AbstractDreamer

I already have defined those special circumstances. When time is a long time ago, or a long time in future. Or when distance is a long way away. I'm not here to do science, i'm here to ask questions about science. Its not a random idea. It taken from the 2nd postulate of special relativity where there is no limitation stated on (s-t), nor is there any limitation on inertial frames of reference. I am simply questioning those limitations. You have already hinted that during inflation, there are some theories to a varying speed of light. So when t=very early on, physics were different and special relativity fails, but the postulates do not reference these limitations either.

The photon is a billion years old, but the MEASUREMENT is 400 years old of a photon that has aged a billion years. It is NOT the measurement of the photon a billion years AGO. By frequency do you mean intensity? What is the equation that is dictated by c? What are the other constants are involved?

But I'm not asking to test every electron in the universe. I'm not asking to test every inertial frame of reference. I'm asking to test ONE inertial frame of reference 10 billion light years away. It is NOT looking at alpha as it was then billions of years ago. It is looking at alpha today that has already aged billions of years. If the speed of light were invariant under circumstances beyond that tests for special relativity, then none of the tests would fail to match predictions.

You are entirely missing my point. You're attacking me with all the usual "science is not about proof" spiel, even though it might be a mistake I have made in my comments, is not the message I'm trying to convey. I have valid questions on the invariance and constance of c, and instead of trying to answer them or tell me why they are not valid, you are trying to school me on what science is about. Telling me to read your first answer when you yourself haven't understood mine is frustrating. But I will say it again. Length contraction and time dilation are both predicted by special relativity, and proved to real phenomena through experimental tests. Both also rely on c being "constant" and "invariant". This does NOT necessarily mean that if c was NOT invariant or NOT constant under special circumstances, that time dilation and length contraction would no longer be real phenomena under other circumstances.

Well correct me if I'm wrong. Because if gravity is quantum, then there must be some distance where it falls below the threshold for a measurable observation, even if it is beyond the distance of the cosmic event horizon for that observer. And at that distance where no measurable observation of the gravity field of an object can be made, it can no longer gravitationally interact with anything. If such a limitation to gravitational range exists, how can it also work over infinite distance unless you are talking about distances in dimensions above the 3 spatial dimensions.

Length contraction and time dilation are both predicted by special relativity, and proved to real phenomena through experimental tests. Both also rely on c being "constant" and "invariant" - over the limitations of the tests. None of this am I questioning. I have no evidence whatsoever to presume c changes over time. I'm asking what evidence is there prove it doesn't, to make it the 2nd postulate of special relativity. I don't have knowledge of these tests, and do not understand these limitations. It is my guess that these test were not - can not - be done on EM radiation that is older than 400 years, because humans did not start testing until 400 years ago. I'm not talking about measuring the velocity of an EM radiation being measured today, here at velocity c originating from the source a 10 billion years ago, I'm talking about measuring the velocity of EM radiation a few billion years ago - as it was THEN 10 billion years ago. It is also my guess is that these tests were not - can not- be done on EM radiation further than 0.0019 light years from earth, as that is the distance that Voyager 1 (the furthest spacecraft to date) has managed to reach. I'm not talking about measuring the velocity of an EM radiation being measured today, here at velocity c originating from a source 10 billion light years away I'm talking about measuring the velocity of EM radiation 10 billion light years away - as it is NOW, over THERE, from HERE, 10 billion light years away. Showing up in a lot of places, and there being a lot of evidence that c is constant and invariant I don't disagree. But logically, that simply does not prove that in ANY inertial frame of reference and ALL time coordinates that it is invariant and constant. We observe spectra from distant galaxies yes. But we can only observe them today at time t=now. Which of course is the same c as it was since experiments began 400 years ago. Looking at alpha today is not looking at alpha a long time ago nor is it looking at alpha a long way away. Is there any proof that if c was not constant or not invariable, that special relativity is necessarily wrong and not simply incomplete? What would happen if c is invariant and constant, but simply a different value? Are there any theories or equations that would cease to work? Would that change anything about the laws of physics? Why would it drastically change the laws of nature, if these changes were simply beyond anything that might affect you? Unless you were to travel a cosmologically long distance or time away, you wouldn't know any different.

Well yes when the reference is hard to find. But this is wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity If gravitational effects only appear at length scales near the Planck scale, it didn't sound wrong to say quantum gravity operates over distances of Planck length. If gravity works over infinite distance as you say, and its strength is proportional to inverse square law, then it cannot be quantum. if gravity is quantum, then there must be some distance where it falls below the threshold for a measurable observation, even if it is beyond the distance of the cosmic event horizon for that observer.

"One of the difficulties of formulating a quantum gravity theory is that quantum gravitational effects only appear at length scales near the Planck scale, around 10−35meter" maybe my interpretation was wrong.

Invariant means it doesn't vary. Constant means it stays the same. Essentially, in language, the two words are synonyms and have the same meaning. I'm not mixing up two separate ideas here, I'm asking two separate questions, though I might be using the wrong words. But now I understand in physics semantics invariance is specifically related to a transformation reference and constant is related to a time reference. However I had hoped my explanation was clear what I was asking, but maybe not. a) If c is invariant in all frames of spatial reference - including extra-galactic distances. How has this been tested? If every test of SR has been done over relatively short distances, doesn't that leave an obvious question to be answered? b) If c is constant in all frames of time reference - including a long time ago and a long time in the future. If it has changed, what effects might we see?

If gravity is quantum, then infinitesimal might not be enough excitation to create a single quantum of gravity that is interactable or observable. If gravity is not quantum, then infinitesimal is still a gravitational field. According to wiki, quantum gravity operates over distances of plank length, which is pretty infinitesimal.

Special Relativity is formulated from an assumption: 2. Second Postulate (Invariance of c) There exists an absolute constant \(0<c<\infty\) with the following property. If A, B are two events which have coordinates \((x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},t)\) and \((y_{1},y_{2},y_{3},s)\) in one inertial frame \(F\), and have coordinates \((x'_{1},x'_{2},x'_{3},t')\) and \((y'_{1},y'_{2},y'_{3},s')\) in another inertial frame \(F'\), then \( \sqrt { (x_{1}-y_{1})^{2}+(x_{2}-y_{2})^{2}+(x_{3}-y_{3})^{2} )}=c(s-t) \) if and only if \( \sqrt {(x'_{1}-y'_{1})^{2}+(x'_{2}-y'_{2})^{2}+(x'_{3}-y'_{3})^{2})}=c(s'-t') \). It appears this postulate makes no limitations on \((s-t)\) even if it is on a cosmological coordinate time scale. Assuming local c was first measured around 400 years ago and hasn't changed since, why should we assume that it was also the same 13 billion years ago, and will be the same 13 billion years in the future? Can we prove that c has always been invariant and will always be invariant? Can we prove that this is true for any and all inertial frames of reference. Given an inertial frame of reference at location in space at the edge of our observable universe, how do we prove that the speed of light here in the Milky Way, as measured using units of time and distance from over there, will be the same c as they are experiencing over there?

How do you have momentum without mass? Do all massless particles have the same energy? Will a gamma ray photon have greater gravitational effect than visible light photon? If gravity propagates at the speed of light, from a photon travelling at the speed of light, how does this effect the gravitational field created by the massless excitation in the electromagnetic field?

How do you remove the presence of an electromagnetic or gravitational field from a macroscopic or microscopic test environment, or rather how can you prove that the value of the charge or gravity is locally zero? Let's take electromagnetism. Any test on Earth or close by will be subject at the very least to the Earth's magnetic field. If you create a shielded volume, how do you measure and prove there is no charge inside? Must any device that measures electromagnetic field interact with the field itself and potentially change it? Let's take gravity. Any test involving mass-ive equipment will be subject to gravity. Can you actually observe an absolute certain measurement for gravity, or only calculate it - is it subject to the uncertainty principle? Is gravity quantum? If the strength of a gravitational field is proportional to inverse square of distance between your measuring device and the object, then is the value of the gravitational field really zero in some deepest parts of space where there is no mass anywhere within a distance that creates an excitation in the gravity field of 1q other than the device you are measuring with?

Well my point was about comparing the scale of solar panels required as the problem, compared with the technology of fusion required. Pulling some random figures out of air.... building solar panels spanning 1 million km square, or a £4 trillion orbiting fusion reactor (that hasn't been invented yet... unless the vacuum problem can be solved with building the thing in space!) So far as getting the energy back to earth is concerned, how about geosynchronous orbiting laser firing energy back to earth? It would be easier to attach a fusion reactor to this than some vast array of solar panels.

Well on that point, which is more practical: a fusion reactor satellite in orbit around the earth, or solar panels in space? Assuming the problem with energy transfer is the same for both systems. Perhaps, the planet sized fusion reactor solution is better suited to interstellar travel. Good point on centrifuge. Ok lets turn it around... On the point of fusion,... a Shell of deuterium, inside of which protons are centrifuged into fusing with the shell. I'm guessing deuterium is liquid near absolute zero, but will be gaseous near the reaction plasma. So a liquid body of deuterium with protons in the core, spun to create centrifugal induced fusion. On the point of confinement, I'd have to speculate on quantum anti-centrifugal forces https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0108069.pdf Apparently, possible either with negative energies with a delta-function potential, or with positive energy with vanishing angular momentum, in a two dimensional eigenstate space.

Just read an article on nuclear fusion http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-china-blog-43792655 while eating my oatmeal porridge I drifted off with wild fantasies of imaginations, which needed some more knowledgeable people to ratify or ridicule. If leakage is a problem, why not just build it in space? Nature worked this out a long time ago! What about using the center of a gravitational well to mitigate the electromagnetic cost to confine the reaction. Is there a planet or moon with center that is plausibly cool and low enough pressure in which to build a reactor, but of sufficient mass to be significant in confining the plasma? Can also use the body mass itself as the actual walls of the reactor, to both absorb and to transfer the output energy? The body might be slowly destroyed and consumed eventually over time, but that's a problem for the next eon. A planet-eating fusion reactor is cool! What about centrifugal forces as an supplement to electromagnetism in fusion confinement? Is it more efficient or precise to control an object's rotational motion to control a fusion reaction, than do achieve the same result with electromagnetic fields? So the plasma is "spun", not just "squashed". Are lasers only required to produce high symmetry with the fusing particles, to make it the reaction more precise and easier to contain? It is possible to generate enough centrifugal force to fuse a deuterium nucleus and a proton? Say a large mass of deuterium with protons in centrifuge around it, increasing the energy in the protons until some start to fuse? How do you impart angular momentum to an object in a vacuum, with nothing to "push back against"? Stored chemical energy in rocket fuel can be released with exhaust, but what if the object is atomic sized? Is the artificial gravity from centrifuge only a relative force, and not something "real" that might affect fusion? Maybe the answer lies not in precision, but in scale. A moon-sized fusion reactor, in the vacuum of space, near absolute zero temperature environment orbiting in the permanent shadow of a planet. The reaction occurs at the very center. The body's mass is used both as a natural shield and as the structure used to house the lasers, electromagnets, and energy collection. Brain dump over, I'm late for work.

But for the many theories of quantum mechanics that are correct or not, that describe interactions of the forces, and have useful applications; these models are not dependent on the absence of non-local interactions. To state that no information is transferred during entanglement decoherence is an assumption that, either true or false, does not contradict the principles of quantum theory. I did not mean to imply that quantum theory is incorrect, neither is that my argument. What I'm trying to say is: Is it possible the universe may have an infinite number of sizes, with respect to coherent states, depending on the boundaries of the volume in question at a specific time.

That is a conclusion, based off a theorem, underpinned by a number of assumptions, one being that no non-local influences are at play. But you didn't address the main point, which is about the difference between the size of the observable universe, and one that it is in a coherent state.

If, a long time ago, a quantum entangled pair of photons were separated such that, presently, one photon is outside the observable universe for an observer and another is measured in a specific orientation by that observer, does that mean information can travel beyond the observable universe? Can the reverse be true? If locality is violated, surely then it’s possible that the interactable universe is far larger than the observable universe?

I'm not trying to have it both ways. Can you explain what you mean? Frankly, its difficult to comprehend many of your responses, and how they might correlate to questions i had asked. At the same time, its hard to know whether you have misunderstood what I'm trying to say, or simply way ahead of the conversation. You certainly don't make it easy to follow your train of thought. On the other hand, I have tried to answer each of your responses directly, all the while having no idea what you really asked or what I'm really saying. I'm suggesting alternatives in direct response to your questions. Can you explain why non-locality falsifies probability information, or can you explain or show me where I can review the proof for this? Had you said locality is dead in the water at the start, we might have saved a lot of time. However the probability function is not dependent on locality. Though i had hoped that locality was not dead in the water. I explained possible solutions in my previous post and in my OP, in the attempt to reconcile locality. I Indeed i raised the question about the conservation law with respect to how accurately direction can be measured, which you haven't answered. How can you expect me to answer your questions if you do not answer mine? How can i do anything but make further speculations? But if locality is dead in the water, I guess there's no point trying to explain how probability function might work with locality. On the other hand, if action-at-a-distance is the only alternative, then anything goes to be honest. If there are any relevant sources of information that i can access, that would be useful. I really wanted to stay on track with Bell's Theorem and why it might or might not be appropriate for it to pre-assign expected combinations of values to an entangled pair. Also I would like to review the QM interpretation as you suggested in #7, and how it uses a known function to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities.

Apparently archaea can metabolise this reaction. Have no idea if the article is correct. Its very vague. http://www.zdnet.com/article/h2o-co2-ch4-thanks-to-archaeans/

I don't know, I'm trying not to speculate, because really I have not the slightest idea. I was hoping you would give me some ideas how this is possible, rather than the other way around. Surely I'm not the first to think along these lines. But the most obvious way is that there is no transmission of information. Perhaps the information is created at the same time the entangled pair is created? Without any need for communication beyond the moment of separation/creation, each particle has the information it needs - the hidden probability function - ??stored in some inner dimension?? The measurement is only simultaneous, if you measure it at the same time. The probability information could be always there, whether a measure is made or not. An orientation variable (which could be local or global) and an internally local probability function is maybe all you need. When a measurement is made in the same direction, which necessitates an opposing measure, then a global orientation variable might need to be referenced i guess. But that would not demand superdeterminism nor action-at-a-distance, because neither the global variable, nor the local probability function is solely responsible for determining the measure. I'm making stuff up now. Alternatively, is it even possible to exactly measure direction to be the same to such precision as to violate conservation of energy, IF measurements made "very close" to the same direction were found to have the same spin?

Apparently information can change position without advancement in time. IF you prescribe to action-at-a-distance interpretation of QM.

The information could have been available to both particles at all times (hidden probability function). Since it could have, why cant it be local? Why must information have to be communicated at the last moment instantaneously? Surely preserving locality agrees with relativity more than action-at-a-distance? I guess the difference is the known one implies action-at-a-distance and faster-than-light information spanning the entire universe instantaneously; and the hidden probability preserves locality and agrees with relativity. How would I test for this? I don't know I'm not a physicist. I watched a You-tube video and it was apparent to me there was something wrong with the application of Bell's Theory. So I tried to put my thoughts into something coherent, and ask people that know better.

how could anything other than coal and oil drive an industrial revolution?