How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

  • 1346 Replies
  • 205380 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 #950 on: 29/05/2014 21:00:13 »
The point may be. Either you can face death, without hiding behind some belief, or you are unable?

And it doesn't really matter what your protection is called here.

Are you a man?
"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 #951 on: 29/05/2014 21:06:00 »
One more thing, you came here without a protection, and you made it just fine. why do you think you need it to leave?
"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 #952 on: 29/05/2014 21:11:59 »
To put into simplicity :)

Be unto others as you want them to be unto you.

Nobody seems to get that one, do they?
"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 #953 on: 29/05/2014 21:25:31 »
The thing is, I don't need a reward in heaven to realize why the above is a sane approach.
Can you see why it makes me wonder about us?

Are we that behavioristic as a species? We won't do anything unless we get a reward? Be it ugly or good. Yeah, physics is pretty simple, compared to humanity
"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 #954 on: 27/06/2014 11:55:11 »
Anyone read "Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem_WIA-Conclusions-summary"  you can find it here

Anyway, made me wonder about us again. We associate the 'free market' with democracy, self interests with justice, and believe that money is what shows the way forward. And it's not just western democracies that does this, the old USSR consisted of a blatant elite society, with only a few having access to real privileges, and let's not start on discussing China.

what do we get from this type of philosophy?
"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 #955 on: 27/06/2014 11:59:55 »
Find me a real democracy.
"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 #956 on: 27/06/2014 12:10:04 »
The worst thing about this kind of reports are that they almost invariably tend to be considered belonging to some fringe group, not needed to be taken seriously. We can see it even when it comes to global warming. And those fighting for a status quo, advertising their views in all kinds of ways, what have they to lose by taking it seriously?

Money.

and what have we as a species to lose?
"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 #957 on: 27/06/2014 12:24:14 »
Modern society's are built on bureaucracies. Ideally presumed incorruptible, practically adapting to diverse influences, be it political, monetary, as well as the opinions and beliefs shared by their peers. They are supposed to be governed by the people, the same way as politicians are supposed to be instruments of the people, doing the peoples will.

Then again, there exist no democracies, but there exist representative democracies.
It's a big difference.

"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 #958 on: 27/06/2014 12:34:28 »
And still we have democracy in reach, if we tried. We have the Internet, we have asymmetric encryption, guaranteeing the individual voting. So what do we do with this Internet? Well, we corrupt international open standards, we start to collect all information there is, storing it indefinitley just in case.

Some people think that they are 'small fishes in a big ocean'. Not any longer, there are no fishes too small to be noticed, using algorithms. you can design them to 'fish' for whatever your little heart decide, and information, that's real power.
"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 #959 on: 27/06/2014 12:36:24 »
And then we have those that say they have nothing to hide :)
Well, there might be a few saints amongst us, but I'm not one, and neither are 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 #960 on: 27/06/2014 12:43:04 »
Yep, physics is easier.
"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 #961 on: 01/07/2014 08:09:22 »
This one is interesting to me. Not that, as I understands, that this is the only incompatibility between QM and GR?

A Conflict Between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

It's about my ideas in a way, as I define the arrow to be a local constant, equivalent to 'c'.
"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 #962 on: 01/07/2014 08:20:34 »
What would a field be from my ideas on 'locality'?

I think it should be the 'gizmo' that connects frames of reference :) If you can tell me how one local frame connects to another, creating both this geometry as well as fermions and bosons. (not just lifting up 'photons', virtual or not, and 'c', which actually tells me very little) Then I single handedly will force the Nobel Committee to award you, and I'm a Swede :) So I have to know them, don't I?
"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 #963 on: 01/07/2014 08:31:55 »
you have to turn your head to see it my way. I define a constant but exclusively local. On the other tentacle, prove me a 'universal constant' that isn't experimentally defined locally? I will state that a lot of the confusion rests on our preconceptions of this 'universe' we define, this 'container'. Looked at from any 'container' idea, containing us as well as everything else, time becomes a mystery. But defined from locality it's a constant. So you have to go the other way, from locality towards what unites, and that then will become a very weird problem, both for defining dimensions and for defining this universe we so seamlessly exist in.

time is not a problem.
"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 #964 on: 01/07/2014 08:39:49 »
And 'excitations in a field' gets a new meaning as there is no ordinary field existing in my view. It's not about a container model at all. Although, to us it is.
"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 #965 on: 01/07/2014 08:48:25 »
And the same then should be for a Lorentz contraction. I view them as complementary to time dilations, observer dependent. You get two for the price of one, so to speak :) And they are not a problem either, if you leave this 'common container universe' you define yourself to exist in. They should then be a result of whatever principle that connects frames of reference relative 'speeds' and 'mass' ('energy')

Neither do I need to place this 'energy' geometrically, as it is 'potential' between whatever you define to 'move' relative what. If I would want to define the kinetic energy created in two objects colliding, then it is the sum of their relative motion (and mass naturally), versus each other, but not intrinsic to any of them experimentally. I don't need to define 'where' this 'energy' is stored. To me it becomes a result of rules, properties and principles, for how frames of reference connects instead.

And it doesn't really matter if you define something to accelerate or not, unless you expect 'gravity' to be 'pure energy'? Well, I don't think it does, for now :) at least. But we can look at it from relative motion to keep it simple.

and there you will have no way to experimentally prove a intrinsic energy stored due to different uniform motion, unless in a interaction as a collision. When you see light blue-shift or red-shift, then that is a interaction too, even a expansion should be one.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 09:00:02 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 #966 on: 01/07/2014 09:05:27 »
The point is that locally the 'mass energy' of Earth won't change with a higher uniform motion. In a collision we will see a higher kinetic energy expressed but locally there will be no experimental evidence for it. Now, thinking of this fact from a container model you then have to define this 'energy' to somewhere, don't you? :) I don't need to.
"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 #967 on: 01/07/2014 09:09:26 »
That's also why I'm questioning what a vacuum is.
"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 #968 on: 01/07/2014 09:16:06 »
A wave theory wants a vacuum to consist of bosons (waves) and energy states (Mexican hat for example). And so it questions 'nothing'. It becomes a question if a 'nothing' can exist? In my view a nothing can exist, it's what we call a perfect vacuum. And I think (well hopefully so:) it has to be a result of frames of reference creating a geometry.
"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 #969 on: 01/07/2014 11:56:39 »
Einstein wrote about us being 'inside' a universe. That is how we observe. The 'eye of a God' doesn't exist for us as far as I know, even though we sometimes use it theoretically, trying to describe a universe. But it's also so that we all assume this universe to be something in its own right, it's really hard not to do that btw, defined by dimensions and some possible size, from unlimited to ? What really defines the size is how far we can look out, that means the age of the farthest light reaching us now.

If we use the idea of a inflation/expansion having no center then it doesn't matter where you place yourself, You won't meet a end of this universe, in a way you're taking the 'center of the universe' with you as you move to see further in some direction. 13.7 billion light years of possible sight, wherever you place yourself.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 11:58:10 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 #970 on: 01/07/2014 12:01:41 »
Those 13.7 billion lightyears is the time it has existed since the Big Bang, approximately. So even if the universe is 'unlimited' in one way, it still have a beginning astronomically, time wise.
"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 #971 on: 01/07/2014 12:04:27 »
So, no matter what QM might contrast as a ideal time keeping, versus relativity. It builds on a misunderstanding of what a proper time is, according to me then :) Einsteins proper time, the one measured by your wristwatch, is my definition of a local constant.

And it's 'universal' :)
"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 #972 on: 01/07/2014 12:10:20 »
Can you see how my idea of what should be called 'universal' differ? From ones normal conception of what universal means? The things/constants universal are simply those locally equivalent wherever you go. It's not a field of evenness, it's not the geometry that needs to present it, it's when we can agree on experiments giving us a equivalent result, that will gives us 'universal constants', and allow this universe its 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 #973 on: 01/07/2014 12:14:18 »
If you use this logic it becomes easier to see how we can have a constant arrow, locally defined, that is valid throughout a universe, yet enabling time dilations and Lorentz contractions when comparing your clock (time) and ruler against some other.
"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 #974 on: 01/07/2014 12:19:41 »
And time dilations is not isolated to accelerations. I've tried to make them so as it would make for a simpler definition, but I can't. It is as involved in uniform motions as it is in accelerations, and it's just like that 'potential energy' I discussed before. Either you want to localize it geometrically, as belonging to 'something/somewhere', or you can see it as a result of frames of reference communicating. That's what I do.
"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 #975 on: 01/07/2014 12:24:30 »
But, it's very local this universe. And if you believe in discreteness, then you will try to find some smallest common nominator defining a 'grain' of time. And if you do as Einstein, you can get to both a 'flow' and discreteness, although that one is a hard idea to digest.
"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 #976 on: 01/07/2014 12:28:00 »
Or maybe a grain of 'existence' :)

So QM is perfectly correct to use a ideal clock. Without it there would be no universe, at least not one like this. It has a local logic, that then somehow add up to the seamlessness we see when we look out at the stars at night, that unlimited line of sight, 13.7 billion lightyears back in time.
"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 #977 on: 01/07/2014 13:28:32 »
The wave universe has to be wrong. Anything trying to define a universe ignoring the duality is wrong. Your measurements setup will define the outcome as I see it. And it's a real duality.

Although :) Looking at it from shrinking my measurements, aka QM, to some ideal 'discrete bit', well, that's the 'photon' isn't it? And a wave is something undulating, to do so you need frames of reference. But that is the universe we see also, unlimited. So, it's a duality.

Thought Experiments in Einstein's work. By John Norton
"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 #978 on: 03/07/2014 03:02:51 »
What about a confinement for the Big Bang? If I would assume that the Big Bang somehow related to a proton, then you find that only a very tiny bit of it consist of rest mass, the rest is then 'energy' confined inside it, creating the equivalence to a mass. Can a confinement then represent a dimension? Pretty weird one.

It's this question about what dimensions are that's nagging at me again :) Either you need them to preexist, to confine this 'energy' that then presumably transform into real particles of rest mass, nota bene without the concept of heat and temperature involved in this first creation, as there is no matter existing initially. You need a assemblage of particles to interact with that 'energy' before you can define that way as I see it, and even then it is doubtful, although possibly possible :)  That as it demands me to come up with how this 'pure energy' then can interact at that initial state? The only thing I can come up with by this time, is this idea of 'confinements', as in a proton.

And if we then use the description from how there is no center to this universe  (inflation-expansion) you get to a multifaceted situation in where this initial state coexist 'everywhere' initially, as it seems to me? Or a assumed confinement of this energy has noting to do with dimensions? Or, the descriptions for dimensions are misleading, and confinements might be a better idea, although it doesn't answer how it can exist?
=

there's this alternative way to think of too, using locality. Then I might assume that confinements are the bits and ends of this universe :) And what then gives us dimensions are those confinements starting to communicate (under a locally equivalent arrow)?

That should make the vacuum into 'something'. Esthetically I don't find it that alluring, I much prefer to consider a vacuum a nothing. Hopefully I will argue my way out of this one somehow.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 03:09:56 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 #979 on: 03/07/2014 03:23:23 »
Now, I'm not happy with 'virtual particles', also sometimes seemingly assumed to 'move' close to light speed, as I saw someone explain it for a protons mass to exist. If I think of a atom with electrons then they do not 'move' in any ordinary sense, they 'exist', and will give you (register) a momentum, or a position, but after your experiment has finalized. Thinking of that 'energy' confined inside a proton this way you should be able to get to a mass anyhow, without involving moving virtual particles.

If enough rest mass materialize, statistically and constantly, then you also should find it more massive, shouldn't you? Then again, is there no cost for this? What is that confinement?
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 03:25:04 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 #980 on: 03/07/2014 03:29:57 »
To make it work we need to assume that this energy then spontaneously transform into rest mass, much alike the idea of virtual particles being able to become momentarily real to then disappear again. What allows this confinement to give us a mass is then the local arrow, as measured by the observer. As I like to treat it as a statistical phenomena, you must involve time. So back to the Big Bang, where did time come into the picture?
"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 #981 on: 03/07/2014 03:32:35 »
There is another caveat to it though :)

Conservation of energy. 'the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time.'

So, a isolated system was it? Is a proton a isolated system?
How?
"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 #982 on: 03/07/2014 03:38:09 »
The Big Bang or the proton :)

Both need to be isolated systems, both need conservation of energy. What differs is then that our proton under its life span constantly creates 'excitations' that to us measure up as part of its rest-mass? Is a proton a equivalence to what a Big Bang might have been?

Don't know :) Although, I don't think so. But they do seem to have something in common. This ability to create a measurable 'rest-mass'.
"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 #983 on: 03/07/2014 03:40:00 »
And that has to do with a confinement, energy 'transformation', and as always, that local arrow. You still want to call the arrow imaginary?
"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 #984 on: 03/07/2014 03:48:09 »
Now, if you're like me, rambling around, you immediately starts to wonder about that protons life length. there are so many implications to what it could have to do with this. "Recent experiments at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan gave lower limits for proton half-life, at 90% confidence level, of 6.6×1033 years via antimuon decay and 8.2×1033 years via positron decay. Newer, preliminary results estimate a half-life of no less than 1.29×1034 years via positron decay."

 '(For comparison, the accepted figure for the current age of the universe is about 1.3x109 years.)' In other words, as a best guess the universe is somewhere around 13 billions year old.

Now isn't this interesting :)  A very long life, with constant rest-mass manifestations under this time, but no cost? If it decay we could assume that there is a cost to it naturally, Although this is still not proved experimentally. I would call it best guesses from guys who most probably started to look into it from theories that demanded a decay.
=

I'll add this too I think, there is no such thing as knowing too much, although with the addendum of espionage, and contra espionage existing, to prove a opposite. But, that's a human invention, not physics

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question28.html
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 04:13:50 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 #985 on: 03/07/2014 04:19:14 »
Let's make it real simple. Time started 13.7 billion years ago.
"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 #986 on: 03/07/2014 04:24:19 »
"What is a space time continuum?

In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not." from http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html  by Dr. Sten Odenwald.

Seems like a really nice description to me.
"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 #987 on: 03/07/2014 04:29:41 »
You just need to understand that I think of the above as a description from the 'eye of a God' :) someone that 'sees' the universe as a unity, then find that to explain this universe as a 'common container' one also will need to consider observer dependencies relative 'time' and 'distance' (ruler and clock).

I go out from my locality, and there time is a constant.
"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 #988 on: 03/07/2014 04:32:00 »
And instead of dimensions I need something to join frames of references. I practically presume that dimensions will be a result of that joining, imposing rules on the communication.
"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 #989 on: 03/07/2014 04:34:44 »
It's closer to QM than one might think, relativity. If one treat the arrow as locally equivalent to 'c'.
"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 #990 on: 03/07/2014 04:38:23 »
And then the smallest, locally measurable, length also must become a smallest 'clock tick', I presume :) If you like discreteness. If you like a flow? Well, what was before a Big Bang? I can use 'before' from inside this universe even though it might be a meaningless subject in some thought up opposite.
"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 #991 on: 03/07/2014 04:44:32 »
Now, if I was to write a nice SF I could imagine a 'quantum universe', consisting of 'no time', in where I somehow create a four dimensional continuum or 'symmetry break', using three room dimensions and one time dimension. If I then want to let the mirror mirror the mirror, I further invent intelligent beings inside this four dimensional continuum, that in their turn, invent the concept of 'quantum computers' :) 

Disregarding the following headache, it would nice book to read, wouldn't 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 #992 on: 03/07/2014 04:57:26 »

so, we're back at the Big Bang, where it all started. Rambling my middle name :)
"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 #993 on: 03/07/2014 05:04:35 »
We have those experiments from Lund though, 'photographing electrons' finding them to move. Well, in a way, they made a moving picture of their still images, but that doesn't necessary mean that this movie deliver a truth :) Or you can think of it as delivering several truths. It is a truth that the probability of where a particle will exist change with time, but it is also a truth that there is possible different paths, positions, etc, co-existing. Although the one(s) with the highest probability should be the one we find, usually.

So you can get to a 'moving picture'  from probability.
"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 #994 on: 03/07/2014 12:34:07 »
Ever wondered how we can have a civilization? It's been on my mind for some time now. How is it possible? Well, how is it possible for ants to construct their 'ant-hill'? That's a pretty sophisticated work of engineering, isn't it? Do you think they sit down to plan it out before building a new one? We like to speak about ourselves as 'planning for the future', but? I don't know, the structures that has survived longest is the pyramids, and roman aqueducts possibly? And it's not a result of planning for the future, well, maybe the pyramids, and megalith stones? but to what purpose? As some memorial, that's the pyramids. As some scientific instrument? That's possibly Stonehenge.

What do you think would happen with the mono cultures we grow those days, and our modern infra structure, treating the globe as one place where from we get our food and sustainability, as Spain for vegetables? The second world war happened in a time when mono cultures of that scale didn't exist?

And if we use the ants again, do they really plan? Or do they just adapt to what is needed for the moment, trying to live their lives as good as they can? We call it instincts, don't we :) What about humans, do they have it too? What is that urge to reproduce? Are we that different from other animals really, or do we just 'dress it in'? So what about that politician telling you that he, or her, have a 'vision' for your future?
"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 #995 on: 03/07/2014 12:41:13 »
Do politicians, and governments, plan, or do they just adapt to circumstances?

It's a really important question today, and it has direct connections to my question of how civilizations can exist, as complicated as ours. Because we need to turn our heads a little, we're not 'explorers' of infinite riches any more, and there is no 'white mans burden'. Industrialized countries worked because they were the first to exploit the earth 'whole sale', and that made a lot of things possible in Europe and USA. But if you use the same behavior today for developing countries? And they on their side look at you, telling you that what you did is what they are going to do 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 #996 on: 03/07/2014 12:44:12 »
My own thesis there would be that we're really good at adapting, but we're actually pretty lousy on planning for longer than some decades, and consistently lousy on realizing why this is so much more important today, than it was yesterday.

It's a shrinking planet.
"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 #997 on: 03/07/2014 12:47:03 »
We're on a collision course as I see it, with our old ideals and ways of thinking. This planet is your home, the best home you ever will get. Anyone fool enough to think of a man made spaceship as a human habitat is fool enough to make me happy to get rid of him :) Build it and be gone.
"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 #998 on: 03/07/2014 12:48:55 »
You won't build a new Earth.

the only reasonable thing we can do, in my mind, is to try to take as good care as we can of the one we have.

We need to become caretakers.
"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 #999 on: 03/07/2014 12:53:48 »
And that craves what we are so consistently lousy at doing, plans for the future. And it craves you to turn your own head, to realize that it really is a shrinking planet. We need new solutions, that are practical, but before that happens you need to understand in your bones that this is the only way forward.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."