Quantum321

I stand by my original statement. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. To say any part of his theory is incomplete is to say it is wrong. I am just saying just because we may not understand his singularity doesn't mean his theory is incomplete (wrong)

Yes my friend You need to open your mind to the realization that time is an abstract concept, by definition, conceived my man, .

Because the the dimensional parameters of the laws of physics are man made. There is no consensus among physicists or anyone else that time exists. This topic remains unresolved. Search the internet. With regard to time there isn't anything physical that can be touched, tasted, viewed, etc. So "time" exists in that we have defined it to exist. I have read this argument "Since 1905 we describe any event as a spacetime point and label it with four co-ordinates (t, x, y, z). Saying that time doesn't exist means we can ignore the time co-ordinate and label everything by just it's spatial co-ordinates (x, y, z), which is contradiction with observations. The time co-ordinate obviously exists and be used to distinguish events that happen at the same place but at different times." YES In order for MAN to comprehend any event. The universe has no need for time only man. Man defines the physical parameters of science. That's what you are talking about here. Mans definition. "I give you the chance to explain why you accept the "laws of physics" but not the dimensional parameters of those laws" Because those dimensional parameters are defined by man. Time is only an abstract concept conceived by man to order events. I implore you to prove an abstract concept can be proven. I contend it only exists in the consciousness of man and not in the physical universe.

Does length contraction exist in quantum theory. No. The Planck Length is a length unit, like the meter or the mile. It is derived from three physical quantities that do not depend on one’s reference frame, and thus the Planck Length is also independent of reference frame. Asking if the Planck Length is succeptible to length contraction is like asking if the meter is; the length of a meter is what it is — it’s a unit — while a rod that has the length of one meter is succeptible to length contraction, because it just happens to have the length of one meter in one reference frame. For the same reason, if you had a rod 1 Planck Length in length, it too would exhibit length contraction from another frame according to special relativity. The notion that the Planck Length is the “smallest” physical length is a bit of a bad rumor. In fact the question of what happens at the Planck Length scale is still unknown, as we do not have the technology to probe anywhere near this scale with today’s technology. Just because someone erroneously tells me something does not make it true. Time dilation is not a consideration in QT. Any more erroneous examples?

No more evidence than science proving time even exists

This is an interesting question. What exactly does infinite density mean?

Yes its incorrectly explained as time dilation. I propose the true explanation is not yet determined. We know that gravity is the weak and strong electromagnetic force only slightly modified by space time curvature. Its is natural to know there is an interaction. I believe length contraction is not connected with time dilation.

I previous threads I commented that Einstein explained differences in clock timing with time dilation. Since I don't believe time exists in the physical universe I proposed there is another possible solution. The weak and strong forces emit electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves react with gravitational waves and I proposed that this interaction could be one possible explanation for the difference in clock timing. While there are some bizarre aspects to QT I don't think time dilation is ever used to explain anything. Here is my point. If QT doesn't need time dilation why should GR? Could this be part of the incompatibility?

General relativity predicted the BB. We think we know this part of his theory is "incomplete" He predicted infinite density at a singularity. We also know that when the equations result in infinities it means science can't explain it. Its off our charts. While it seems there is no center of the universe and the current thinking that the BB happened (is happening) everywhere I think it premature to call his classical theory incomplete. There is something we just don't understand yet. His theory has explained how the particles where created. Everything in the early universe was governed by temperature. There had to be something like a BB happen somewhere or everywhere. I don't believe there was infinite mass in a singularity. Why? I personally believe the universe is finite not infinite. Infinite mass would create an infinite universe. Perhaps the James Webb telescope will give us a clearer understand if the universe has boundaries. Hubble's deep field image tells us galaxies exist beyond Hubble's capabilities. I am hoping the James Webb telescope will help science answer the finite or infinite universe question. Or perhaps the answer to that question will lay beyond that telescopes capabilities.

Yes I agree because man expressed the laws of physics in mathematics. The universe knows nothing about mathematics. The car on the table travels from point A to B. Man requires his creation of time to explain it in all possible circumstances. The universe unfolds based on the laws of physics and does not need time. The definition of time is an abstract concept. Do you honest believe that the car could not move without time? Do you honestly believe that the abstract concept of time is a integral part of the universe? If so prove it. How do you prove an abstract concept?

"The objects them self do not move but the distance between them change due to volume change." I see what you're saying. Not sure I buy into this...lol

Hello Mordred, I guess you're right. He also said the warping of space-time was gravity. Its only one term in the equation of gravity. It's a small factor.

However, Einsteins theory predicts infinity density at the singularity. Sounds like we're saying Einstein was wrong. I have a problem understanding this. Let's look at Oxygen. I chose this molecule because it is about the same density as air. If I have a canister of Oxygen gas and release it into an auditorium the Oxygen molecules move apart to occupy the new larger space. In this scenario the component molecules of air move in between the Oxygen molecules. This dilutes the Oxygen gas. At the Big Bang all the particles occupy a given space at a particular time. During inflation spacetime expands faster than the speed of light and must move around the particles because particles can travel the speed of light. This is my point there is no friction from spacetime to move the particles. They should not move.

Spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light. However, particles can not. Not sure I understand this mechanism in the context of the early universe. Tomorrow is another day.

'Since I can't conceive of an infinite BB the universe must be finite.' Strange your comments to my statement are obvious. I should have elaborated. I am using the standard model of the Big Bang, you know the theory that's in all the text books? Where the entity of the Universe was compressed into a singularity called space-time singularity. This singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the co-ordinate system. The creation process of the Universe began with an expansion. The General Theory of Relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity is of which I speak. How can there be an infinite singularity? Now if you want to talk about another theory that has passed peer review please tell me where I can find it. Its true current theory predicts nothing exists outside the singularity. To me in the very beginning this was a finite point. I can't understand how this can be an infinite point. You say that all future particles exist within this singularity I agree. However, after inflation there must be space-time between which expands the particles. This is my question. I can understand space-time expanding but how could this expanding space-time carry the particles with it?

Please explain.

Since I can't conceive of an infinite BB the universe must be finite. All the particles that were created were based on the temperature of the universe at any given time supports BB. Guths 'guess' about inflationary seems to make predictions that are true. The CMR supports the BB. However, is no center of the universe or we just don't understand how to determine it now. So Strange is correct. There is no model that supports what we see. This means there are fundamental problems with our understanding of how the universe began. How can this be? What are we missing? I’ll do algebra, I’ll do statistics, I’ll even do trigonometry… But graphing, THAT is where I draw the line!

"Inflation doesn't particularly push particles its rather a rapid expansion of volume due to a phase change. Which closely ties to electroweak symmetry breaking. Do you understand the quantum tunneling aspects behind Guth's false vacuum?" I get the impression that science is just guessing here. "volume of space expanded very rapidly." I was looking for an answer that was more specific. What is the volume of space and whats inside?

It seems to me that Guths inflation of spacetime would just push past the particles? I know all waves possess momentum so were waves effecting the particles? Hmm. Perhaps there were no particles at that time and only the building blocks of quarks? The inflationary epoch lasted 10−36 seconds. I guess I am really asking what stuff existed during that time?

Thank you MigL

I want to thank everyone in this thread for setting me straight. Schrodinger's equation was developed over 80 years ago and all the information I read omitted most all of his history. I did not know he was not an experimental physicist. Thanks everyone

I am well aware of that. Schrodinger was attempting to determine the actual location of particles (photons) but could not do it. The best he could do was to determine the probable locations. But in both cases the system was disturbed by the act of measurement.

In summation, Schrodinger did every thing he could determine the actual position and speed of particles. However, he was not able to achieve this given the measurement tools available to him. However, the best he could do was to predict the most probable position and speed of particles. This appears to be due to the fact that the current means of measurement (particle detectors) actually alters the initial condition of the system making accurate measurements impossible. This also appears to be true for measurements in the double slit experiment. In summation, Schrodinger did every thing he could determine the actual position and speed of particles. However, he was not able to achieve this given the measurement tools available to him. However, the best he could do was to predict the most probable position and speed of particles. This appears to be due to the fact that the current means of measurement (particle detectors) actually alters the initial condition of the system making accurate measurements impossible. This also appears to be true for measurements in the double slit experiment.

pittsburghjoe "The detector influences the system and precludes an accurate measurement." "wrong, read this comment https://www.physicsf...5/#post-5604049" I just can't get on board with this.... MigL "Don't hold your breath waiting for the 'revolution'. The revolution has already begun. Just because we don't have the tools to make accurate measurements with out disturbing the initial system does not mean it can't be done some day. I found this lecture very interesting The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc By Ron Garrett