How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 207036 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 #900 on: 06/05/2014 20:08:45 »
So we have a logic, chains of events making sense, linear time. It makes us 'real'.
"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 #901 on: 06/05/2014 20:13:08 »
That's where I once started my wanderings from. The idea of time being real, as it is. And everything I discuss is about this, linear time, the chain of events creating my universe, in communication with yours.
"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 #902 on: 06/05/2014 20:19:38 »
So much of our concepts are pre-relativity to me. The whole idea of a commonly same universe for example. That one is the one making sense intuitively, locally practically. So we choose it as it describes most of what we ever will experience. Even though we know better, we still cling to it.

Dimensions?

Do we create them in our observation, are they there even without matter? We do create a lot of things, as you should know if you've read me.




"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 #903 on: 06/05/2014 20:23:28 »
Your taste is a construct, does that makes it less real?

And, if we can agree on something being sweet, something else being sour, Isn't that a proof for the idea of your taste, as a local experience, shared by us all? Can you see what I'm asking there? Even though it is a geometry that transforms into a 'taste' by you. If we all agree on it, isn't it also as real as can 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 #904 on: 07/05/2014 16:27:00 »
The only logic that is accessible describing that 'shared space' we exist in, aka our universe, is local. Local logic creates the universe, local logic gives you repeatable experiments, local logic builds physics. As soon as you stray from that premise into something 'commonly existing, same for all, universe' you leave the experiments, going into hypothesis's.

So Astronomy is hypothes's. It assumes a consistent space, aka a box of some type, in where heavenly bodies move.
"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 #905 on: 07/05/2014 16:28:06 »
Now, isn't the moon there when I don't look?
"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 #906 on: 07/05/2014 16:29:37 »
That brings me to there being more ways than one to describe something. Because we are the proofs for it, as is astronomy.
"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 #907 on: 07/05/2014 16:35:56 »
The motion of light is a hypothesis too. It's dependent on your premises, how you will look at it. From a local definition we have light quanta that annihilates, presenting your senses and physics with information. We do not have a wave, as a wave needs frames of reference. It's a very microscopic definition of a reality. What builds our macroscopic definition though is all about frames of reference, communicating and transforming into useful information.

A wave is a macroscopic description, depicting something having a constant uniform speed, propagating over frames of reference. A light quanta is a local annihilation.
"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 #908 on: 07/05/2014 16:41:23 »
And a wave of radiation is not a observable in itself. It is what we find to be the closest analogue, equivalent to for example ocean waves. From a standpoint of experiments you only have the subsequent annihilation, and the recoil shown before that by matter, as energy (photons) disappear from it. It's not a rope undulating in a space.
"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 #909 on: 07/05/2014 16:45:18 »
So how do you want to look at it, from a local point of view?

I don't look at it as a speed there, I think of it in terms of 'c' becoming a clock instead. As if there is a time setter, that keeps a logic between ? 'end points' maybe ? translating into a speed when described over frames of reference. 

and that 'time setter' is the same for us all, locally defined. That's why you die.
"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 #910 on: 07/05/2014 16:49:44 »
That's also why I expect there to be a limit, which then Planck scale present as one possibility. Because just as we find light quanta to be of a discrete energy, then, treating 'c' as 'clock ticks', I will want it to be of a discreteness. Can you see why?

But it does not mean that it stops 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 #911 on: 07/05/2014 16:52:30 »
If it stopped there a quantum computer wouldn't exist.
"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 #912 on: 07/05/2014 16:56:37 »
The duality of light exist macroscopically, will it also exist microscopically? Assuming that there is a discreteness/limit?
"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 #913 on: 07/05/2014 16:58:40 »
Alternatively, two modes presented as one universe. Photons and waves, lights duality. Lights duality is about frames of reference.
"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 #914 on: 07/05/2014 17:01:09 »
Turn it around, think about it as probabilities of outcomes. Some 'space' in where everything coexist. the universe you believe in is a result of outcomes. The outcomes is a result of local constants, rules and principles, and properties.
"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 #915 on: 07/05/2014 17:06:32 »
It's not as simple as saying that we found QM the same way we found the Newtonian universe, or even relativity. Newtonian universes are 'sane', the ball rolls down the slope, and we can count on it :) Relativity becomes a slightly twisted form of that, introducing frames of reference, and observer dependencies, with QM consisting of probabilities, and statistics, that we find from experiments, then build theoretical frameworks around to test further if they hold.

If you find Relativity to be weird, take a look at how we define QM.
"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 #916 on: 07/05/2014 17:09:40 »
What we can assume though is that there should be some sort of logic binding the macroscopic to the microscopic. If that logic is holographic, or discrete, or 'smooth' all seem to depend on from where you look.
"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 #917 on: 07/05/2014 17:11:08 »
Are waves smooth phenomena?
"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 #918 on: 07/05/2014 17:17:51 »
If you and me agree on that something is locally repeatable, assuming a equivalent setup. Is that a repeatable experiment? What about us both tasting sugar? Finding it to be 'sweet'?

A repeatable experiment?
"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 #919 on: 07/05/2014 17:47:00 »
Can you get any closer to a smooth reality than the idea of a space in where everything coexist, only having different probabilities of 'materializing', becoming a observable? Talking about a quantum computer in form of interference of waves is one approach to it, but it's not real. And calling it a space isn't very real either.

Why would it need a space? Only if assuming it to have a volume, area whatever, will you need a space. And interference builds from that mind concept, as does waves 'propagating', and interacting inside it. But there is no time to that space, it's outside of any discrete definition, just as a 'free will' must be.

If you think of people as automata, proper mass following definable logical physical processes, and transformations, where would that free will reside? It becomes a intangible to me assuming it to exist. And I do assume it to exist.

what about thoughts? "I think, therefore I am." Without that, who would know? Why are you able to think?
"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 #920 on: 07/05/2014 17:51:07 »
What I'm wondering about here is whether what makes us think, and gives us that free will we so like to flaunt, is not the outcomes. We may be closer to QM than we think, eh, so to speak :)
« Last Edit: 07/05/2014 17:53:46 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 #921 on: 07/05/2014 18:01:33 »
It becomes a weird and 'fragmented' universe, locally described. What defines it is those local values, constants as 'c', and our equivalent 'local clocks', shared by us all. What connects should be frames of reference interacting with each other.

And there is the mystery. How do frames of reference connect, microscopically defined? How would you describe it without waves? Without propagation? And possibly, from an 'instant' of an event, as that photon annihilating.
"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 #922 on: 07/05/2014 18:06:12 »
What we use macroscopically to describe it fails there. The first thing I think I would need for describing it is a discreteness at some scale, 'grains'. Even then, assuming those grains to consist of equivalent constants and rules etc, how can I make them act as different particles, and how do I make those particles define a space to exist in :) Crazy, isn'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 #923 on: 21/05/2014 17:09:43 »
Anyone seen this?

""It's breathtaking to think that things we thought are not connected, can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy, particles and light. Would we be able in the future to convert energy into time and vice versa?""

It's a comment to converting light into particles?

Energy is not 'time'. Locally defined your time will not care about the 'energy' it consists in. Locally measured your clock always give you a same time keeping. The only time, if I now may, that this isn't true is when you compare your local clock and ruler to someone else's, finding a time dilation and complementary Lorentz contraction.

and you don't need a infinite energy for this fact, you just need another frame of reference to compare yours to.
"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 #924 on: 21/05/2014 17:16:03 »
The same old problem keeps coming back doesn't it? Even by highly educated physicists and mathematicians. The idea of 'this commonly shared container universe' in where we exist. Looked at from such a proposition the idea may make sense, but it's not about experiments when you think this way, it's about your beliefs.

If you use experiments, then they are local definitions.

When we share our experiments with each other, finding them agreeing, we get to a repeatable experiment. But nowhere does this state that the universe is our 'container' in any practical sense. It's communication that defines the universe we think us exist in, not the experiments.

« Last Edit: 21/05/2014 17:18:23 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 #925 on: 21/05/2014 17:27:00 »
You really need to understand this. It's what makes you die, no matter where you are, or how fast you go. If you miss out on this simple truth, then you will get lost in your forrest of facts, adapting to beliefs.
"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 #926 on: 21/05/2014 17:33:46 »
Time is a constant, and all constants are locally defined, but not 'globally'. Globally described this universe you think yourself to exist in is fragmented by uncountable time dilations and Lorentz contractions, all 'locally' defined by each and every 'observer'. Can you see what I'm stating 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 #927 on: 21/05/2014 17:37:16 »
Ones physics, and mathematics, can only be as good as ones presumptions allows them to be. Locally there are no ambiguities, they do come into play, assuming this 'container' though.
"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 #928 on: 22/05/2014 11:02:36 »
In a way it's like there 'somewhere' only exist one homogeneous 'point', that's locality, and constants. To that you then need to add communication over frames of reference, to get to distances and dimensions. The ideal equivalence of all frames of reference (locally defined constants) gives us the repeatable experiments on which we build physics. There is not one logic to it, it's more. You have those 'constants' giving you one logic, then you have communication over frames of reference creating a universe. Both are needed.

'c' is a constant, equivalent to your local time keeping, aka all ours 'local clock'. That clock is not a speed, neither is it ticking locally defined. As I see it the ticking , just as this constant 'speed' we find light to have both are results of communicating over frames of reference.

It their simplest terms they are a same (local) constant. And as we all share that same constant, with a absolute equivalence, how do we 'split' it? Same question as always, isn'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 #929 on: 22/05/2014 11:07:08 »
A very simple proof of locality, is remembering that as soon as you and me both share a same frame of reference we will be indistinguishable from each other, you can think of it in terms of superimposing to make it more digestible. and this proof is applicable all over the universe, doesn't matter where you do the experiment.
"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 #930 on: 28/05/2014 12:02:42 »
Just a question.

Does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tell us something about what 'time' is?

"a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philsophers.) Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them."

The observation is a function of time, isn't it? Everything we can observe is in a past tense, practically speaking. You can either define a 'momentum' or a 'place/position' to a particle, but not both simultaneously. From a past tense though, is there no possibility of defining both? And isn't it this kind of thinking that lead to 'weak experiments'?

We have a momentum but no position or a position but no momentum. In a world where we expect both to exist together, as part of each other macroscopically.
"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 #931 on: 28/05/2014 12:34:53 »
The question here seems to become become one of what you think is  more real. Depending on your assumptions you can define both (position and momentum), accepting that there is no way to measure that can be said to exist in a present (now), or you define it such as the principle will hold. I don't think it is semantics to point out that there is no observation that actually exist 'now'. They must always be in a past tense, when observed.

A now, can it exist?
« Last Edit: 28/05/2014 12:37:12 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 #932 on: 28/05/2014 12:42:22 »
It's like we're always a instant behind that 'now', isn't it? It becomes theoretical. The world I observe is past that now, and there is no way a outcome can be described as happening as I observe it, unless you want to define the observation to a consciousness perceiving it. All the same we have interactions all around us, as well as inside us, constantly happening following a defined direction we call time. and as they happen, shouldn't there be a now for when they actualize? No matter if I observe it or not?
"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 #933 on: 28/05/2014 12:46:17 »
Does 'now' exist, or does it not? Is the past a function of my observation, or does it have a independent existence. The last one is more of a Newtonian universe to my thinking, one in which we can be certain of things 'existing', doing their thing with or without us.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2014 13:05:34 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 #934 on: 28/05/2014 13:10:45 »
Think of it in terms of a field then. Does the particle we measure on then integrate in that field. Can you really give it a individual existence outside that field? And how will you define this particles limits? You know it is 'there', although always in a past tense. But if it is a expression of a field?
"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 #935 on: 28/05/2014 13:13:15 »
You may want to think of it as observer dependent too. But we need to presume that behind the observer dependencies there is a origin, from where we can make this observer dependent observation. Without such a presumption you are free to assume that everything is a construct by your mind.
"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 #936 on: 28/05/2014 13:17:43 »
In a larger sense, where would the limits for a field be? Assume the universe we measure on to be one consistent field, does it create the inside? Or does it exist in a inside?
"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 #937 on: 28/05/2014 13:23:28 »
I think, although this is just my assumption, that Einstein would have preferred the first. It creates the inside. The field creates all that we measure on, including its 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 #938 on: 28/05/2014 13:30:05 »
A field becomes like a plane in some way. That plane is about our constants. From a local perspective the fields origin must be constants, locally equivalently shared, everywhere in a measurable universe. That's what I think is a necessary assumption from where to start. Because it gives me a consistent 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 #939 on: 29/05/2014 16:52:37 »
We're a special kind of people I think. We've looked at what people think important, but I don't think we agree? I don't.
"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 #940 on: 29/05/2014 16:54:45 »
Or maybe It's just me, being mis-adjusted? Never mind, I sooner go the grave thinking my own way, than adopt to any dogma.
"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 #941 on: 29/05/2014 18:04:11 »
I don't know. It might be single malt speaking here, but I remember me expecting the world to be understandable? Do you, really as by your self, find it it understandable? I mean, we see a logic, and I'm prepared to let me lead me wherever it like, but is it the world I grew up in? The world we're zooming in on is less than the world we thought ourselves to live in, but also infinite :)

If that doesn't give you a headache, well, it still gives me one
"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 #942 on: 29/05/2014 18:11:06 »
In the end, from the point of consciousness, it might all be about reproduction. It's easy to see how religions lift reproduction up as something holy, not to be trifled with. But as for one singular world, taking care of us all, it's a doomed proposition. then again, theres so much to admire with those of us wanting to protect. It's about emotions, feelings, bravery, against logic. Still, I expect logic to 'win', whatever that now means.
"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 #943 on: 29/05/2014 18:15:59 »
That does not mean that I find logic to be the only answer. Live your dreams, but make them good ones, please.
"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 #944 on: 29/05/2014 18:19:57 »
In the end you will walk alone. Just as the way you came in.

The rest is up to you
"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 #945 on: 29/05/2014 18:33:27 »
There are some truths about life. some things that makes it simpler.

don't lie.

If you can't tell the truth, keep quiet,


It's simple, but only a very few can make it hold.
are you one of them?
"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 #946 on: 29/05/2014 18:44:45 »
Before all though.
Try to see how much of your truths that are true. That will change, with age and experience. You can either decide that logic will be your answer, or feelings. I prefer logic myself, but I don't think logic is all. When it comes to those things that touch me most, I don't really know? Some people think that love is the answer? I don't know there either?

You came alone, and you will leave alone.

What is your answer?
"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 #947 on: 29/05/2014 18:47:02 »
And yes, it's all about dying :)

Are you afraid?
"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 #948 on: 29/05/2014 19:01:01 »
Can you see why democracy is a good thing?

not because it makes me bigger, just because it listen to us all.


Crazy isn't it? To expect us to consider 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 #949 on: 29/05/2014 19:11:36 »
I'm most probably boring here :)

Well, this is where it stops, and I'm getting old. Give me a reason why frames of reference communicate? Why does they? That's the next Nobel prize.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."