General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

[Catastrophe]

In contrast, light waves can travel through a vacuum, and do not require a medium. In empty space, the wave does not dissipate (grow smaller) no matter how far it travels, because the wave is not interacting with anything else. ... In this case, some light is absorbed and lost as heat, just like sound.23 Jan 2013

Q & A: Does light travel forever? - Physics Van
https://van.physics.illinois.edu › listing › t=does-light-trav...



Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

In contrast, light waves can travel through a vacuum, and do not require a medium. In empty space, the wave does not dissipate (grow smaller) no matter how far it travels, because the wave is not interacting with anything else. ... In this case, some light is absorbed and lost as heat, just like sound.23 Jan 2013
Q & A: Does light travel forever? - Physics Van
https://van.physics.illinois.edu › listing › t=does-light-trav...



Cat

As light travels through a vacuum it is cosmologically red-shifted, its wavelength gets stretched by expanding space. As it becomes redder it also loses energy. This shows that space is not empty, because nothing can't expand, it needs to consist of something in order to expand. It also shows that space has some sort of grip on the light in order to stretch it. So for me, that still leaves open the question of whether light is travelling in a medium of some sort

 

[Catastrophe]

David,
"So for me, that still leaves open the question of whether light is travelling in a medium of some sort "

That is a very good question, with shades of aether appearing. What could upset the Michelson-Morley experiment, or invalidate it? I am no expert, but I have problems with expansion of 'space'. I used to trot out answers to the question "what is space expanding into?" but now I am thinking that I was responding without really thinking what I was saying. What is it that is expanding? How is this affecting light (OK, I know about red shifting) and why? How is thus 'why' connected with the nature of space? Non-isotropic aether?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

A star becomes smaller in the light with distance gained from the star, galaxy, whatever, toward any foreground local point from any background non-local point.. It has to do with accumulating periphery of space and time and interference into the frame. Periphery deals in not only shrinkage within photo frame but puts it in the past, all the way to far into the past. 4-dimensionally it puts it in a hole, deeper and deeper into a hole, a point in and of the Universe (U), the point then a horizon particle and some far distant, to infinitely distant, parallel universe.

It's a Multiverse Universe.
---------------------------

Seen in the distance are stars and whole galaxies that supposedly formed in cosmologically-practically no time flat. Cosmologically, the latitudinal and longitudinal lines are more distantly apart closer to any foreground local here and now (any of an infinity of foreground localities). They become observationally closer and closer together with all distance gaining from the foreground local toward the background non-local. Latitudinally, and longitudinally, closer and closer together the more into the background until crunching into, disappearing into, countlessly many, infinitely many, points of distant horizon (distant horizon points), making up the background fixed mural of the Planck Big Bang Horizon. Billions and billions of years there are observed here to become only millions to billions of years, if even that. Space and time is observed to be more closed, more crunched, that way, opening up, widening out, lengthening, this way..... latitudinally and longitudinally. No difference near and far, really speaking that is, becomes enormous difference, relatively speaking that is. We, too, are inside, while yet outside, the mural of the Planck Big Bang Horizon. We are on both sides of the event horizon.

It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

A question. Does such entanglement require communication to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light?

An oddity happens traveling through nothing.
Going at any set speed has no basic law so anything that can travel through it goes at instant speed.
Going through nothing is it really traveling through no space no time?
Could be the most simple way spooky action and gravity seem to communicate at instant speed.
Communication of gravity entangled atoms might not even exist, they could from perspective be together even though they exist on other sides of the universe since the space and time between them is nothing.

JMO

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IMO it would take time to travel through a void. The distance between objects can be defined as how many objects you could fit in between. The distance remains whether there's a void or not between them. A void automatically rules out the transmission of any kind of wave through a medium, so the only way to affect a distant object would be to physically project something at it, and that can't be instant. So from post my 39;

"What you can be sure of is that nothing is instantaneous. Everything that happens needs a cause. 2 related things happening together would require the cause to travel at infinite speed, which is impossible. For something to cause an effect at distance needs some kind of mechanism, it's not done by magic."

Instantaneous for me, is nonsense.

Then we have gravity that seems to defy all common thinking of the universe.
For sure a mechanism exists so it can at minimum broadcast location to all other gravity sources instantly.
Us orbiting the sun at it's true location a good example of it.

All guess work for me about gravity but it is showing we have some hidden mechanism for gravity that is active for C speed waves and instant location awareness.

(Nothing) travel IMO is just the simplest way to do it.

I doubt the universe is full to the brim with quantum fields and energy waves.
It would cause trouble for conservation of energy with expansion to be full.

No new energy creation in expansion just balance of energy so it can't be full unless conservation of energy is a property of quantum fluctuation balance act from what would have been nothing before expansion expanded it.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IMO it would take time to travel through a void. The distance between objects can be defined as how many objects you could fit in between. The distance remains whether there's a void or not between them. A void automatically rules out the transmission of any kind of wave through a medium, so the only way to affect a distant object would be to physically project something at it, and that can't be instant. So from post my 39;

"What you can be sure of is that nothing is instantaneous. Everything that happens needs a cause. 2 related things happening together would require the cause to travel at infinite speed, which is impossible. For something to cause an effect at distance needs some kind of mechanism, it's not done by magic."

Instantaneous for me, is nonsense.

Lets set up the split plate experiment with the concept of mediums.
(Nothing) and quantum fields.
We set up the plate and fire atoms at it and get the interference pattern of atoms passing the quantum field and bouncing off the plate other than the holes.
We also get atoms that seem to have gone right through the plate like it didn't exist.
Having those atoms between fields accounts for them not seeing the plate at all and only random events of the marker behind it.

Exact pattern we get on the experiment.

Not saying I'm right about medium of transpher but it does match the outcome and is a very simple solution to it.

Neutrinos going through planets without an encounter might be showing that mechanism is real and has a simple solution all in how they travel.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

David,
"So for me, that still leaves open the question of whether light is travelling in a medium of some sort "

That is a very good question, with shades of aether appearing. What could upset the Michelson-Morley experiment, or invalidate it? I am no expert, but I have problems with expansion of 'space'. I used to trot out answers to the question "what is space expanding into?" but now I am thinking that I was responding without really thinking what I was saying. What is it that is expanding? How is this affecting light (OK, I know about red shifting) and why? How is thus 'why' connected with the nature of space? Non-isotropic aether?

Cat

Could be as simple as fields or not fields.
Traveling in quantum field lines or between them.
Neutrinos traveling between fields so going through a planet without an encounter is normal, hitting something an oddity.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Neutrinos traveling between fields so going through a planet without an encounter is normal, hitting something an oddity."

Is that a matter of wavelength?

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

An oddity happens traveling through nothing.
Going at any set speed has no basic law so anything that can travel through it goes at instant speed.
Going through nothing is it really traveling through no space no time?
Could be the most simple way spooky action and gravity seem to communicate at instant speed.
Communication of gravity entangled atoms might not even exist, they could from perspective be together even though they exist on other sides of the universe since the space and time between them is nothing.

JMO

In our normal space place two objects one metre apart. If something is projected from one object to the other it will take time, I think you will agree with that.

Now with the same setup if you could somehow remove everything in the space between these objects, all the quantum fields and quantum foam or whatever else is there, why does that make a difference to the distance between the objects, you could still fit a 1-metre ruler between them. why are you saying that an object will move instantly between them now just because it's void between them?

 

[David-J-Franks]

Then we have gravity that seems to defy all common thinking of the universe.
For sure a mechanism exists so it can at minimum broadcast location to all other gravity sources instantly.
Us orbiting the sun at it's true location a good example of it.

All guess work for me about gravity but it is showing we have some hidden mechanism for gravity that is active for C speed waves and instant location awareness.

(Nothing) travel IMO is just the simplest way to do it.

I doubt the universe is full to the brim with quantum fields and energy waves.
It would cause trouble for conservation of energy with expansion to be full.

No new energy creation in expansion just balance of energy so it can't be full unless conservation of energy is a property of quantum fluctuation balance act from what would have been nothing before expansion expanded it.

I doubt the universe is full to the brim with quantum fields and energy waves.

Why then do people speak of space expanding, if it's nothing it can't expand because you can't expand 'nothing', there has to be something there for it to be expanded. Another reason is that Einstein said mass warps space, well again you can't warp 'nothing', so there must be something there to warp. So, I think space is full of something but what I don't know. I would love to know what Einstein thought space-time was full of because I think he came up with that idea before all quantum fields and quantum foam ideas.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Lets set up the split plate experiment with the concept of mediums.
(Nothing) and quantum fields.
We set up the plate and fire atoms at it and get the interference pattern of atoms passing the quantum field and bouncing off the plate other than the holes.
We also get atoms that seem to have gone right through the plate like it didn't exist.
Having those atoms between fields accounts for them not seeing the plate at all and only random events of the marker behind it.

Exact pattern we get on the experiment.

Not saying I'm right about medium of transpher but it does match the outcome and is a very simple solution to it.

Neutrinos going through planets without an encounter might be showing that mechanism is real and has a simple solution all in how they travel.

I've never heard it said the atoms go through the plate in the double slit experiment I have always been under the impression the atoms go through the slits and then because they have wavelike properties they interfere with each other and produce an interference pattern on the screen. If they do go through the plate I would be interested if you could show me any literature about that please.

I suspect that the pattern from random statistical distribution is a different shape curve to an interference pattern curve, but there again I'm no expert on that.

Neutrinos going through planets still take time though.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Could be as simple as fields or not fields.
Traveling in quantum field lines or between them.
Neutrinos traveling between fields so going through a planet without an encounter is normal, hitting something an oddity.

I don't think quantum field lines would actually exist if the comparison with other fields is similar. For example you see lines on the weather map there are lines on a map with mountains on to show the height and there are also lines in a diagram of a magnetic field. All these lines are just joining up all the places of equal value and are not physically there. they're just graphical representations of the particular value of something at that point. So if quantum fields are similar to other fields, then they will just vary smoothly from one place to another without any lines, which also is why I keep saying space is full of something.

 

[Catastrophe]

This is just an idea which struck me whilst reading about contour lines (your #63). I first thought that you could represent gradients, say, 0-50, 50-100, etc., Then I thought that you could orient these gradients to indicate the direction of slope. Then I thought that this is actually what some of these representations look like / are.
The point of this is, of course, that this method of representation can be applied to entities oscillating between limits. Instead of gradients 0-50 etc., you can substitute end values of variants.

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

This is just an idea which struck me whilst reading about contour lines (your #63). I first thought that you could represent gradients, say, 0-50, 50-100, etc., Then I thought that you could orient these gradients to indicate the direction of slope. Then I thought that this is actually what some of these representations look like / are.
The point of this is, of course, that this method of representation can be applied to entities oscillating between limits. Instead of gradients 0-50 etc., you can substitute end values of variants.

Cat

Gosh, you've lost me here. The part where you say "Then I thought that you could orient these gradients to indicate the direction of slope." is where I also lose my orientation. I must admit I forgot what a gradient was for a minute so I had to ask Google. The first things it suggested were the colour gradients or graphic representations on a computer. Then it went onto sloping roads. Finally, I went to Wikipedia knowing I'd get the full epistle there.

Gradient - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Is this what you are trying to say

Seriously though, isn't the direction of the slope just a line perpendicular to the contour line? Also what oscillating entities did you have in mind?

 

[Catastrophe]

David,
What I mean, is that you replace contour lines of (for example) equal height, with lines joining points of (say) 0 and 50 feet elevation. Thus you keep your contours, indicating 0 and 50 feet (as faint construction lines) and join points on them.
If you think about it, if the slope is gentle, it is a long distance between 0 and 50 feet. If it is steep, then the 0 and 50 points are close together. In a cliff, the contours (and the lines between them) are very close/short.
Of course you can do just this, giving an artistic version of a contour map, and you may already have seen such.
Why then do this at all?
Well, with ordinary contour maps, the height points are fixed and easily measurable. I am suggesting that it might be useful to adopt this where the points are not fixed (as in heights) but variable as in quantum variations described. Here, the points do not represent heights, but variation limits. If the "contours" are close together, this signifies little variation; conversely, "contours" far apart signify wide limits.
It is the same principle as drawing two parallel lines on a graph to show the limits in one variable against another. For example, take wave height. When graphed against another variable (tides, for example) one line might represent wave height at high tide, the other at low tide.
I was just trying to suggest a way of representing variations which might occur in a quantum (probability) context, as compared with measurable variables at normal levels.
This method may already be well known - it is just that I have not come up with it.

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

David,
What I mean, is that you replace contour lines of (for example) equal height, with lines joining points of (say) 0 and 50 feet elevation. Thus you keep your contours, indicating 0 and 50 feet (as faint construction lines) and join points on them.
If you think about it, if the slope is gentle, it is a long distance between 0 and 50 feet. If it is steep, then the 0 and 50 points are close together. In a cliff, the contours (and the lines between them) are very close/short.
Of course you can do just this, giving an artistic version of a contour map, and you may already have seen such.
Why then do this at all?
Well, with ordinary contour maps, the height points are fixed and easily measurable. I am suggesting that it might be useful to adopt this where the points are not fixed (as in heights) but variable as in quantum variations described. Here, the points do not represent heights, but variation limits. If the "contours" are close together, this signifies little variation; conversely, "contours" far apart signify wide limits.
It is the same principle as drawing two parallel lines on a graph to show the limits in one variable against another. For example, take wave height. When graphed against another variable (tides, for example) one line might represent wave height at high tide, the other at low tide.
I was just trying to suggest a way of representing variations which might occur in a quantum (probability) context, as compared with measurable variables at normal levels.
This method may already be well known - it is just that I have not come up with it.

Cat

Thanks, that's a bit clearer. Things like this really need pictures though.

 

[Catastrophe]

OK, but I am not very good at art:

https://imgur.com/a/GqptvJJ

View: https://imgur.com/a/GqptvJJ

The longer lines represent shallow gradients, the shorter - steeper.
If you removed the contours, the lines should give you the impression of gradient.
There is a cross-section at the RHS for comparison.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"Neutrinos traveling between fields so going through a planet without an encounter is normal, hitting something an oddity."

Is that a matter of wavelength?

Cat

Maybe just an entry point of quantum fields.
Peak, valley or void.
Almost everything traveling at the peak of waves so everything interacts with everything , neutrinos at the valley that encounters are very rare, gravity non interactive so distance/time doesn't exist to any location.

Guess but interesting way to think of what quantum fluctuations effect of everything might be.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

In our normal space place two objects one metre apart. If something is projected from one object to the other it will take time, I think you will agree with that.

Now with the same setup if you could somehow remove everything in the space between these objects, all the quantum fields and quantum foam or whatever else is there, why does that make a difference to the distance between the objects, you could still fit a 1-metre ruler between them. why are you saying that an object will move instantly between them now just because it's void between them?

If the measures on the ruler have nothing between them how big is the ruler?
If nothing exists at any level trying to measure things on a medium of nothing is going to make any measure wrong.
Dots in a sea of nothing will all be together with no space/time between them.
Nothing causing trouble again

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I've never heard it said the atoms go through the plate in the double slit experiment I have always been under the impression the atoms go through the slits and then because they have wavelike properties they interfere with each other and produce an interference pattern on the screen. If they do go through the plate I would be interested if you could show me any literature about that please.

I suspect that the pattern from random statistical distribution is a different shape curve to an interference pattern curve, but there again I'm no expert on that.

Neutrinos going through planets still take time though.

Wish i could give info but i think i might be the only one thinking about the experiment in a simple way and not really weird physics for it to happen.

Quantum field entry points different for wave and particle is the simplest reason the experiment might have the simplest solution.

If that isn't the solution then our universe is odd indeed with some pretty weird physics behind everything.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

David can't find the original post to reply about expansion into nothing but did see it.
If expansion really exists then the universe is getting larger by expanding what was nothing into quantum fluctuation.
Breaking the law of conservation of energy unless quantum fluctuation expands from nothing and sets conservation of energy as it goes.

Quantum fluctuation being created from a property of instability of nothing breaks no physics laws or conservation of energy laws.
That could be the answer to Cyclic ugly as we run into, merge, eat or are eaten by other universes over unthinkable time scales.

If the universe started with a set energy and no more as you go then expansion would slowly be decreasing energy/time/space until it can't expand.
That could be the answer to a single cyclic universe but unthinkable time scale for it to happen.

Guess we will have to wait for the answer

 

[Catastrophe]

Question - What are we expanding into? | Space.com Forums

Do you mean this thread?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Quantum measurements of transients is possible.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

What if the universe isn't really expanding.
Just filling in nada with quantum fluctuation as is goes so the conservation of energy looks static.
Areas with little mass will look like they expand faster and areas with more mass expand slower.
That is what we tend to see in the universe on large scales and regional scales and allows galaxies to collide/merge.

Expansion might not be space expanding but nada being consumed.
JMO