Can Each Particle Experience Time as Its Own Observer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lnsanity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observer Point
lnsanity
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Can I consider each particle as there own observer with there own personal experience of time say each quark or each electron ? Because I read that every observer is as valid as any. I know that general relativity is a theory applied to the very big and here I am asking question for the very small sorry if I on the verge of breaking down the theory I promise I won't do that again! I thought it was a theory of gravity and I thought if there is a size or type of object I can't consider as an observer than it is a contradiction with Einstein theory...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lnsanity said:
Can I consider each particle as there own observer with there own personal experience of time say each quark or each electron ? Because I read that every observer is as valid as any. I know that general relativity is a theory applied to the very big and here I am asking question for the very small sorry if I on the verge of breaking down the theory I promise I won't do that again! I thought it was a theory of gravity and I thought if there is a size or type of object I can't consider as an observer than it is a contradiction with Einstein theory...
Yes, each object in the universe can be taken as a Frame of Reference, but I don't get why you think this could be any kind of problem.

And, just on general principles, if you come across something that you think is contradictory to GR, assume you have misunderstood.
 
I think maybe the answer is that the word "observer" as a term has kind of been replaced in relativity with "frame of reference" or "coordinate system", in order to remove the possible confusion that there needs to be someone doing the observing... kind of like on the quantum side where "observation" has been kind of replaced by "measurement" and that looks like that is being further replaced by "decoherence", in order to also remove any confusion about there having to be someone observing.

I wonder if it is correct to say relativity is good all the way down except at zero, and QM is good all the way up to infinity?
 
No I don't think it is problem I am just building up my knowledge foundation making sure I am not wrong with the fundamental.
And yes frame of reference is a better word than observer to describe the experience.
 
lnsanity said:
No I don't think it is problem I am just building up my knowledge foundation making sure I am not wrong with the fundamental.
And yes frame of reference is a better word than observer to describe the experience.
Just FYI, on terminology, the term "observer" is more correctly stated as "measurement" and is not at all the same as a Frame of Reference.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...
Back
Top