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
...
44
45
[
46
]
47
48
...
68
Go Down
How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
1346 Replies
360790 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: How does a 'field' become observer dependent?
«
Reply #917 on:
07/05/2014 17:11:08 »
Are waves smooth phenomena?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
66764
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
44
45
[
46
]
47
48
...
68
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...