Preeminence of Observation

[Wick]

It seems to me that the two great theories of our day are based largely upon the preeminience of observation. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is so focused upon observers and the observed that it fails to describe what the world would be like in our absence. In another vein, general relativity seems to focus on the observer as being central and stationary as long as he/she/it is associated with an appropriate gravitational frame of reference. GR also suggest that all laws of physics must be the same for all observers regardless of their respective frames of reference. Does anyone out there have thoughts as to the wisdom of this emphasis?

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Translation: Quantum Mechanics can't answer questions that are not asked. What should really bother people is the fact that there is no difference between an experiment and every collision in the universe as it happens.

General relativity isn't really about the observer. It's about the correctness of the numbers.

[Wick]

Its been forever and I forgot about this post. Thanks for responding sooo long ago and sorry I didn't follow up.

Observers were important to Einstein. It was important to him that all observers experience physical law in the same way regardless of their respective frame of references. That was one of his two major premises, was it not? I think light's constancy was the second. Don't know if you're still there, but if you are, I would be interested in what you have to say.

Wick

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Its been forever and I forgot about this post. Thanks for responding sooo long ago and sorry I didn't follow up.

Observers were important to Einstein. It was important to him that all observers experience physical law in the same way regardless of their respective frame of references. That was one of his two major premises, was it not? I think light's constancy was the second. Don't know if you're still there, but if you are, I would be interested in what you have to say.

Wick

Well not exactly. By numbers I meant that the experience matched for everyone. Einstein didn't consider the notion that observers might be integrated actors in the experiment who could not be removed without rendering the experiment meaningless.

[Wick]

Agreed.

But wasn't part of his theory that any observer occupying an inertial frame of reference could consider himself central and stationary in relation to all other things? In other words, the universe becomes observercentric (like geocentric only anyone can do it).

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Agreed.

But wasn't part of his theory that any observer occupying an inertial frame of reference could consider himself central and stationary in relation to all other things? In other words, the universe becomes observercentric (like geocentric only anyone can do it).

My understanding is that an inertial frame is one that is not accelerating so the velocity wasn't even in the picture. The postulates are really one postulate not two because it's a bit clumsy to say the rules must be the same and then fail to say what the rule is.

Velocity enters the picture only when we talk about ways the observers could be different and still have this law. General relativity simply expands it to include acceleration as well.

We could be saying that observers who stand on their head and those who are singing must also measure the speed of light to be the same. Velocity seems relevant only because it is in the 2nd postulate, but the real story is that no detail is allowed to break that postulate.

[Farsight]

..Observers were important to Einstein. It was important to him that all observers experience physical law in the same way regardless of their respective frame of references. That was one of his two major premises, was it not? I think light's constancy was the second. Don't know if you're still there, but if you are, I would be interested in what you have to say.

It was the measured constancy of the speed of light, Wick. Einstein knew the speed of light wasn't constant, but that we always measure it to be constant. The reason is that the speed of light defines our time:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom...

You have to look into pair production and annihilation to understand what's really going on. Look at the bottom pair of pictures below:



It's really simple once it clicks. We always measure c to be 299,792,458 m/s because we measure the speed of light using seconds that are calibrated using the speed of light. And the simple deep truth is this: we always measure the speed of light to be the same because we are made of light.

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

It was the measured constancy of the speed of light, Wick. Einstein knew the speed of light wasn't constant, but that we always measure it to be constant. The reason is that the speed of light defines our time.

That was well into the period after the theory of relativity.

Every electro-chemical collision and process is mediated by photons and their electromagnetic fields. If light were to slow down, the processes would also slow down. Relative to those processes, all of which can serve as clocks, the speed of light is constant.

Let's not forget also that light is the change in the field.

[Farsight]

That was well into the period after the theory of relativity.

It was only 1920, in his Leyden Address, four years after the Foundation of General Relativity. There's a copy online here: http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...Relativity.htm

Every electro-chemical collision and process is mediated by photons and their electromagnetic fields. If light were to slow down, the processes would also slow down. Relative to those processes, all of which can serve as clocks, the speed of light is constant.

Agreed. That's why we measure it to be constant. But it's like measuring the length of your shadow with the shadow of your ruler. It isn't really constant. When it's different, we call it time dilation.

Let's not forget also that light is the change in the field.

Yes, people describe the photon as a propagating transient variation in the electromagnetic field. But that doesn't get to the bottom of it.

Once you realise that what you observe is affected by what you are, things start to look different. Then you learn to see things for what they are.

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Once you realise that what you observe is affected by what you are, things start to look different. Then you learn to see things for what they are.

I'll go one further: the result you get is the modified result not where the particle actually was.

I also think it's wrong that when we apply a value to a value that has been operated on we get silly results which happen to be correct.

What we need is a mechanics where an operator and two values produce a set of two values. It seems lopsided to use the operator on one side.