AbstractDreamer

Well I deliberately avoided any precision in its definition because I really don't know myself. I have an idea that time propagates. And if this propagation is with respect to something else, then we can define the rate of propagation (relative to that something else). Of course, if we cant find anything else, we cant define the rate of propagation. But that doesn't mean the propagation is constant, it just means it is undefined (possibly meaningless but also possibly meaningful). If we create a theoretical unit of something, lets just say its called Gap, which is a measurement of time but from outside of time. We can calibrate Time and Gap arbitrarily, so we can take any moment in time and any period of time as equal to 1 Gap. So lets take right now as the moment, and a period of 1 hour = 1 Gap. So we can ask will 1 hour=1 Gap tomorrow, next year, next 13 billion years, 13 billions years ago? (Lets define 1 hour as something which exists unchanging in all time moments, like some probability of emission decay of some particle.) We might never be able to empirically show that the speed of time is constant or changing (it might be meaningless). Whether it is variable or not, it wont ever affect any experimentation as everything we do is "trapped" in the same time and subject to the same changes in the speed of time. So does it break anything if we assume or not that time has a speed and that this speed is variable? What if space expansion today, and the inflation model 13 billion years was a manifestation of this? Could dark energy exist outside of time? Do singularities have infinite or undefined gravitational potential? Would this mean singularities exist "outside" of time? Black holes will eventually decay, but what happens to the singularity? Is there anything (theoretical or otherwise) that has undefined motion relative to another observer? Space expansion/dark energy? Would something with undefined motion necessarily exist "outside" of time? Would that thing need to have undefined motion relative to ALL observers concurrently at one moment in time, or is it enough to be undefined relative to just one observer? If a thing has undefined motion at one moment in time, will it always have undefined motion?

Whether Time is linear or cyclical or something else, is the speed of time constant? What basis do we have to extrapolate time back to t=0 (or very close to 0) and assume it's speed is the same as it today? I read descriptions of the early universe describing things like "A few millionths of a second (after the big bang), quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons" https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe How would an observer in the early universe measure time when there are only quarks, protons and neutrons? Is it possible the speed of time is variable? Could 1 millionth of a second in the early universe be equivalent to a few million years today, relative to that early universe? If time is accelerating universally, would this not affect any empirical evidence of any experiments performed to date, unless we can time travel? If time is accelerating, could that explain dark energy and space expansion?

If you zoom OUT far enough, and assuming you zoom out at the same rate for the X and Y axes, then y=x^2 approaches a straight line. Does this mean anything? Is it possible that eventually that no global curvature can be measured from the equation? How is it a global curvature if its not truly global and only local? What does it mean if you zoom IN at different rates? What if this rate itself was not a constant but another function of something. Is it possible it may not look flatter? Is there a loose analogy between the zoom-ratio of axes and tensors?

If you had two or more clones that were absolutely identical in that there was no way to practically (not theoretically) identify one from another, how do you know you have two or more clones to begin with? The identification of multiple clones confirms they were not identical. The absence of identification of multiple clones, suggests you only had one clone to begin with. You either have only one clone until you identify another, or you have many clones that are not identical. And anything that you do not know only exists as a probability, subjectively.

Thanks for the visuals. So Simultaneity is just subjective. But what about concurrency? Lets presume both you and I exist. Is the star shining concurrently for you and me, or sequentially? That is, my detection of photons are registered sequentially by me, and your detection of photons are registered sequentially by you. But are our combined detection of photons registered collectively sequentially, or could some be registered concurrently?

Not a single unexpected macro event that violates GR in this universe, other than singularties. Is that not rather odd, considering all the random branches of possibilities that MIGHT occur with every quantum observation everywhere since the beginning. If the fundamental essence of the universe is random, chaotic, unpredictable, then surely there cannot be any fundamental laws or principles or constants. Conversely if the essence of the universe is determinate, ordered, and predictable, then surely there must be a fundamental laws/principles/constants.

Why is this particular instance of a universe reliable to such a degree that we have not witnessed someone who lived forever; we have not witnessed a variable speed of light; we have not witnessed a single star or planet propelled by a means other than gravity; we have not witnessed an exception to time dilation; we have not seen a single star spontaneously appear anywhere in the our universe, as they inevitably must do in some universes. Why is this particular instance of a universe so predictable that sentient beings have evolved and developed mathematics called General Relativity to model how things behave so accurately? If Many Worlds interpretation describes infinite branches of worlds of possibilities, why is this world so predictable? Or is it? Why don't random macroscopic events happen in our universe? Or is variance of possibilites limited in all universes to the quantum scale only? Is it beyond even the power of infinite universes for one universe to exist where a star is spontaneously created in the sky within the next 24 hours?

So if two stars supernova, and are recorded as simultaneous by an observer equidistant to each, then let me say (for the remainder of this thread) the supernovae were "objectively" simultaneous. That is, there is more than one coordinate where, had a recording been made, then a simultaneous reading would have been obtained, and that all such coordinates lie on a plane perpendicular to the line between the two events. Are there any other points or locus that is not equidistant from the two stars that might read a simultaneous reading for two "objectively simultaneous" events, either though some specific non-inertial frame or other condition? If the two stars supernova objectively non-simultaneously (that is, any equidistant observer would not observe simultaneity), what would the shape of the locus of simultaneity of look like for non-inertial frames as a function of degree of non-simultaneity? That is, there would be some point where two objectively non-simultaneous supernovae would be seen as simultaneous. Lets say the supernovae were separated by 1light year and by 1 hour. Each produces an expanding sphere of observables. What does shape of the intersection of the two spheres look like over some time, and does this shape change with the degree of event separation (either distance or time). Does this shape have a pattern? Is it still plane-like with curves, or something else? Moving away from simultaneity, i think my original post is more about concurrency. Interactions throughout the universe all occurring concurrently, but not observably simultaneously. Or is there not such thing?

“interactions between star B and C are mutually simultaneous” By this i mean Star B is affected by Star C at the same time while Star B is effecting Star C. They are simultaneously (and not sequentially - not even by an infinitessimal small increment in time - true simultaneity - not mathematical equivalence through granularity of calculus) interacting with each other. I do not mean inertial frames, in this instance. If time is relative in all of them, how can any two events separated by either a space value or a time value ever be truly simultaneous? If you cannot compare two events because time is relative to each event, by deduction, the only that can be simultaneous with an event is the event itself, no?

OK non-relative frames. Not really sure what I mean to be honest, but let me try and blurt out something coherent. We have star A,B,C mutually, simultaneously interacting with each other, lets say gravitationally affecting their velocities. The relative frame we choose as star A. So the gravitational "force?" between A and B can be calculated and its effect on the velocity of star B as observed from star A can be calculated. Star C also has a gravitational effect on and affect by both Star A and B, this too can be calculated. So the interactions between star B and C are mutually simultaneous (presumably) but not in the same frame of reference as star A. So that is non-relative frames. What is happening between star B and C are non-relative to measurements or observations from star A, but presumably they are still simultaneous and might even be synchronisable with frames of observations from star A.

I have to read your stuff a dozen times, and then see how what it means for me I'm having trouble formalising my thoughts at the moment. Need some time to ponder what I really mean.

Say two stars are co-orbiting, and there is a third star that is relatively stationary to both of them (I understand it wont remain stationary)

Sorry for the huge time gap between responses. Tbh, I wasnt thinking about an experiment. I was just thinking about how everything is simultaneous (or not)! Each and every observer in their own relative frame is simultaneously observing or "eventing" with each and all others observers within that relative frame. The parallelism is unimaginably vast to degrees of infinity! I'm also thinking about simultaneity across non-relative frames both due to velocity and curvature, and is it possible to measure this and say two such non-relative framed events were simultaneous at a previous point in time? How does the mathematics work for calculating predictions, when the degree of simultaneity between interactables in reality is so vast, and more likely than not in non-relative frames. Take a simple case of just two observers oA and oB, mutually and simultaneously interacting, over the property Ap and Bp. Given some initial values of Apt0 and Bpt0, how would you calculate the value of ApT at time T (after some interaction)? What kind of mathematics allows such simultaneous calculations? How do these mathematics scale to "real" events with simultaneity across many more interactables in different relative frames? So Calculus uses an infinitesimally small change in Apt0 to calculate Bpt1, and Bpt1 is used to calculate Apt1 and so on. But this is essentially sequential not simultaneous calculations. It is also breaking down a continuous scale into a granular one by creating the notion of an infinitesimally small change. The mathematics, if we use calculus, adopts a sequential and quantum model of time. For me, this is a problem and rather contradictory. We declare time is continuous and simultaneous in GR because the underlying mathematical framework requires it to be so. However the same mathematics employ a granular and sequential approach to calculations. I understand spacetime in GR is continuous, but how does quantum mechanics reconcile spacetime if time is not quantum?

What evidence is there to support the suggestion that time is continuous and not granular, or vice versa, or both, or neither, or something else? What evidence is there to suggest that relative-frame-of-referenced simultaneous events are a reality? How do we measure two simultaneous events and declare they are simultaneous if all observables and measurements are ultimately limited by HUP? We may synchronise two atomic clocks, but how do we know they are synchronised without measuring them and how do we know after our measurement they are still synchronised? How can we be certain at the time of measuring two events, that the clocks were synchronised? In a volume of space with no observations or decoherence, must time still exist? In a volume of space with two things each observing the other, is it impossible that time ticks sequentially rather than simultaneously for both of them?

Here's a cool paper on X-ray anisotropies found within the universe, albeit with unidentified causes. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03305.pdf If space expansion is anisotropic, then the distance coordinate axes are not uniform at all scales.

I'm still none the clearer. The two energy states is like a coin its either heads or tails for the electron. I get that. If you have something that checks for heads, you don't have to check for a tail. But you still need to check the coin. The position of a photon is not like a two sided coin. Its like a millions coins, and only one of them is heads. You can check 999,999 of them and find tails. You don't have to check the last one.

So the premise of calculus violates HUP?

The confusion for me is that I can't see the similarity of position state of a photon with say electron spin. The spin of an electron is a property of the electron, I can't see a how you can measure this property without probing the electron. The position of photon is a little different. I can measure an area to the left and an area to the right, and if its not there, its position must be in the middle. I can deduce and obtain the value of this property by NOT probing the photon. What am I not understanding?

Edit my above post... A quantum curve when divided into infinitesimal portions, will deliver a single quanta where the X and Y values are in super position. You cannot be simultaneously certain of both the X and Y values. Therefore, it cannot be flat!

A curve must be continuous if you want to use calculus and all the useful and accurate predictions it can make, but why must it not be granular? Going back to small things cause big things. If there is a principle of bigwards, then it would suggest that quantum mechanics "causes" GR, and not vice versa. Perhaps, one reason why they havent been reconciled is the mathematics of GR is entirely founded upon a continuous functions and continuous manifolds, and (I'm guessing here) QM isnt entirely (though i am looking up Lagrangian). The fundamental theorem of calculus is real-valued continuous functions. Surely it has complications if the function is discrete or made of quanta. Perhaps that is the problem... if you take infinitesimal portions of a quantum curve deltaY/deltaX, why should it be flat? Correct me if I'm wrong, a quantum universe suggests at infinitesimal size, you get a quanta that has a curved property. A big curve is made of infinitesimally small curves each with a unique curve value. If there is a principle of bigwards, it would suggest granular should explain continuity.

So I was out running again. Sometime during the run, I discovered my heartrate monitor had fallen off my chest strap. Now I knew when I had last checked it, and this meant it must have fallen off on one of three paths I had run up. So I went back and searched two of paths for it, and didn't find anything. At this point I knew it was on the third path. At this point it also occurred to me that I had measured the position of my heartrate monitor without actually making a measurement or an observation of it. Now here's the giant leap of faith to some relevance. Had I known its momentum before hand, I would have information on both its momentum and position at the same time. Had it been a quantum particle, I would have the avoided the problem of the Observer Effect - by deducing the value of the observable, by measuring all the states that it is not in except one and finding nothing, instead of making a direct measurement of the state it is in. Clearly the Uncertainty Principle remains inviolable. But if quantum mechanics assigns observables as operators and values as eigenvalues of the operator, how does it model unobserved values or rather values for a operator that remains unobserved? Now leaping over the fence, how might this unobserved measurement be involved when considering entanglement, and "action at a distance". Does the unobserved measurement of a quantum state of an entangled particle still collapse the waveform simply by deducing information without measurement? PS. I did find my heartrate monitor, and yes it was on the third path.

But if the curve is a quantum curve, wouldn't the smooth manifold of Reimannian geometry be an unsuitable model?

Well unfortunately for me, I have tried to "truly" learn some physics previously, but I came across unscalable walls and bottomless pits. The biggest obstacle for me was the mathematics. I simply don't understand them. I can follow instructions. I can find the area bounded by two hyperbolic functions. I can follow matrix calculus operations. But I can't understand them. They have no "meaning". There are mathematical techniques and tricks that are used that I can accept are true, but I cannot logically comprehend them and cannot apply logical proof to the equations once they are added. In addition I have questions about the legitimate use of some mathematics. There are some assumptions that are taken for granted, or at least rarely mentioned, but these assumptions underlay ALL the conclusions that are drawn from the results the mathematics give. Just for example, off the top of my head, integration relies on a coordinate system that is "uniform", that is the gap between integers are consistent, but what if it isnt? That throws integration out of the window. Any integration with respect to Time from zero to infinity, assumes that it is uniform and consistent from the beginning and forever What evidence do we have this is so? Sure you can calculate the area under a curve...but only if you assume your axes are consistent and uniform. What if the gap between 2 and 3 was larger than the gap between 1 and 2, such that 1 +2 =/= 3? We already know space expands, that is, the axes are stretched. Are they stretched evenly everywhere at the same time? Do two volumes of space mutually exclusive from each other's observable universe and future universe stretch at the same rate? How does space expansion reconcile with an isotropic universe? The second biggest obstacle for me was the scope. If you want to "truly" know one thing, you have to know ten other things first, the rabbit hole never ends. I am truly awestruck by how vast the scope of physics is. It is like running up a mountain of infinite size, and everytime you summit a local maxima, there's ten more summits behind. The third problem was time and attention. I don't have the time or the attention or even the ability to learn all the things I need to know to answer my own questions. The bottom line is, I am resigned to forever never truly understanding anything, and forever asking questions like a child.

My opinion has no valid basis at all. I was reading another topic when the thought popped into my head, but now I realise the terms I use are rather ambiguous and poorly explained. But I guess they were vague enough to make more learned minds think a bit. I think my use of stars, atoms and quantum particles misses something I couldnt quite formulate into words. What does bigwards even mean? If something disperses, it would have a bigger volume, surface area etc, but smaller density - both bigwards and smallwards. The chicken and the egg things brings to my mind the problem about space expansion and dark energy. Does dark energy cause space expansion, or does space expansion cause dark energy, or are they equivalent like mass and energy? Is a black hole considered a singular, indivisible object such that Hawking radiation is emitted from "the entirely of the black hole" rather than a point close to its event horizon? Of course large things can make small things to happen. A big star can emit a photon. A big whale can displace water molecules. But I think the "cause" I'm referring to is "reason" or "explanation" or "why" something happens. Why the proton is emitted - what physics, or why the water molecules are displaced. This WHY or CAUSE is explained by understanding something on a smaller scale and not (AFAIK) on the bigger scale. The particle emitted from the black hole is the effect, but the CAUSE is hawking radiation, NOT the black hole. Another effect is the decay of the black hole. The direction of cause is bigwards!

Well the formation of, for example, gold atoms requires high energy, and while a "large" cause such as a neutron star collision provides the energy, it is fundamentally still the physical laws that govern subatomic particles of protons, neutrons, and electrons ( + high energy) that creates the gold atom. Its not so much the physical laws that explain a neutron star collision that creates the gold atom. GR will explain how two neutron stars collide, but im not sure how much it helps with describing how gold is formed with a bunch of neurons, protons and electrons.