# General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

#### binbots

Isn’t the only difference between general relativity and quantum mechanics the scale of time and space we are measuring? Isn’t general relativity probabilistic just like quantum mechanics? GR is exceptionally good at predicting how large objects will move through space, but it is not perfect, and it is measuring objects in the past. For it to be perfect it would need to consider every variable in the universe. Like a butterfly could flap its wings on a planet in Andromeda that could cause an asteroid to hit mars and knock it out of its orbit. The further into the future we try to predict with GR the less accurate it becomes.
On the other hand, can’t QM be predictable just like GR if we measure short enough distances? For example, if we take the double slit experiment and place the electron gun and the screen only a few Planck lengths away from each other wouldn’t the wave function become a lot narrower or even become a single point?
To me it seems that all objects both large and small start off predictable like GR and become probabilistic like QM after a certain amount of time and distance. This amount of time is based on how much mass an object has. The more mass an object has the easier its movement is to predict through space but its not forever. So, GR and QM may not be different. One might just become before the other.
The barrier between these two theories is when we start to approach the present moment in time. The past is observable and measurable therefore predictable, and the future is unobservable and can only be probabilistic. When we look out into the universe we are looking into the past. That is why GR works so well. But when we are looking at particles it becomes unpredictable because we are making observations too close to the present moment and too close to the unobservable future.

Cat

Last edited:

#### Harry Costas

Quantum mechanics allows us to quantify objects in space to apply Special relativity and General Relativity.
Matter does effect electromagnetic waves and therefore the ability to communicate between objects, Relativity is directly related to that relation.

#### Harry Costas

Space and time has been a topic of discussion for over a century,
Can space be altered.
Can time be altered.
Matter within space can be altered .
Time, how we register it can be affected by the mass of the matter and the distance between,
If the mass is great enough to slow electromagnetic waves than our recording of time will alter.
Time does not change.

KEVIN JC

#### Atlan0001

Space and time has been a topic of discussion for over a century,
Can space be altered.
Can time be altered.
Matter within space can be altered .
Time, how we register it can be affected by the mass of the matter and the distance between,
If the mass is great enough to slow electromagnetic waves than our recording of time will alter.
Time does not change.
I can agree with you that time, as far as the depths of micro-verse quantum mechanics all the way down to the Planck level horizon is concerned, doesn't change. It's said that gravity distorts time. It can distort physical mechanisms on a macro-level, but not on the micro-level of quantum mechanics, thus not time itself.

Light as light -- and not quantum particle-wave -- is a macro-verse phenomena and can be distorted all to hell, thus observability of all things, including time, at any distance whatsoever, can be distorted all to hell. Two synchronized atomic clocks, one on Earth, one at 1g of constant thrust in space, can remain synchronized at each end as if quantum entangled with each other, but in no way will they ever be observed to be synchronized between them due to light's constancy distorting the distances of space and time between the two. Light's lengthening times between objects separating is observed to be time slowing for the non-rest frame object. It is the light between that is distorted and distorting time, not the objects on either end of a growing breakdown in relativity separating one universe united into two or more "local universes" divided and dividing as if they were quantum mechanical particles adhering to QM's principle of growing uncertainty.

Of course if the objects close upon one another, the distortion of time between caused by light, light-time distance and/or bending (the differences in momentum), remains but starts to shrink, a triangle of two unobserved and unobservable reals and an observable relative shrinking into itself until the two reals shake hands -- uncertainty at an end -- and the distorted relative space-time ghost / hologram is no more.

Alialawag

#### Harry Costas

I have tree questions:
Why has our sun got long Jeopardy? Est to now 7 billion yrs.
Does the classical Black Hole form?
How does a Spiral or Elliptical galaxy form?

#### Atlan0001

I thought this thread as good a place as any to further delve into the macro BB and the micro Planck horizons as being two manifestations of one and the same horizon. As usual when I want to do it by way of traveling I will use a traveler and the traveler's ship as my probe to reach where I want to go.

Most of here, I suppose, are aware that relatively speaking the Planck level horizon is our relative limit in reaching into the small. Supposedly we can't any farther down and in than that horizon. Well, I would agree that in a closed system that would be true, but what of the open system of depth as well as breadth? Saying there no deeper depths to the infinitely flat-smooth plane of space than the Planck level horizon is "flat Earth" kind of talk. In the open system of space simple constant acceleration or deceleration is the path to the verticality of the universes. Locally to the traveler the Planck level horizon would naturally remain constant to him for sheer physics to remain constant to him, but non-locally he could after a good long while surpass that horizon relative to the Earth. Meaning, he transited to another universe (by transiting to another plane of space -- a hyperplane or hyperspace) that might to him be no different than the Earth occupied universe he had left behind, but to someone on Earth he would have moved into something like one of Stephen Hawking's famous "baby universes" beyond the Planck level horizon. The Earth itself is in an observably finite, relative, universe, but as one of an infinity of finite universes, an infinity of infinities, it and the Earth in it exist -- in depth vertically -- in an infinitesimal point. Rather, alternatively, in a dimensionless point.

Under constant powering we would not travel the universe(s) "flat-Earth" 2-dimensionally horizontal. And once more the macro BB level and the micro Planck level horizons are two Alice-In-Wonderland / Through the Looking Glass -- like manifestations of one and the same constant of horizon. Relativity does break down. And elasticity, as I used and described it above in depth and in broad dimension, isn't just one or two dimensional.

#### Harry Costas

Slow burner of what?

The long life is controlled by a cyclic process,
The core is a condensate of extreme compaction. It contains 99 % mass of the solar system.
Under high compaction matter photo disintegrates into Neutrons and Protons.
Protons gain an electron and changes to Neutrons,
Neutrons compact and form a high dense medium.
Core property forms by Chiral Supersymmetry with a dipolar electromagnetic vector fields.
These vector fields vortices pump out Neutrons that change to Hydrogen and within the solar envelope Fuse to form Helium and the rest of the elements.
The core also attracts and pulls in matter that photo disintegrates back to Neutrons,
Cyclic process that produces 6o% of the Sun’s energy.
Fusion creates 35% est.
Fission creates 5 %.
The cycle is an Auto Dymano machine that allows the Sun to live longer.

If it was to burn out through Fusion than the life span would be short.

The Core gravity holds the solar envelope in position.
If the core loses mass than the envelope expands.
If the core gains too much mass than the vortex will penetrate to solar envelope and in some case form the hour glass formation and in other cases release droplets that expand to the size of the solar system. Yes we do have observations of both.

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I believe that most people with any knowledge of the subject would take 'slow burner' to refer to the hydrogen used up in the fusion reaction (followed by helium,) in stars the size of the Sun . This is in distinction to larger stars which 'burn up' their H and He in fusion reactions very much more quickly.

Cat

voidpotentialenergy

#### voidpotentialenergy

I believe that most people with any knowledge of the subject would take 'slow burner' to refer to the hydrogen used up in the fusion reaction (followed by helium,) in stars the size of the Sun . This is in distinction to larger stars which 'burn up' their H and He in fusion reactions very much more quickly.

Cat
And the tiny stars (red dwarfs) have all the hydrogen in the entire star for fusion.
Our yellow star does not and bigger burning faster stars have even less % of size for fusion.
Got to be amazed by some of the small red dwarfs 3 trillion year life span.

#### voidpotentialenergy

Slow burner of what?

The long life is controlled by a cyclic process,
The core is a condensate of extreme compaction. It contains 99 % mass of the solar system.
Under high compaction matter photo disintegrates into Neutrons and Protons.
Protons gain an electron and changes to Neutrons,
Neutrons compact and form a high dense medium.
Core property forms by Chiral Supersymmetry with a dipolar electromagnetic vector fields.
These vector fields vortices pump out Neutrons that change to Hydrogen and within the solar envelope Fuse to form Helium and the rest of the elements.
The core also attracts and pulls in matter that photo disintegrates back to Neutrons,
Cyclic process that produces 6o% of the Sun’s energy.
Fusion creates 35% est.
Fission creates 5 %.
The cycle is an Auto Dymano machine that allows the Sun to live longer.

If it was to burn out through Fusion than the life span would be short.

The Core gravity holds the solar envelope in position.
If the core loses mass than the envelope expands.
If the core gains too much mass than the vortex will penetrate to solar envelope and in some case form the hour glass formation and in other cases release droplets that expand to the size of the solar system. Yes we do have observations of both.
I have never read anything about these % of star energy conversion.
Gravity is the engine for sure but gravity IMO isn't cyclic just compressive.
Open mind to new ideas so please enlighten me

#### Harry Costas

FUSION CREATING the elements within the solar envelope has been a known understanding and part of a cyclic process. The paper below indicates that scientists are in the search to understand fusion within and out of the solar envelope.

[Submitted on 26 Jun 2020 (v1), last revised 22 Jul 2021 (this version, v2)]
Experimental evidence of neutrinos produced in the CNO fusion cycle in the Sun
M. Agostini, K. Altenmüller, S. Appel, V. Atroshchenko, Z. Bagdasarian, D. Basilico, G. Bellini, J. Benziger, R. Biondi, D. Bravo, B. Caccianiga, F. Calaprice, A. Caminata, P. Cavalcante, A. Chepurnov, D. D'Angelo, S. Davini, A. Derbin, A. Di Giacinto, V. Di Marcello, X.F. Ding, A. Di Ludovico, L. Di Noto, I. Drachnev, A. Formozov, D. Franco, C. Galbiati, C. Ghiano, M. Giammarchi, A. Goretti, A.S. Göttel, M. Gromov, D. Guffanti, Aldo Ianni, Andrea Ianni, A. Jany, D. Jeschke, V. Kobychev, G. Korga, S. Kumaran, M. Laubenstein, E. Litvinovich, P. Lombardi, I. Lomskaya, L. Ludhova, G. Lukyanchenko, L. Lukyanchenko, I. Machulin, J. Martyn, E. Meroni, M. Meyer, L. Miramonti, M. Misiaszek, V. Muratova, B. Neumair, M. Nieslony, R. Nugmanov, L. Oberauer, V. Orekhov, F. Ortica, M. Pallavicini, L. Papp, L. Pellicci, Ö. Penek, L. Pietrofaccia, N. Pilipenko, A. Pocar, G. Raikov, M.T. Ranalli, G. Ranucci, A. Razeto, A. Re, M. Redchuk, A. Romani, N. Rossi, S. Schönert, D. Semenov, G. Settanta, M. Skorokhvatov, A. Singhal, O. Smirnov, A. Sotnikov, Y. Suvorov, R. Tartaglia, G. Testera, J. Thurn, E. Unzhakov, F.L. Villante, A. Vishneva, R.B. Vogelaar, F. von Feilitzsch, M. Wojcik, M. Wurm, S. Zavatarelli, K. Zuber, G. Zuzel. The BOREXINO Collaboration
For most of their existence stars are fueled by the fusion of hydrogen into helium proceeding via two theoretically well understood processes, namely the pp chain and the CNO cycle. Neutrinos emitted along such fusion processes in the solar core are the only direct probe of the deep interior of the star. A complete spectroscopy of neutrinos from the {\it pp} chain, producing about 99\% of the solar energy, has already been performed \cite{bib:Nature-2018}. Here, we report the direct observation, with a high statistical significance, of neutrinos produced in the CNO cycle in the Sun. This is the first experimental evidence of this process obtained with the unprecedentedly radio-pure large-volume liquid-scintillator Borexino detector located at the underground Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso in Italy. The main difficulty of this experimental effort is to identify the excess of the few counts per day per 100 tonnes of target due to CNO neutrino interactions above the backgrounds. A novel method to constrain the rate of \bi contaminating the scintillator relies on the thermal stabilisation of the detector achieved over the past 5 years. In the CNO cycle, the hydrogen fusion is catalyzed by the carbon (C) - nitrogen (N) - oxygen (O) and thus its rate, as well as the flux of emitted CNO neutrinos, directly depends on the abundance of these elements in solar core. Therefore, this result paves the way to a direct measurement of the solar metallicity by CNO neutrinos. While this result quantifies the relative contribution of the CNO fusion in the Sun to be of the order of 1\%, this process is dominant in the energy production of massive stars. The occurrence of the primary mechanism for the stellar conversion of hydrogen into helium in the Universe has been proven.
 Comments: 43 pages, 14 figures Subjects: High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex); Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM); Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR); Instrumentation and Detectors (physics.ins-det) MSC classes: 85-05 ACM classes: G.3.1 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2934-0 Cite as: arXiv:2006.15115 [hep-ex] (or arXiv:2006.15115v2 [hep-ex] for this vers

#### voidpotentialenergy

FUSION CREATING the elements within the solar envelope has been a known understanding and part of a cyclic process. The paper below indicates that scientists are in the search to understand fusion within and out of the solar envelope.

[Submitted on 26 Jun 2020 (v1), last revised 22 Jul 2021 (this version, v2)]
Experimental evidence of neutrinos produced in the CNO fusion cycle in the Sun
M. Agostini, K. Altenmüller, S. Appel, V. Atroshchenko, Z. Bagdasarian, D. Basilico, G. Bellini, J. Benziger, R. Biondi, D. Bravo, B. Caccianiga, F. Calaprice, A. Caminata, P. Cavalcante, A. Chepurnov, D. D'Angelo, S. Davini, A. Derbin, A. Di Giacinto, V. Di Marcello, X.F. Ding, A. Di Ludovico, L. Di Noto, I. Drachnev, A. Formozov, D. Franco, C. Galbiati, C. Ghiano, M. Giammarchi, A. Goretti, A.S. Göttel, M. Gromov, D. Guffanti, Aldo Ianni, Andrea Ianni, A. Jany, D. Jeschke, V. Kobychev, G. Korga, S. Kumaran, M. Laubenstein, E. Litvinovich, P. Lombardi, I. Lomskaya, L. Ludhova, G. Lukyanchenko, L. Lukyanchenko, I. Machulin, J. Martyn, E. Meroni, M. Meyer, L. Miramonti, M. Misiaszek, V. Muratova, B. Neumair, M. Nieslony, R. Nugmanov, L. Oberauer, V. Orekhov, F. Ortica, M. Pallavicini, L. Papp, L. Pellicci, Ö. Penek, L. Pietrofaccia, N. Pilipenko, A. Pocar, G. Raikov, M.T. Ranalli, G. Ranucci, A. Razeto, A. Re, M. Redchuk, A. Romani, N. Rossi, S. Schönert, D. Semenov, G. Settanta, M. Skorokhvatov, A. Singhal, O. Smirnov, A. Sotnikov, Y. Suvorov, R. Tartaglia, G. Testera, J. Thurn, E. Unzhakov, F.L. Villante, A. Vishneva, R.B. Vogelaar, F. von Feilitzsch, M. Wojcik, M. Wurm, S. Zavatarelli, K. Zuber, G. Zuzel. The BOREXINO Collaboration

 Comments: 43 pages, 14 figures Subjects: High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex); Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM); Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR); Instrumentation and Detectors (physics.ins-det) MSC classes: 85-05 ACM classes: G.3.1 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2934-0 Cite as: arXiv:2006.15115 [hep-ex] (or arXiv:2006.15115v2 [hep-ex] for this vers
Interesting to think that even the fusion process in stars isn't that well understood. Thanks for the post.

#### Harry Costas

Fusion in stars is well understood and predictable.
Considering 35 % of the energy produced.

#### Neebert

Isn’t the only difference between general relativity and quantum mechanics the scale of time and space we are measuring? Isn’t general relativity probabilistic just like quantum mechanics? GR is exceptionally good at predicting how large objects will move through space, but it is not perfect, and it is measuring objects in the past. For it to be perfect it would need to consider every variable in the universe. Like a butterfly could flap its wings on a planet in Andromeda that could cause an asteroid to hit mars and knock it out of its orbit. The further into the future we try to predict with GR the less accurate it becomes.
On the other hand, can’t QM be predictable just like GR if we measure short enough distances? For example, if we take the double slit experiment and place the electron gun and the screen only a few Planck lengths away from each other wouldn’t the wave function become a lot narrower or even become a single point?
To me it seems that all objects both large and small start off predictable like GR and become probabilistic like QM after a certain amount of time and distance. This amount of time is based on how much mass an object has. The more mass an object has the easier its movement is to predict through space but its not forever. So, GR and QM may not be different. One might just become before the other.
The barrier between these two theories is when we start to approach the present moment in time. The past is observable and measurable therefore predictable, and the future is unobservable and can only be probabilistic. When we look out into the universe we are looking into the past. That is why GR works so well. But when we are looking at particles it becomes unpredictable because we are making observations too close to the present moment and too close to the unobservable future.
To be fair we don't understand either. Gravity is supposed to attract stuff? The universe is expanding. Quantum theory is more honest, it says we got no idea! I can't answer all the questions but the universe was tiny? It had less space? Space was created? It cab be destroyed?(gravity) What makes everything?(energy) What makes space?(energy) What are we missing? If space was created it must have been created in something?(The Meow) So why does energy not just always create space?(It's already in space) Why the big bang?(no space)

As for the quantum, everything happens, but only everything. Basically particle A can only be at point A once. If it can go to point B it will but it will also stay at point A. Maybe it goes I am tired of point B I will go back to point A. Oh, I am already at point A. I shall fuse with myself. (Tomas Youngs double slit experiment)

I don't have all the answers but the most important one I do. Be happy, the rest will sort itself out! ^_^

binbots

#### voidpotentialenergy

To be fair we don't understand either. Gravity is supposed to attract stuff? The universe is expanding. Quantum theory is more honest, it says we got no idea! I can't answer all the questions but the universe was tiny? It had less space? Space was created? It cab be destroyed?(gravity) What makes everything?(energy) What makes space?(energy) What are we missing? If space was created it must have been created in something?(The Meow) So why does energy not just always create space?(It's already in space) Why the big bang?(no space)

As for the quantum, everything happens, but only everything. Basically particle A can only be at point A once. If it can go to point B it will but it will also stay at point A. Maybe it goes I am tired of point B I will go back to point A. Oh, I am already at point A. I shall fuse with myself. (Tomas Youngs double slit experiment)

I don't have all the answers but the most important one I do. Be happy, the rest will sort itself out! ^_^
If the medium of the universe is nothing then do particles have location?
Going on a trip that takes you through nothing also allows for dual travel (double split) answer with a very simple reason.
Both do exist on different travel plans.

fluctuation IMO is potential energy points with 0 most of the time when fluctuation isn't happening.
Mostly nothing.

Quantum mechanics is after all following an underlying property of space or lack of it.

JMO

#### Harry Costas

To understand expansion one needs to understand attraction.
We know we cannot create or destroy matter.
So what creates the vector fields that cause expansion and attraction?
Out there we observe expansion, eg M87 jets expanding and within the jets star formations.
We also see matter attracted into M87.
We see our local group of galaxies cluster together and our local group of galaxies cluster to form a super cluster. There are many super clusters of galaxies.

#### voidpotentialenergy

To understand expansion one needs to understand attraction.
We know we cannot create or destroy matter.
So what creates the vector fields that cause expansion and attraction?
Out there we observe expansion, eg M87 jets expanding and within the jets star formations.
We also see matter attracted into M87.
We see our local group of galaxies cluster together and our local group of galaxies cluster to form a super cluster. There are many super clusters of galaxies.
Conservation of energy does not apply to quantum fluctuation since it creates and destroy energy/matter all the time.
Hints at the possibility that quantum fluctuation is the cause of conservation of energy in an energy balance that sets conservation of energy.

If expansion of space was a universal thing then we would have expansion between Earth/Moon, none is detected.
Also expansion would never allow 2 galaxies to merge but we see galaxies merge and have been merging from the start.

Expansion IMO is a created reason for what we see but solid proof that expansion is part of reality is fleeting at best.
Adding things like dark energy/matter to make expansion work is trying to fill the first theory's holes.

#### Harry Costas

You cannot create or destroy matter or energy.

Matter and energy may transient to another form.

If you are caught in an expansion you would think, things are expanding.
If you are caught in a contraction you would think that things are contracting.

What I’m trying to say is that we do have contraction and expansion on small, large and monster observations.

#### voidpotentialenergy

You cannot create or destroy matter or energy.

Matter and energy may transient to another form.

If you are caught in an expansion you would think, things are expanding.
If you are caught in a contraction you would think that things are contracting.

What I’m trying to say is that we do have contraction and expansion on small, large and monster observations.
Conservation of energy only applies to our time scale.
Fluctuation creates and destroys energy at time scale that make 1 second look like a long time.
If fluctuation can break conservation law is it really a law or a balance of energy created by the activity of fluctuation?

All depends of what the expansion or contraction is.
If the universe is the contraction or expansion then it's a mute point of either since no defined end exists to do either in.

If our universe is in a medium of nothing as the tiniest thing then no movement really exists.

If our universe/BB area is just 1 then we are expanding towards something else (another bunch of BB areas)

Expansion tries to explain how the BB happened in the first place, how faster than C appears to exist etc etc.

Same thing happens in a medium of (nothing) for faster than C as more (nothing) is created as space gets larger.

Starting a BB could be as simple as products created by fluctuation that stay permanent until it balances energy then conservation of energy is set.

Given we have forever in space for fluctuation and fluctuation was creating permanent particles it will eventually merge other areas doing the same thing until to much energy is is one area. (BB) and probably an infinite number of them in all possible formats.

JMO

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
VPE,

Yes, I think that we are getting deep into the area of 'creational philosophy' here.

Cat

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
4K