AbstractDreamer

Why is it apparent that small things determine how big things work and not vice versa? Why is cause and effect noncommutative with respect to "size". In the sense that CAUSE is due to some physical laws: Quantum fluctuations CAUSE real and virtual particles. Real particles cause leptons, quarks, bosons. Leptons and quarks cause protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons neutrons electrons cause hydrogen helium and carbon atoms. Hydrogen, iron and oxygen cause stars, planets, and water. Stars, planets and water cause galaxies, solar systems, and oceans. Galaxies do not cause stars. Stars do not cause hydrogen. Hydrogen does not cause protons. Protons do not cause quarks. Quarks do not cause real particles. Real particles do not cause quantum fluctuations. The direction of time is forwards? The direction of cause is bigwards?

Well let's see. From what I understand, EM radiation is affected by curvature. So in this sense, massless EM radiation experiences spacetime. But is it possible it is only affected by how it is observed by massive things? That is, although it is massless, it has properties that "only belong" in the massive universe. For example, its velocity is a constant determined by local curvature in the massive universe, but if it is not a valid frame of reference in itself then velocity is an invalid property of anything existing in the massless universe. So velocity is a property that only "makes sense" or "takes on a value" in the massive universe. So while EM radiation seems to effect a change in velocity due to curvature, it's not actually a property belonging to the radiation, and therefore no "experience". Now consider its wavelength. If space, volume, distance, length and time are all part of the same continuum, then is waveLENGTH a massive property too? What properties of a photon actually define what it is in its own universe? Lets say there is a "red" wavelength photon and a "blue" wavelength photon, both with the massive property of c. If we removed spacetime physics, then c would not make sense, and so would "red" and "blue". So what is there left to differentiate the two photons? What is left of the universe without space time? There must be SOMETHING left! This "experience" of time I'm referring to is really about leading to whether the existence of time (and spacetime) is a prerequisite for masslessness. If two bosons have values in the higgs field and then occupy the same quantum state of position, how do they retain their original higgs values when they separate? What relevance or significance does space, position and location have for bosons? So if we removed all massive things from universe, do the physics of spacetime have any relevance? If we removed or changed the physics of spacetime, would that affect the nature of any massless things? I would argue, a universe absent of spacetime requires that anything that might exist within it may have a value for size or for time but that such values are redundant and just meaningless information. If the presence of spacetime gives meaning to space and time values, then the absence of spacetime removes that meaning. Zero size and zero time has meaning and meaning requires presence. I think perhaps I should have started this thread in the quantum fields topic. GR describes spacetime and gravity through relationships between how things interact on a macro scale. I wanted to explore how the universe presents to massless things. Is spacetime a prerequisite for massive or massless things to exist? Do massless things have any non-spacetime properties? Do massive bosons have a gravitation effect? If spacetime is a continuum and gravity curves spacetime, why is spacetimegravity not a continuum?

Much appreciated for such direct answers! I will ponder your information and see what further inconsistencies and contradictions arise in my layman imagination.

So I've been running a lot recently. And running causes the mind to wander, and wonder. Here are some wanderings: Are all quantum observers required to be massive? Can something without mass, cause or contribute to waveform collapse of an another observable? Must all massless things in the universe move at the speed of light, relative to the massive things? Must all things that move in the universe at the speed of light be massless? Do all massive things move at the same speed relative to a massless thing? Do all massive things need space? Do any massless things need space? Do all massive things experience entropy? Do massless things experience entropy? Does time matter to massless things? Do massless things experience spacetime ? Does a massless universe require spacetime? How many dimensions does a massless thing need? EG, a photon has property of wavelength and a frequency, so at least 2 dimensions. Could its "movement" through spacetime be a property of spacetime rather than of itself? That is, if it didn't have the property of c relative to massive things, because massive things didn't exist, would it still have the property of c? That's many questions to roughly the same thoughts that were bugging me as I was running. Ill be running again tomorrow!

So which processes have the most advanced predictions, the least systematic errors, but still a high degree of randomness? How far can quantum randomness extend to the macro scale?

But do these functions only describe processes and their behaviour over time statistically? For the next singular quantum event, are they still unpredicatable?

Actually I asked for the closest thing to true random, as I had assumed a definitive answer would be improbable. I was hoping for a variety of examples that exist in the quantum world, because ultimately that's where I again assumed any randomness will originate from. I was rather disappointed at there only being one answer (atomic decay), as I thought there would be more interesting situations where randomness is exhibited. On the other hand, rather than looking at the randomness on the smallest scale, and look instead at randomness on the largest scale, such as the observable universe and how the different interpretations affect randomness on that scale. Under Copenhagen interpretation, if the micro scale is not deterministic, then perhaps on the large scale there is greater non-determinism. Just like one set of infinities can be greater than other sets of infinities. Under Bohm, even if the quantum world is deterministic, can it be proved that this determinism is carried over through all the scales, despite being practically impossible to measure? All it would take is one non-deterministic event to occur somewhere in the Bohm universe, and the deterministic nature of its quantum world would essentially be irrelevant in a volume that included such an event, and perhaps all "connected" volumes too.

Ok, lets look at atomic decay. I don't know, lets choose alpha decay. We don't know when the nucleus will next produce an emission and decay, though statistically over time we can predict how much emission it will produce over time. So we say the time of next emission is random but is that because of our limited knowledge and/or detection apparatus? @studiot If I wanted to choose 1 object at random from a set of objects, my definition of randomness is that nothing in the universe can predict which choice that would be. That is my layman's definition. Another query i have is how time plays a role in randomness. For example if an atomic nucleus decays at time t. If we "rewound" time and passed through time t again, would that nucleus decay at exactly the same time? If so, then it event was always deterministic, and not random, despite being seemingly random to us. A truly random emission would be time independent. Going back to my example of choosing 1 object at random.... then replaying that random choice process through time would produce either the same or a different result, but still unpredictable nevertherless. PS. I thought bell theorem's only disproves local hidden variables?

Not sure if this is in the right topic of Quantum Theory. But what is the closest thing to true randomness? As I understand, computer generated numbers are deterministic at the core; dice do not have even mass distribution; hidden variable theory suggests there is an underlying deterministic function to the probabilistic nature of the quantum world. On the other hand, if there is no determinism in quantum probabilities, can true randomness be attained therein?

There is speculation that the next new particle discovered will be called the ALB particle. It's properties are best described in terms of colors. Predictions are already abound for the existence of an anti-ALB particle called the ALBino. It is colorless.

Given observers in an Minkowskian volume of empty space, are there any limits to how large this volume is or how much time this volume exists for before one of the three restrictions that define such a space is violated? What if this volume of space was so large such that observers on opposite sides of this volume are moving away from each other at superluminal speeds due to expansion? What if this volume of space is not so large, but over eons grew via expansion to such a size that observers on opposite sides of this volume are moving away from each other at superluminal speeds? How does volume or time limit the range of Minkowskian geometry around such observers?

Based on an understanding the laws of physics don't apply beyond the EH. By definition invariance in only select cases, albeit most cases, is not invariance. Your answer belies your bias in affecting your critical thinking. It could find invariance, make different predictions and still be more complete, because it could make predictions on relationships not addressed with SR. It could find variance, make the same predictions and still be more complete, because it might include unknown unknowns. Well if its a disadvantage, its not plagiarism. With the nature of responses i have received, I think most would agree its a disadvantage. What is relevant is that you stay on topic. If you want to preach about manners, you can open your own thread.

I'm trying to find where the local limitation between inertial frames of reference are stated. The only thing i can find is that as long as any frame is not accelerating then c will be invariant Thanks for the oklo info, showing c has been constant for 2 billion years.

Anywhere within a BH is not empty free space and therefore not a valid spatial frame of reference to test invariance of c, irrespective of whether or not the theory is valid. Only at the EH and outside can there be empty space between which light can pass at invariant c for the 2nd postulate to hold and for it still to be a valid frame of reference, and also a point where the theory fails. Your first post was about time dilation as evidence that c must be invariant. Now you're saying of course its an approximation. Had you actually read my #1 post and listened, we could have saved 3 pages of missing the point. Given that there a limits at where GR/SR fails, is it not scientifically valid to question the postulates as the reason why it fails? Must any future validated QGT also specify that c must be invariant? No that's not the full meaning of plagiarism. You are missing the key concept of benefit to the plagiator. How have you interpreted that as a refusal to accept an answer? I'm not refusing to accept that alpha readings show invariant c? I'm contesting a point about the measured observable. Can you really not see the difference?

Wrong. Please quote me where i refused to accept such differences. Simply continuing a line of questions does not imply a refusal to accept. My point remains valid on the measurement of the observable. Just because I'm arguing one position, doesn't mean I am refusing to accept the opposite position. My point was to show there might be lots of opportunities for unknown physics be operating in, and to highlight the fallibility of such answers NOT to refuse to accept them. There is a difference between critical thinking and opinion. I quoted something that was so mainstream popular and accepted, i thought it would be easily familiar with people that i expected that could answer my question and who could readily correct me, such as someone else who has told me its not actually the second postulate. I didn't think it needed a quote. Why would i re-work a postulate of the most well known theory and then ask questions on my own work?

Its not that I don't suppose we need an alternative. Its that I cannot offer one. I do not have the grasp of all the mathematical concepts, equations and relationships that is required. For me to give an alternative would be just so you can laugh at me, why would waste your time with a baseless alternative? I have already stated my evidence. There are spatial frames of reference around black hole event horizons where GR is incomplete. There are frame of reference over time, when t=10^-43 seconds where GR is incomplete. Those were my thoughts recently after maybe watching something on youtube or reading something somewhere or talking to someone i cant remember. I looked up both GR and SR on wiki to understand further. I examined the postulates i thought i found. I looked for anything that might explain where the limits of SR might be and found none in the postulates. I proceeded to this forum to ask further questions. THAT is my agenda. I would take his opinion because I'm not looking to understand medicine, I just want to live. Here, i'm not looking to practice science, i want to understand it. The analogy is incompatible. There is a difference between being a student and being a patient.

Well its from wiki and it looked more mathematical than the postulate that was purely in English at the top of the page, so i figured it would be more accurate. I have since read a few things on how Einstein initially was toying with the idea of variable c, but couldn't get the equations to fit. Then something about reconciling with gravity. My conclusion then is he put contraints and assumptions on GR and SR to make it work, which then turned out to fit empirical evidence. I'm more interested into what thought processes he had and what made him initially modelled c as variable.

Well that is your error of judgement then. What answer have i refused to accept? What is this agenda you think i have? You think I'm here to antagonise by questioning a cornerstone of accepted science? Then why even post a comment on my thread if you believe i have an agenda? Are you sure this agenda you're speaking of is not yours? Are you sure you're not on an agenda to antagonise me? What answers have i rejected? What answers have i not accepted?

You mean "no knowledge", and that is wrong, i do have some knowledge just not very much. What answers have i refused to accept ?- or are you assuming Im refusing to except them simply because i continue to ask questions? One answer cannot answer all the questions i have. I will refuse to accept answers such as "its not science", or "my ideas are random". I can go on wiki and and read the facts if i wanted to just accept current science with no understanding. The reason people come on a forum to ask questions is to get more than a 1 sentence answer and a link to something that the linker hopes will go way over their head and will shut the person up. Its complete cop out statement saying we need to learn it ourselves. Its basically saying you don't know how or cant be bothered to explain it in laymans terms. If you don't want to give an explanation fine, but don't make the comment of saying i just need to accept it or learn it myself. If nobody here wants to teach, Ill go somewhere else. Tell me, how do you think someone who is asking questions and trying to learn going to possibly PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE? You want the student to come up with an alternative, while you expect them to accept your answers on faith? I can accept this answer, because I have already suspected as such from even before my original post. But my curiosity wants to know some examples of these places and combinations, or some numerical examples to show why a tweak would be impossible, to get my thought processes going. How can i possibly learn it myself if i don't know where to look? I want to get some kind of idea how impossible it is. The evidence is that we know that GR and SR are incomplete. Isn't that enough? I really would have thought anyone who could answer my questions, would not need to be shown the postulates to know them and what the typical questions such as those that im asking might be, and not actually need them to provide the same answer they have no doubt given many times before, or even asked themselves when they were students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

Do the postulates of SR hold for when \( t<=10^{-43}seconds )\? If the answer is No, then not all frames of reference over time are valid, and that special relativity at best is incomplete. Do the postulates of SR hold for when \( (x_{1},x_{2},x_{3} \) are spatial coordinates that fall precisely on the event horizon of a black hole, where there is still empty vacuum between that position and \( (y_{1},y_{2},y_{3} \) If the answer is No, then not all frames of reference over space are valid, and that special relativity at best is incomplete. The idea of inflation in the extended \( \lambaCDM \) standard model of Big Bang cosmology employs fine tuned parameters to preserve the apparent homogeneity and isotropism the flatness of the CMB, and scarcity of magnetic monopoles that we observe in the universe today. Amongst the criticisms are untestable predictions, lack of experimental data, and arbitrary parametising of initial conditions that only increase as you go back in time if entropy from thermalisation increases as time progresses (Occam's Razor should seek simplification, not more initial conditions). A variable c theory can also preserve homogeneity, isotropism, and flatness of the CMB, if, instead of inflation, that c was faster from say 32 to 60 orders of magnitude But while these criticisms have been accepted by the community to support the standard model, the same arguments are used to refute ideas of a variable c. The hypocrisy is surprising. Eternal inflation is one of the many models of inflation theory, and some variants include the prediction of different volumes, or multiverses, that are interactably exclusive each other, and each running with different values for the physical constants. Is this the kind of forum where everyone has to get familiar with a subject before asking a question or face being scorned? Does my complaint carry less weight because I'm a novice? While the people answering me have spent more time on the subject, they seem more intent to focus their attention on telling me how wrong I am on some irrelevant point, or how its not science, or how i need to come up with a theory, or that I cant accept some answers, or missing my point, not reading my posts, asking me define something I already defined, jumping to an absurd conclusion about me wanting to test every electron in the universe, accusing me of random ideas, resorting to ridicule using analogies of flying unicorns; instead of actually answering any of my questions. Having read a little on fine-structured constant and spectral emission lines of hydrogen, I now understand it something to do with the how the energy levels of an elementary particle such as an electron may be excited and jump to a level above ground state due to spin orbit interactions between the electrons magnetic dipole and the magnetic field created by its orbit around a positively charged nucleus; and in doing so release mission spectra lines that are very close but separate. \( \alpha = \frac{e^(2)/\hbar c}{4 \pi \epsilon_{0}}= \frac{\mu_{0} c e^{2}}{2 h} \) It would be far more sensible to change the value of the reduced Planck's constant seeing as it is related to the porportionality between a quantum particle's energy and frequency, or momentum and wavelength. On a new-magical note, if \( \hbar \) is also a function of time or space, or time is a function space, wouldn't c necessarily be variable? Doesn't everything matter if you're trying to accurately model quantum physics? Or is it safe to assume nothing happens whatsoever while in transit over billions of years light years for billions of years, through numerous quantum fields that mutually interact , other than redshift from expansion and lensing from gravity? What kind of consequences? What kind of implications? How would the universe look if c was constant, but a different value? How would the universe behave if c was not constant? Is it not possible for there to be a reasonably simple solution to balancing all the equations to consider a variable c that varies only in special situations, yet only alter the consequence in those special circumstances? I'm asking questions on the invariance of c. That's not the same as suggesting or claiming that c is variable. In order to question the invariance of c, and seeing as there is no persons in support of that position, someone has to be devils advocate. You can jump to any conclusion that you want to believe, but you're mistaken. I took the mathematical expression for the 2nd postulate from wiki. Sure, by all means help me understand.

There is a difference between measuring an observable that is really old, and measuring an observable (instantaneously) from a long way away. There's no reason to believe that the spectrum must have changed, perhaps the observable has a different relationship? Why could the spectrum have not changed as it passed through space? Why does any change have to be magical? Again I have not done enough reading into alpha or fine structure, so you are forcing me into simply taking your word for granted, which ironically is how religion works, not science. You need a theory before you can experimentally test it. You need an idea before you can build a theory. That is how science works.

Well that is another of many alternatives. But my main position is that No, any photon measured locally in space and time must be c. But measured across significant time or space, FROM any position, there is no experimental evidence that it must be invariant. Other than this alpha or fine structure constant explanation that i need to explore, or the Occam's razor argument where various constants are all changing in some extravagant dance of deception such that c is invariant is more complicated than the simpler answer that c is always invariant across time and space.

Supersymmetric string theories consists of ideas that cannot be observed. So accordingly is it not science then? All those physicists and mathematicians... are you calling them non scientists because they are researching stuff that cannot be observed? That is a poor definition of science, if that is your lesson. Occam's Razor, I'm in favor of the simplified solution, if it is indistinguishable. I have been given the an answer in "alpha" whatever that is and the fine structure constant. I will have to do research into their connection with a constant c. It's not that i refuse to accept your answers, its that none of your answers have justifiably shown me why i should accept them, other than your word. It's not that I don't believe you, its that you haven't explained why. Neither do I believe you have given much thought into my position about its plausibility, and I have little confidence that you have brought about any significant weight of your expertise in the field into this thread other than fobbing it off as my problem, because even as you are convinced c is invariant, you have not actually shown me why. That is close to the point i am making! The velocity may have been different eons ago in time, or eons away in distance, BUT we cannot measure it to be anything other than the velocity that c is today around here. We are experimentally limited to measurements of observables that are locked in local space and local time, such that any measurement must inevitably result in an invariant c.

Ok I don't know what alpha is. The interactions you are observing are billions of years old, but that's because the OBSERVABLES are billions of years old. You are NOT measuring the interactions as they were then from billions of light years away. You are measuring them after their observable has traveled through billions of light years for billions of years. If you do not acknowledge the difference, theoretical physics is the poorer. I'm not demanding impossible tests. I'm curious as to why the community is so against the idea of a variable c, when the possibility of one doesn't necessarily have to have such an drastic affect on currently accepted models, and yet the only arguments I'm hearing is impossible to test, flying unicorns, circulus in probando, and argumentum ad hominem

No, flying unicorns is crazy. Variable c is within the domain of questionable physics.