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.
 
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
Abstract The gravitational-wave signal GW250114 was observed by the two LIGO detectors with a network matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 80. The signal was emitted by the coalescence of two black holes with near-equal masses ## m_1=33.6_{-0.8}^{+1.2} M_{⊙} ## and ## m_2=32.2_{-1. 3}^{+0.8} M_{⊙}##, and small spins ##\chi_{1,2}\leq 0.26 ## (90% credibility) and negligible eccentricity ##e⁢\leq 0.03.## Postmerger data excluding the peak region are consistent with the dominant quadrupolar...
Back
Top