I've always liked mathpages. They have some really good descriptions, and history lessons, there. Feynman’s Ants.

Still haven't found the one I was thinking of though :(
===

And no. I don't really care whether it can be explained by photons solely. Even if it can be done it does not invalidate a wave picture, it's just me being curious, wanting to see if it could be done? :) You live in a universe populated by a lot more than just you, and to me that is 'frames of reference' interacting. So waves is just as good as photons for describing it. And if you think of it, locality can not even be you. Practically speaking, using scaling, you're just too big, and no diet will help there.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2014 18:00:30 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #871 on: 21/04/2014 18:58:02 »
So what is reality? If your taste is a geometry, and your sight? When you look at a astronomical photo they're often in colors, representing different types of mass, as a gas etc. But it's not space as you would see it yourself. It's like using sonar to help blind persons get a new 'sight', and the question if they then also will gain a ability to differ colors through it. What will they see? if we take a new born, getting, and adapting, to this possibility of sight, as he grows up?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #872 on: 21/04/2014 19:12:26 »
The miracle here, isn't whatever underlying simplicity we will find through physics. The real miracle is the way we process and 'reconstruct' our reality into a ever growing complexity. Because we can do more complex things, the more we learn about nature. And your brain is the source from where it all comes, if there is any 'magic' to this world I would definitely place it inside the way a brain process information. :) Not in nature by itself, broken down into its smallest parts.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #873 on: 21/04/2014 19:29:43 »
As a afterthought, considering how we reconstruct our environment, what would a quantum computer see? Just consider it a supplementary study, no time limit.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #874 on: 28/04/2014 17:20:56 »
One thing I'm wondering about, is whether spin can be considered equivalent to a angular momentum, or if we're looking at it backwards. Meaning, if a angular momentum comes from an idea of spin :) In one case we have common very old knowledge that we connect to a new to explain it. In the other we have new knowledge that then tells us that we know very little about what we though was old common knowledge.

So, which one is it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #875 on: 28/04/2014 17:22:09 »
Or, they are in no way connected?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #876 on: 28/04/2014 22:36:14 »
You know, I'm not thinking too good today. I've somehow lost my my momentum. And I don't really know if physics is the answer. I've found that I go to physics when I can't handle the way life crush innocents. Now, what is more important, the way we handle innocents, or physics?

I don't really know. I want to understand, but I also want to live. And life is short.
« Last Edit: 28/04/2014 22:39:31 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #877 on: 28/04/2014 22:46:56 »
Bravery, do you have it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #878 on: 28/04/2014 23:01:01 »
Let us put it another way. I know a guy, Jarmo, he does not know what fear is. People instinctively recognize him for what he is. Does that exclude him from my question? Nope, he asked me once in what circumstances a lie would be acceptable. I told him to never lie, because a lie diminish you. If you can't tell the truth, be quiet. Then again, what are you true though? your lies, or your truth?

Why do you live?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #879 on: 28/04/2014 23:03:46 »
Bravery, do you have it?
Bravery??? If I might draw a parallel: Bravery can be described as observer dependent in many cases.

So exactly what is bravery? 
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #880 on: 28/04/2014 23:13:18 »
Yes Ethos, it may be observer dependent :)

From the observation of those not involved, but I think it always will involve a sacrifice of some sort.
In other words, it will cost you.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #881 on: 28/04/2014 23:23:09 »
Yes Ethos, it may be observer dependent :)

From the observation of those not involved, but I think it always will involve a sacrifice of some sort.
In other words, it will cost you.
Truly,.......Every noble deed has a price. And if humanity is to advance, the cost can be deemed a worthy bargain.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #882 on: 28/04/2014 23:32:02 »
You may put it this way. Truth is uncomfortable, lies carry better. It depends on what we relies on to define humanity I suspect.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #883 on: 28/04/2014 23:35:54 »
Let us make a simple assumption. Can you own a piece of land? Sure, as long as you use it, and live.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #884 on: 28/04/2014 23:37:37 »
You may put it this way. Truth is uncomfortable, lies carry better. It depends on what we relies on to define humanity I suspect.
Another way to express this is: Philosophy and Science are eternally destined to compete in their love hate relationship.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #885 on: 28/04/2014 23:41:40 »
Can you own a piece of land?
Only to the extent that you're successful in defending it for your own personal use.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #886 on: 28/04/2014 23:44:01 »
Hmm:)

Or they are, in my terms, predestined to meet :)

You can't avoid them, assuming a level of competence. I have no real answer to why some individuals find a pleasure in mayhem and despair. But I know that it isn't my answer, the question is, what would you prefer?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #887 on: 28/04/2014 23:47:48 »
The point is that you do not really need to 'defend' anything. You just need the acceptance and support of the society defining you.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #888 on: 28/04/2014 23:50:37 »
Another, just as important point, is that this is not a answer. If it was we all would belong to caste societies.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #889 on: 28/04/2014 23:55:11 »
The point is that you do not really need to 'defend' anything. You just need the acceptance and support of the society defining you.
Precisely why the Pilgrims left England and settled America, to define a society that accepted private ownership of land and freedom to worship as they chose. Nevertheless, this ideal still needs defending because wolves will steal what the shepherd is to lazy to defend.
« Last Edit: 29/04/2014 01:43:05 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #890 on: 29/04/2014 00:03:24 »
I don't know Ethos?

I don't really care where I go, as long as I live in peace, and find it a sufficient place to live? I don't really know the history behind those pilgrims, but I will presume that they wanted something more that what they found at home? Whatever it was, they took private ownership with them, and applied it on their new environment, as I understand?

That's a big difference between nomads and settlers. And it's not a truth, it's an ideal.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #891 on: 29/04/2014 00:43:43 »
Thanks Ethos, you made it bearable for tonight.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #892 on: 06/05/2014 19:25:12 »
I remember when I first started to take a interest in physics, well, again that is. I was interested for a while when I was young, specifically in Relativity. But then life came in between, work and kids, and other stories I'm not going to discuss:)

We all wonder about life don't we? At least those of us writing or reading here, and we all find our own ways to deal with it. Some goes to drugs, other to mysticism, or both, and then there is religions. So what makes physics differ? Maybe this, we demand experiments proving the concepts, don't we? And we're not satisfied with only one, we want them to be repeatable experiments.

The whole idea of a repeatable experiment steps out from the notion of this universe being here, and now, and that my now, now, will be yours too, as you do a equivalent experiment. By that meaning that your 'identical replica' of my experiment will be as true for you as it was for me. If it isn't, then it can't be a repeatable experiment.

So repeatable experiments goes out from a axiom.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #893 on: 06/05/2014 19:34:38 »
The problem with mysticism, and similar, is that it seldom is found to be experimentally repeatable. In the cases where it/they indeed is found to be repeatable we will search for a logical explanation. Relativity states some things that are as mystical as it ever can become. It state that no matter my motion the speed of light is the same. It will be measured as 'c' by me moving, and by others not moving with me.

It also states as a fact, that depending on who that measure, a 'same' rod can be found to have a different length. It also state that depending on whom you observe, you will find their 'time/clocks' to tick differently from yours.

Now, if that isn't mystical, I don't know what is :)

So what differs it from mysticism? Logic, there's a logic found, and repeatable experiments able to validate the logic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #894 on: 06/05/2014 19:41:20 »
So what do I trust in?
Repeatable experiments, logic, and that we all are communicating. Communication, is everything, it allows you sight, hearing, sensing. I think communication must make a universe out of itself, as soon it exist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #895 on: 06/05/2014 19:45:17 »
Why I expect it to be so is at least two folded. One is that without some logic to a communication I would not expect it to be useful. The second is what I assume must be there for any universe to experimentally, and perceivably, exist, a logic.

doesn't matter what makes it, but I think you need it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #896 on: 06/05/2014 19:46:39 »
Repeatable experiments are the proof of that axiom, if they wouldn't exist, we should not be here.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #897 on: 06/05/2014 19:53:33 »
But 'c'?

'c' must have been a leap of faith for Einstein. 'c' gives us a logic, and repeatable experiments do validate it, but the whole idea of 'lights constant and uniform speed in a perfect vacuum', no matter your motion, was a leap of faith, just as big as the one bringing you closer to an idea of God. Because physics has so far no answer to why 'c' is 'c', only Maxwell's equations and our experiments validating the concept.

doesn't mean there aren't theories and hypotheses, but I don't know of any that explains it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #898 on: 06/05/2014 20:00:06 »
What 'c' did though, was to open up to a new universe. It's no longer our old one, no clockwork universe ticking in a box. It's a universe in where what makes a repeatable experiment are each ones of us 'local constants'. but not as shared from ones old 'global sense of a common universe', the one we can experience as we go out at night to look at the stars, agreeing on the universe we think us see and exist in.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« Reply #899 on: 06/05/2014 20:05:03 »
Can you see what I'm pointing at?

We're here, and we communicate. But the common universe we perceive is a transformation by our brain through our senses. But we still have some truths, as repeatable experiments and logic. They share a same ground, even if it isn't the exact same as we once thought us to observe. Without that logic ground we would disappear.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."