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
...
22
23
[
24
]
25
26
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
362153 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #460 on:
12/01/2014 21:34:38 »
Using my definition we then find frames of reference, interacting, creating new but short lived rest mass (particles). And the energy of a particle, is that a temperature? It is when it interacts, so what is your definition of a particle? One single frame of reference, 'at rest' in/with itself? Or frames of reference, interacting?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #461 on:
12/01/2014 21:59:12 »
Could you use 'energy' defining it? Nah, don't think so? The energy represented by Earth, relative its gravity, is infinite magnitudes greater than the energy your rocket spend, although it is increasing the closer you get to the speed of light. Thinking that way, where do we find a equivalent amount of energy, as the one represented by Earth? And is that a equivalence? Not to 'gravity' at least
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #462 on:
12/01/2014 22:17:54 »
Do you need rest mass to apply 'frames of reference'? That one I think could be translated to 'do waves interact', and they do, they quench and reinforce. But photons then? Don't really know, it depends on your definition I think. Two-photon physics thinks it can. "Two-photon physics, also called gamma–gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created."
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #463 on:
12/01/2014 22:32:16 »
If we define mass as 'energy' then everything must interact, the rest becoming a question of transformations and symmetry breaks, due to temperature? And then everything must have a equivalence to mass.
But the energy represented by a rocket at one uniform constant G, including the expenditure do not equal the energy represented by Earth.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #464 on:
12/01/2014 22:37:11 »
Well, maybe not a vacuum. It depends on your definitions, as long as no one can present a experiment proving it, one way or another.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #465 on:
12/01/2014 22:49:42 »
So, can gravity be a measure of energy? Or is it a measure of inertia expressed through time dilations and Lorentz contractions? Displacements inside a arrow? Or something all together different?
To the first question I will say no. Gravity is not a measure of energy, as I can't find a equivalence?
The next one is really tricky, and I just don't see how to answer it.
Displacements in them selves don't answer it either, as I can see.
The third? We have a uniform constant acceleration being equivalent to gravity? And there you can experiment to find it locally true. And that is displacements, and depending on how you think of it also microscopic time dilations and Lorentz contractions. You may be 'at rest' with your particles in a uniform motion, but you're definitely not 'at rest' with them in a acceleration.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #466 on:
12/01/2014 23:17:36 »
Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong angle? If it is a 'constant', it is a 'constant' related to mass, not to waves or photons. Otherwise someone need to show me how I define a inertia to a photon, or a wave. That makes inertia a function of proper mass versus accelerating displacements. All course changes from a geodesic should then represent a acceleration. But then we have this idea of a photon also being able to represent a 'mass'? Never felt really comfortable with that one, although there is a equivalence between mass and energy.
If a photon is equivalent to a mass, why doesn't it accelerate? you can only measure it in its annihilation, and possibly the 'recoil' of it leaving.
'Energy' being 'mass' then?
I don't know what 'energy' is.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #467 on:
12/01/2014 23:30:14 »
Ok, I'll give you this. You can define a photon acceleration/deceleration as its energy becoming blue respective red shifted. And that one is related to frames of reference, and gravity. But that's not what we normally define as a acceleration. Looked at from frames of reference the blue/redshift is a result of your local frame interacting through relative motion, accelerations and gravity with whatever frame you define that photon to originate from.
Do you want this to be what 'energy' is?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #468 on:
12/01/2014 23:34:48 »
Another way would be to define 'energy' from transformations. What it 'cost', and what it 'lose' doing that transformation. That's the one I like myself.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #469 on:
12/01/2014 23:41:08 »
The isolated definition of a photon is something 'time less', able to pass through all of the time we think this universe to existed. Of a same energy the whole way, annihilating as soon as it interacts, with what ever result from that interaction, then becoming a new photon released as proven by the recoil. You can define it as 'elastic' interactions too, but that only mean that you can't find a difference between what's incoming and outgoing, and it's sort of questionable to me.
=
Maybe you could define a question here?
If a elastic interaction exist, can there be a recoil?
If there is no recoil, did it interact?
«
Last Edit: 13/01/2014 03:13:30 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #470 on:
12/01/2014 23:44:32 »
So the blue and red shift becomes just another description between frames of reference, the observer defining it. Not unlike a time dilation, and just as real for that observer.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #471 on:
12/01/2014 23:55:27 »
Ah well
Nothing is as simple as one want huh.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #472 on:
13/01/2014 00:41:03 »
There is the 'mass energy equivalence' in relativity though, defining it as the proportionality between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared (E=MC
2
). that enable you to translate a proper mass into a same amount of 'energy'. But, can we apply that one to this? To give the constantly uniformly accelerating rocket a equivalent energy to a whole earth, transformed to 'energy' via E=MC
2
?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #473 on:
13/01/2014 00:44:43 »
Nevertheless, the equivalence principle is experimentally correct. Why gravity works this way? Or as I then would want it to be
A inertia, expressed in time, becoming gravity? Beats me.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #474 on:
13/01/2014 00:49:33 »
That I look at it one way doesn't state I have any understanding of why a universe should be one way or another. You just look at the rules of the game, and try to define them so they make sense to you. And the more you learn about those rules, the more traps you will find
but hey, it's not the game, it's how you play it, right?
Heh.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #475 on:
13/01/2014 00:59:28 »
What I'm certain of, well almost certain anyway, is that is that the equivalence principle capture gravity. And that it defines it two ways, 'proper' rest mass (matter) and as a uniform constant acceleration. And so you can speak of Earth as 'accelerating' at one Gravity, constantly and uniformly. I find a Higgs field define inertia, but I don't see how it can define Earth in a uniform motion. It's solely about accelerations to me, it does not discuss proper mass in uniform motion.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #476 on:
13/01/2014 01:07:02 »
Einstein doesn't tell you why those two are equivalent, but he differs between uniform motion and accelerations, defining uniform motion as 'relative' what you measure it against, and so all uniform motions becoming equivalent, a 'relative motion'. Also giving the concept of proper mass a much clearer definition. To me the Higgs field attach itself to the definition of accelerations, and from there expect a proper mass in uniform motion to follow, magically. But I don't see how it does?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #477 on:
13/01/2014 01:19:42 »
If we want a Higgs field to cover a proper mass in uniform motion we also need to define how it can 'accelerate'. To see why a uniform motion isn't enough you just need to make some experiments in where you measure your gravity with a accelerator, and a scale, in different uniform motions, relative Earth. Would you expect to weight double your original weight, if we would give Earth double its velocity, as measured relative some distant star?
The acceleration needed will give you a added weight, but as soon as we go back to a uniform motion, no matter what velocity, you will weight the same as before, and your accelerometer won't react any more.
So in the acceleration you weighted more, both as measured from a scale, and from accelerometer. Well, a scale is a accelerometer too
so maybe I should have avoided that one.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #478 on:
13/01/2014 01:24:26 »
The difference here is that a Higgs field comes with presumptions. To me it defines a container universe in where we have a field, that field reacts with accelerations, but does not define how it reacts with uniform motion. Neither does it define how it assumes a equivalence to Einsteins definitions of a uniform motion, relative a constant uniform acceleration. Instead it seem to presume as Einstein defined Earth as 'accelerating' a Higgs field will hold true there too?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66946
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #479 on:
13/01/2014 01:28:01 »
Einstein defined things, and they worked, but we, or maybe it's just me, still don't know why. Why is 'c' 'c' ? Why is uniform motion relative? How does a uniformly moving Earth, in 'relative motion', accelerate simultaneously?
A hypothesis should move the questions forward, to new ones.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
22
23
[
24
]
25
26
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...