The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
3
4
[
5
]
6
7
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
372235 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #80 on:
08/11/2013 18:08:33 »
So, what do you think?
You expect us to be able to split the arrow? Is it a 'smooth phenomena', or can we treat it as 'bits'?
Both?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #81 on:
08/11/2013 18:12:20 »
The arrow and 'c'.
They are equivalent, locally defined. So, you split the arrow, you split 'c'. You scale it down. What if what builds it up from Planck scale, also builds our universe? Including what dimensions and degrees of freedom we find?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #82 on:
08/11/2013 18:17:15 »
Try to use that way of looking at it, imaginatively 'rushing up' from Planck scale into the macroscopic world, creating a arrow and 'c'. ( You are now traveling 'faster than light'
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #83 on:
08/11/2013 18:38:36 »
Alternatively think of it as every point having its own stress, relative all other points, or tension, like being inside one part of a infinite amount of soap bubbles, from where we apply forces (tensions stress) on 'membranes'. Those membranes relating to distance and arrow relative other membranes, depending on local manipulation of forces. It's two ways to look at it, as a 'sideway communication' in a macroscopic universe at the same time as it is about how scales communicate a universe, and 'c', and a equivalent arrow. ( It's not a very good description I'm afraid, hopefully I'll find a better
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #84 on:
08/11/2013 23:01:44 »
And yep, alike a SF
Isn't it?
Then again, it fits Lorentz contractions better than a 'container', and so time dilations. That is, if you accept them? And it allows for a local representation of constants, at the same time as those becomes 'universally same' allowing for a repeatable experiment. It actually depends on defining local constants, principles, as what gives us that 'common universe' we observe.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #85 on:
17/11/2013 12:46:18 »
Would you say that 'c' is a constant? A local constant, although shared by all (and in all) 'points'? If you now scale it down to Planck scale, is what you meet there a static field of 'c'? And that static 'field' if so, what would you call it? We're made up from it, aren't we? And if 'c' is equivalent to a arrow, then, as you scale it down that arrow 'diminish' does it not? Or better expressed, 'disappear' at Planck scale, locally defined. Now, if it was so, what would you expect to exist under Planck scale? A 'negative expression' of a SpaceTime? Negative 'time'? Or is that where it end, Planck scale?
«
Last Edit: 17/11/2013 12:52:36 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #86 on:
20/11/2013 15:44:37 »
Now, in a universe regulating communication through a local 'c', assuming a equivalence to a local arrow of time, you can't have superluminary speeds (FTL). What you instead have is question about what a vacuum and a 'room' is. If you define it as communication, created (and received) relative your local constants. And if you define it as your local measurements does not lie. Then a room isn't a 'set container', well, not 'globally defined' at least. It may very well be so that your measurements give you a locally set 'container', in which local constants and principles defines your limits, but there are no such thing as a commonly same universe. Instead we have to fall back on what limits, principles and constants we share. Those define the 'locally measured' room and time.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #87 on:
20/11/2013 15:51:52 »
What I mean is that although you might want to define the 'traveling twin' to do ftl, from your frame of reference, (ignoring time dilations) that one will be about comparing one frame (yours), to another (his), then calling the one you're not sharing 'ftl', using your local measurements to prove it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #88 on:
20/11/2013 15:56:36 »
But we all can share a frame of reference. Not easily
as we would need to super imposed, but macroscopically we all have one frame of reference that we are at rest relative, Earth. When we share that frame our arrow of time 'synchronizes'. That it is able to do so should tell you something.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #89 on:
20/11/2013 16:01:13 »
And it doesn't matter what speed or mass you define to a frame of reference. When we join it, we will all share in it, equally. It's 'c', locally defined, a 'arrow of time', locally defined. And it won't change for you, you can't fool it, or your lifespan. It will be the same locally defined wherever you go, however fast.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #90 on:
20/11/2013 16:06:52 »
What it tells me is that what really is 'global' is constants and principles. They are the same for all frames of reference possible in this 'universe'. If you would find a local representation of 'c' becoming different, so also locally 'elongating' your lifespan. Then I would say 'you're out'a this world'
Because that one doesn't belong to the universe we see. And that makes it easy for me. I have a definition of 'c' and a 'arrow'. And anyone claiming that this is wrong
well, 'you're out'a this world'
)
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #91 on:
20/11/2013 16:11:02 »
And to then imagine a universe as a 'container' filled with time dilations and Lorentz contractions, as some do, actually craves a near infinite, possibly infinite, amount of universes. If you trust relativity? Because your measurements ain't mine. And those local measurements is what gives us science, and repeatable experiments, and 'global constants'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #92 on:
20/11/2013 16:15:46 »
Well, they are equivalent, the measurements I mean. But only when defined locally, as 'c'. Any comparison between different frames of reference will prove the statement made before though. That your measurements, ain't mine.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #93 on:
20/11/2013 16:19:09 »
So we have two definitions, you can measure something from a same frame of reference, or you can use (for simplicity) uniform motion and from there locally define 'c', as well as what a distance should be, as using lights wavelength relative some arrow of time passing for you. It's all local though.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #94 on:
20/11/2013 16:23:04 »
So where is the 'illusion'. Would you call a locally measured 'c' a illusion? And if a arrow of time is locally equivalent to that (and it is). Is that a 'illusion'?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #95 on:
20/11/2013 16:26:13 »
Is it a 'illusion' that we all, by joining a same frame of reference, will come to a equivalent definition of distance, as well as of time. No time dilations comparing between us, and no Lorentz contractions.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #96 on:
20/11/2013 16:28:00 »
What is the mystery here, is frames of reference.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #97 on:
20/11/2013 16:30:55 »
It is 'frames of reference' that gives us 'scales'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #98 on:
20/11/2013 16:41:25 »
And it is when you scale something down you meet the foundations for quantum mechanics. "In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition.
One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:
decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary."
It's a tricky point this one. But if we define a single 'frame of reference' as something in a superposition, ideally. We get pretty close.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
71993
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #99 on:
20/11/2013 16:45:38 »
And Planck scale. I would say that this is a limit, for the observable 'universe'. It's a border to me.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
3
4
[
5
]
6
7
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...