General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Feb 3, 2020
88
45
560
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
[/Q

Any thoughts about the interpretation of redshift observations in this scenario?
 
I think red shift would look about the same.
More nada filled in further you look back so red shifts of distant things should look like they do.

Things caught in a gravity well like Earth/moon will have no expansion or so small an amount it's undetectable.
Earth moon lack of expansion is a killer for traditional space expansion.
Same for galaxies merging is a killer for traditional expansion.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
VPE, I see what you mean, but gravity is supposed to overcome expansion in local places. However, this seems to suggest that mass is occupying a smaller volume of space as space expands - perhaps due to mass? Is mass contracting space locally?

Cat :)
 
VPE, I see what you mean, but gravity is supposed to overcome expansion in local places. However, this seems to suggest that mass is occupying a smaller volume of space as space expands - perhaps due to mass? Is mass contracting space locally?

Cat :)
For sure we have some pretty odd expansion in our universe.
When you look way back it looks like C is defeated and space has expanded very much.
Locally expansion is more like contraction.
Could be some property of mass/area that has no nada to expand and gravity has the upper hand.

My guess is galactic black holes halt expansion locally well beyond the edge of a galaxy so that local expansion and distant expansion are very different.
That mechanism would give us a way for 2 galaxies to merge.
With just space expansion having 2 galaxies merge seems impossible.
 
Apr 13, 2021
97
5
35
To understand we need to look at the physics of quantum matter.
I good look for you, but the journey of discovery is omnipotent.
Do not stop researching.
arXiv.com Collin University
Look at
Chiral Supersymmetry
Condensates
Transients
Neutron Matter
Quark matter
Partonic matter
Axion Glue on matter
People will spend years trying to understand the simplicity of Chaos.
 
Apr 13, 2021
97
5
35
The process within a condensate is understood by Chiral SUPERSYMMETRY that creates the dipolar electromagnetic magnetic vector fields that expels matter from the core.
The core also pulls in matter. If the condensate has enough mass probably Quark matter or Partonic matter the vector fields pulling in may prevent ER from escaping thus a mimic Black hole without a singularity.
The vortices formed may come into view light years away from the core, because the The Event Horizon prevents us from seeing the core.
So we have a true cyclic event.
So the core does it all. Expels and contracts matter.
M87 is quite large 8 billion so solar mass
Core of Super Cluster of Galaxies can be much over 100 billion solar masses. Along the vortices we observe millions of stars that are seeded.
 
Apr 13, 2021
97
5
35
[Submitted on 31 Jul 2021]
Inflation and Supersymmetry Breaking in Higgs-R2 Supergravity
Shuntaro Aoki, Hyun Min Lee, Adriana G. Menkara
We propose a new construction of the supergravity inflation as an UV completion of the Higgs-R2 inflation. In the dual description of R2-supergravity, we show that there appear dual chiral superfields containing the scalaron or sigma field in the Starobinsky inflation, which unitarizes the supersymmetric Higgs inflation with a large non-minimal coupling up to the Planck scale. We find that a successful slow-roll inflation is achievable in the Higgs-sigma field space, but under the condition that higher curvature terms are introduced to cure the tachyonic mass problems for spectator singlet scalar fields. We also discuss supersymmetry breaking and its transmission to the visible sector as a result of the couplings of the dual chiral superfields and the non-minimal gravity coupling of the Higgs fields.
 
[Submitted on 31 Jul 2021]
Inflation and Supersymmetry Breaking in Higgs-R2 Supergravity
Shuntaro Aoki, Hyun Min Lee, Adriana G. Menkara
I think the answer is in conservation of energy.
Expansion of space with no real mechanism for it will break conservation laws.
Quantum fluctuation being the result of expansion of nada and the quantum fluctuation e balance the mechanism of conservation gives us a natural reason for both.

Just a different way to think of expansion but does give some interesting results with very simple reasons that stay within universal laws.
JMO
 
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
Relatively speaking, e=mc^2 (m=e/c^2). Where 'c'=300,000kps.

Gravity has always been -- and is always to be -- emergent (short of a fixed / constant background infinity). And, therefore, is elastically expansive (potentially to infinity.... short of a fixed / constant background infinity). And elastically expanding (potentially to infinity... short of a fixed / constant background infinity).

Universes (parallel universes (u)) expand to infinity.... all the way to merger into the fixed / constant background infinity (aka open systemic "boundarylessness" and [losses of] / [gains in] relativity).

When the Universe (U) is nothing but energy, it is nothing but mass, a [binary] / [duality of] dimensionality. Closed systemically, the infinite Cosmopolis in light: Closed systemically, infinitely massive and dark at the speed of light.

The diameter of the closed systemic circle: '0'-----|-----'c' ('c'-----|-----'0').
'c'='0'.

Relatively speaking, m=e/c^2 (e=mc^2). Where 'c'=300,000kps.
 
Apr 28, 2021
14
14
15
Lets look at this idea using the many worlds interpretation of QM. It says that the universe keeps splitting as time progresses. Which is caused by the wave function. But we don’t live in a universe full of many worlds and waves. We live in one world full of particles. We live in the present moment surrounded by the past. The future is where these probable worlds and wave functions exist. But as the present moment moves through the future these probable worlds and wave functions collapse into the one universe we observe. The world where GR exist
 
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
Lets look at this idea using the many worlds interpretation of QM. It says that the universe keeps splitting as time progresses. Which is caused by the wave function. But we don’t live in a universe full of many worlds and waves. We live in one world full of particles. We live in the present moment surrounded by the past. The future is where these probable worlds and wave functions exist. But as the present moment moves through the future these probable worlds and wave functions collapse into the one universe we observe. The world where GR exist
I disagree with what I consider one glaring error. There is only one path that can be taken from any and all outer ring-wave-horizons of pasts (-) to Now (t=0): inner ring-wave-horizons of futures (+).

Einstein married "past-future" with no regard at all for "Now" (t=0). He deliberately ignored its existence and kept on deliberately ignoring it, that I can find. It was a big problem for his best friend, logician mathematician Kurt Godel, and has been a big problem ever since. So be it indivisible. It was a big problem with me until just recently. Well, now, I've kept his marriage solidly together (indivisible), so to speak, and found "Now" (t=0) and where it fits outside of the indivisibility of "past-future." It fits as hard result constant (t=0), the singular finality, to his soft marriage (-/+) that, as is, is actually finitely-infinitely elastic and plural space-time(s) (thus inherently-intrinsically-ultimately, 'Gravity' (including quantum gravity)).

Once more, "Now" is result / finality (it is a reductionist constant (t=0)!). Not 'of a piece with...'. It is not an ax to chop Einstein's, and the Universe's, indivisible unity of "past-future" continuum into any incoherent 'dis-continuum'. And far more importantly, that singularly indivisible unity (-/+), ever singularly undivided (-/+), allows for "uncertainty" in universes, in space-times micro-verse-wise and macro-verse-wise, to infinities. Now (t=0 (constant!) brings the chaos Einstein inadvertently revealed, and made (almost driving his best friend "batty", so to speak), including all potential chaos, back to something approximating order and sanity. And quite sanely insane the Universe is!
----------------------------------
Gravity:

(Light : blue shift):
Infinity (t=1) (constant!) > ((past (elastic) (-) > future (elastic) (+)) > Now (t=0) (constant!).
Infinity
(t=1) (constant!) > ((pasts (infinities of) (-) > futures (infinities of) (+)) > Now (t=0) (constant!).

(Light : redshift):
Now (t=0) (constant!) > (future (elastic) (+) > past (elastic) (-)) > Infinity (t=1) (constant!)
Now
(t=0) (constant!) > (futures (infinities of) (+) > pasts (infinities of) (-)) > Infinity (t=1) (constant!)
----------------------------------
It is a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: binbots
Apr 28, 2021
14
14
15
I wish I knew how to explain this all better because once you see it you can't unsee it. I guess if I knew how to do the math it would make things a lot easier.
 
Apr 28, 2021
14
14
15
I disagree with what I consider one glaring error. There is only one path that can be taken from any outer ring-wave-horizons of pasts (-) to Now (t=0): inner ring-wave-horizons of futures (+). Einstein married "past-future" with no regard at all for "Now" (t=0). He deliberately ignored its existence and kept on deliberately ignoring it, that I can find. It was a big problem for his best friend, logician mathematician Kurt Godel, and has been a big problem ever since. So be they indivisible. It was a big problem with me until just recently. Well, now, I've kept his marriage solidly together (indivisible), so to speak, and found "Now" (t=0) and where it fits outside of the indivisibility of "past-future." It fits as hard result constant (t=0), the singular finality, to his soft marriage (-/+) that, as is, is actually finitely-infinitely elastic and plural space-time (thus inherently-intrinsically-ultimately, 'Gravity' (including quantum gravity)).

Once more, it is result / finality (it is a reductionist constant (t=0)!). Not 'of a piece with...'.
----------------------------------
Gravity:
((past (elastic) (-) --> future (elastic) (+)) --> Now (t=0 (constant!)).)
((pasts (infinities of) (-) --> futures (infinities of) (+)) --> Now (t=0 (constant!)).)
Well maybe he shouldn't have ignored the present because it is the present that seperates and collapses the probablistic future into the particle past which we observe.
 
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
The Universe gains nothing and loses nothing. We may be free to deal in gains and losses, in "possibilities" and "probabilities" (in branching universes at every decision point of even a particle), but the Universe in large aspect won't and doesn't. Einstein said, and I quote, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." To which Stephen Hawking much later responded, and I probably don't have it exactly (or care if I don't), "Oh yes He does," (play dice with the Universe), "but they're loaded!"

The reason we are reasonably free to do so, down to even particles being reasonably free to do so, is because the Universe at its largest and smallest, one and the same, isn't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: binbots
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
I wish I knew how to explain this all better because once you see it you can't unsee it. I guess if I knew how to do the math it would make things a lot easier.
I'm not sure exactly whom I was reading as it was so long ago, but one of the more famous of physicists said we were going to need "a new math" to picture better some of things physics coming on-line then and in the future. I say not a new mathematics needed but the renewal -- a great renaissance -- of the philosophy of physics: In turn renewing the lost physics of and behind philosophies.

Also, Stephen Hawking among some other physicists, lamented greatly that physics has lost so much of its philosophy and philosophical capability (which it had been so closely allied to, or rather symbiotic with, throughout history) that it had almost dulled itself, and the minds of physicists regarding its clarity of picturing (regarding the vast majority of explanation to the vastest majority of humanity). You can remove so much of philosophy from physics, attempting to sharpen the picture (believing you are sharpening the picture), that you actually lose the clarity of, thus any real understanding of, the picture. In other words, in mapping the territory, most particularly regarding the Universe at large, the physicist may mathematically map the territory reasonably accurately but not really understand his map at all as to accurate, qualitied, interpretation of it, and the territory it maps, in internal and external language. That needs quality philosophical, and also quality logic, grounding and/or backing.

Kurt Godel was not Albert Einstein's best friend because of his superior ability at mathematics. As I read their walks and talks, they did not argue or dispute the accuracy of the mathematics of physics, they [famously] went above and beyond to and for the clarity in the logic and the philosophy of the physics. Having a reasonably good mind and background grounding for these things (not necessarily tied to the "profession of physics"), regardless of lesser mathematical abilities, you can run with them. Though you cannot match their -- the mathematical physicists' -- mapping of the territory with math, you can match, even beat upon occasion, especially concerning the Universe at large, their interpretations and understanding of the very maps they, themselves, produced. This is what Einstein meant by his non-specific "Great spirits...." rather than using any term that would apply strictly to physicists, mathematicians, or any other strict professional.

So don't worry yourself (abilities-wise) about making "things a lot easier" if only.... If you're interested enough, if you want it enough, just go and do things the hard way. Follow Admiral David Farragut's philosophy and forceful wit regarding doing things the hard way if need be and wanted enough, "damn the torpedoes!"
-----------------------------------

Also concerning taking the time and effort:
"The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones." -- Old Chinese proverb

And:
"He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." "The universe is wider than our views of it." -- both, Henry David Thoreau.
--------------------------


It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: binbots
Apr 28, 2021
14
14
15
I'm not sure exactly whom I was reading as it was so long ago, but one of the more famous of physicists said we were going to need "a new math" to picture better some of things physics coming on-line then and in the future. I say not a new mathematics needed but the renewal -- a great renaissance -- of the philosophy of physics: In turn renewing the lost physics of and behind philosophies.

Also, Stephen Hawking among some other physicists, lamented greatly that physics has lost so much of its philosophy and philosophical capability (which it had been so closely allied to, or rather symbiotic with, throughout history) that it had almost dulled itself, and the minds of physicists regarding its clarity of picturing (regarding the vast majority of explanation to the vastest majority of humanity). You can remove so much of philosophy from physics, attempting to sharpen the picture (believing you are sharpening the picture), that you actually lose the clarity of, thus any real understanding of, the picture. In other words, in mapping the territory, most particularly regarding the Universe at large, the physicist may mathematically map the territory reasonably accurately but not really understand his map at all as to accurate, qualitied, interpretation of it, and the territory it maps, in internal and external language. That needs quality philosophical, and also quality logic, grounding and/or backing.

Kurt Godel was not Albert Einstein's best friend because of his superior ability at mathematics. As I read their walks and talks, they did not argue or dispute the accuracy of the mathematics of physics, they [famously] went above and beyond to and for the clarity in the logic and the philosophy of the physics. Having a reasonably good mind and background grounding for these things (not necessarily tied to the "profession of physics"), regardless of lesser mathematical abilities, you can run with them. Though you cannot match their -- the mathematical physicists' -- mapping of the territory with math, you can match, even beat upon occasion, especially concerning the Universe at large, their interpretations and understanding of the very maps they, themselves, produced. This is what Einstein meant by his non-specific "Great spirits...." rather than using any term that would apply strictly to physicists, mathematicians, or any other strict professional.

So don't worry yourself (abilities-wise) about making "things a lot easier" if only.... If you're interested enough, if you want it enough, just go and do things the hard way. Follow Admiral David Farragut's philosophy and forceful wit regarding doing things the hard way if need be and wanted enough, "damn the torpedoes!"
-----------------------------------

Also concerning taking the time and effort:
"The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones." -- Old Chinese proverb

And:
"He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." "The universe is wider than our views of it." -- both, Henry David Thoreau.
--------------------------


It's a Multiverse Universe.
Thank you for that :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
This is as good a place as any to, metaphorically (I suppose is best), bang my head on a certain wall of physics, cosmology, mathematics, and logic, "of-a-piece-with" the physic known as "uncertainty." It is even the bit base, along with the third dimension of the "parity bit" to go with the 2-, 1-, and 0-dimensionality, of computing. It, though, is mostly known as "0 and/or 1." "Base binary." I can't get below it without losing my "Multiverse Universe" model : The model, the painting, the picture; altogether, the multi-dimensionality.

You can't divide by '0', supposedly, and dividing (/) or multiplying (x) by '1' is meaningless, equally supposedly.

My "cosmological constant" isn't actually "0", it is '0' and/or '1'. And if you had spent the vast majority of a lifetime with computers, working with computers, the inner works of computing, gaining over time, or having to begin with, perception into the core being of them, I think you would know what that means when it comes to your thought processes. Anyone and everyone who simply uses them, and / or is hypnotized and mesmerized by them, drowning, so to speak, in them, has no such perception of multi-dimensionality; no such controlled processes of multi-dimensional picturing, thought, and thinking.

Stephen Hawking said it was hard for him to try to think in two dimensionality, much less three or more dimensions (3-, or greater- dimensionality). I would tell him I think he was dead wrong. The difficulty for him was to go below multi-dimensional picturing, thought, and thinking, not rise up to it. Most of us have little to be insulted by for not being in the genius ranks. Genius, as far as I can tell, comes in two light analogous qualities, laser beam or flood light, and the rest of us more average personages are a little bit of both at once.

Be that as it may, Getting beneath base binary ('0' and/or '1') to the one-dimensional stream of '1' then '0', and/or, '0' then '1', in my picturing and modeling of cosmology and physics gives me trouble to no end since when doing so I've entered the abyss of 'uncertainty' in cosmology and physics as far as I delve up and down into physics at largest and at smallest mostly, whatever, that is.

For example: When I go to t=1 and/or t=0, and/or (past (-) <- (+/-) -> future (+)) I'm dealing in a base binary picturing, however it looks or seems I have to force it to a 1-dimensional streaming. Another multi-dimensional picturing which is actually a base binary is c=(+/-) 300,000kps and/or c=0 (sometimes I capitalize t and c, depending on whether I am thinking Universe (U) or universe(s) (u), which I guess can get confusing to the precisionist). The observer standing or sitting stock still in his inertial rest frame on Earth is.... middling, or as some would have it 'middlin', in velocity in the Multiverse Universe. His inertial rest frame is a foreground closed systemic inertial rest frame at sea in a background open systemic inertialess infinity, floating elastic-bubble-like in it. I've crossed back and forth, up and down, in and out, between relativity and quantum mechanics as I see them to be, and would have them be, multi-dimensionality-wise. I do the line crossing constantly, mixing and matching smoothly as can be, often enough as if it, the supposed dividing line of supposed incompatibility, wasn't even there.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
Albert Einstein dealt in (past(-)-future(+)) as a two-tone ((-) (+/-) (+)) capsule-like entity without a worry about Now (t=0). Now (t=0) is not included in the pill-like capsule. It is outside of and in opposition to the capsule. Just as an infinity of root (-/+) and/or branch (+/-) system is outside of and in opposition to the trunk (t=0 (Now constant) and/or t=1 (Infinity constant)).

Smolin and the narrator make the biggest mistake of all, one that many have made throughout history, that the past is a naked singular spike of root-trunk from which future can branch out into probabilities from.... only never to have branched out, really, else the root-trunk would have sprung in splintering out to infinity an eternity ago. In other words, the past(s), the root(s), has as many probabilities to it, is as buried in as much probability, as the future(s). As a life-time student of history, of time singular and times infinitely plural, of an infinity of light-times and space-times, I know of what I speak. (Past(-)-Future(+)) is an infinity of cloud-like rooted/ branched pill-like capsules facing in direct opposition to Now (t=0) and/or Infinity t=1) (constants)!

When it comes to time, I feel like I'm standing on both Bishop George Berkeley's and Dr. Samuel Johnson's sides of a very similar conflicting view and argument. On one side is 'uncertainty' encapsulated (infinities of (past(s)(-) <-> (+/-) <-> (+)future(s))). On the other side is 'inertial rest frames' Now (t=0) (constant!) and/or Infinity (t=1) (constant!). If there is a universal (local foreground and non-local background) force and/or entity designation to this, it is "gravity (g)" and "Gravity (G)." Isaac Newton was the human centerpiece of Berkeley's and Johnson's conflict.
 
Aug 31, 2021
24
10
15
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.
You wrote "when we are looking at particles". But we are not looking at the particles because they are too small to be seen even with strongest microscopes - we are measuring their positions and velocities which can not be done precisely both at the same moment according to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Then, "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?" That wouldn`t no longer be a double slit experiment.

Comparison between general relativity and quantum mechanics is interesting. I also say this two are the same but on the different levels. When you take QM and raise it exponentially you get general relativity and viceversa. Why? Because everything on the cosmic micro level has its exact correspondence on the cosmic macro level just much much larger.

"For it to be perfect it would need to consider every variable in the universe." - I agree with this statement. On the cosmic macro level, as on the quantum level, we do not actually see anything but measure it. Modern telescopes are not used for looking but for the detecting electromagnetic radiation other than visible light. Who knows what else lurks in the Universe? There could be anomalies in the spacetime, or hidden objects, or new phenomenons not yet known to humans which affect orbits. The only thing we can do is measure and calculate which is great achievement of the human mind but it is not enough to be absolutely precise. To be absolutely precise we must understand all variables perfectly. Do we? I do not think so.

"The past is observable and measurable therefore predictable, and the future is unobservable and can only be probabilistic." - when you have large enough sample of the past then you can extract algorithm driving it and make future predictions certain.
 
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
Captain Nemesis:
"Comparison between general relativity and quantum mechanics is interesting. I also say this two are the same but on the different levels. When you take QM and raise it exponentially you get general relativity and viceversa. Why? Because everything on the cosmic micro level has its exact correspondence on the cosmic macro level just much much larger."

You can turn what you said inside out and upside down. Not that you need to, just that you can. Micro level cosmos, micro-verse, precisely models the background macro level cosmos, the background macro-verse, because they are in fact one and the same entity. It may go down and in in the more or less inertial, relativistic, foreground local universe, but it simultaneously goes up, out, to the background non-local universe. The first models the second. In other words, the micro-verse in one direction, in, is the real macro-verse in the other direction, out. Relativity is but the local, relative, picture : One of an infinity of foreground (local) bubble universes afloat in the background (non-local) ocean sea of quanta dynamics, so to speak.

That last paragraph is far off the mark though ("the past is observable and measurable...." "....make future predictions certain."). You, like so many others alongside and before you, think in terms of a concrete, diamond hard, naked singularity of [root] past being at once concrete, diamond hard, naked singularity of [trunk]. Einstein didn't think so, regarding [past(-)-future(+)] which his best friend genius mathematician-logician Kurt Godel pointed out to him and was not denied by him. An almost liquid, almost gaseous, quality of time. In other words, almost no difference between past and future, therefore, meaning, pluralistically, pasts and futures (roots, not root, and, branches, not branch). Pasts (roots), just as subject to the vastness of 'uncertainty', as futures (branches). Thus as Godel perceived, no real difference, which Einstein would neither confirm nor deny, refusing to commit himself either way. But all those who followed them, with the sole exception of Hawking, that I know of, made the past concretely nakedly singular rather than looking like the actual nature of histories and times, countless many roots ('uncertainty' to the max, exactly the same as branching future "probabilities"!). Which made, and make, trying to go there (as in (space) time travelers and (space) time traveling) no difference at all than traveling futures (with the only difference a difference in sign (+/-), so still travel into some space time future with the odds of landing into a line backward in, and self-similar to, one's own line, one in infinity due the countlessness of varying pasts (varying roots (varying QM-like paths of "probabilities"))). The quantum mechanical-like "pathing" identically the same between branching roots (pasts) and branching branches (futures). They, being identically one and the same! Einstein would not, and never did, deny it (neither confirming nor denying Godel). Nor did Hawking.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
547
103
1,060
In merging space with time, Einstein reduced both to a naked singularity of both, a dimensionless or 0-dimensional, point (0-point). It can't be 1-dimensional. It can't even be 2-dimensional. As Einstein said, "It takes three dimensions to describe a point." Including the point, the warp up and out is to four dimensions (a plurality) / to a 4-dimensionality (the point singularity being warped, ballooned, up and out!).

The time stretching twins controversy means that physicists leave space totally out of the picture of their elasticity of space-time. They don't warp space with the warping of time. They don't get multi-dimensional, not really! If you're going to expand time between tics, you're going to expand space between mile markers A and B, so to speak. You're not going anywhere, really. You are virtually stopping yourself cold in whatever your inertial rest frame is, practically speaking. That is, if you aren't dropping down into a gravity well (in which case you doing a localized version of expanding the universe around you). You contract space between A and B, you contract time between A and B,, now you are going somewhere with that 'constant' of accelerating contraction of the macro-verse around you, particularly in the direction in which you are traveling (in terms of time travel, into the future is to the fore; into the past, in exacting equal measure, is to the rear). The more you contract space between A and B, the more you contract time between A and B.

And if you think you are kind of shrinking in mass, and shrinking in space-time, when heading -- warping -- into an expanding gravity well (an expanding space-time) around you, generally heading for a landing, you are more right, relatively speaking, than you might ever realize. And if you think you are kind of enlarging in mass, and enlarging in space-time, when heading -- warping -- out from a contracting gravity well (a contracting space-time) behind you, you are again more right, relatively speaking, than you might ever realize.

What it actually means is that a kilometer is not necessarily a kilometer, a mile not necessarily a mile, open systemically (in an open or opening system). Closed systemically, yes! Open systemically, no! Local foreground yes! non-local background, no! If the distance difference between two tics of a clock can warp expansively or contractively, the distance difference between two mile markers will also warp expansively or contractively at exactly the same time in exactly the same picture of merged space-time! If the second of time expands or contracts, the kilometer or mile of space expands or contracts at exactly the same time in exactly the same open systemic -- the same background -- picture!

Damn it, why can't physicists see the reality of the elastic geometry of space-time?! Not half the geometry, the whole geometry! Not in a split 2-dimensionality (half diamond hard concrete, half elastic warp) but in a merged 4-dimensionality (all -- the whole -- elastic warp)! As far as I can tell -- and which I always seamlessly move between (driving some people nuts) -- Relativity's merged and resulting elasticity of space-time equates to QM's 'principle of 'uncertainty' : Two ways to describe exactly the same thing.

There is no diamond hard concrete land kilometer or mile to the background universe space of space-time. Miles or kilometers per second is 2-dimensionally flat (one dimension of diamond hard concrete / one dimension of elasticity). The point-singularity of space-time is a 4-dimensional unification to that point-singularity, not a badly, poorly, split 2-dimensionality. And the singularly elastic warp look of what I'm talking is a singularly gravitational -- or a singularly gravitational-like -- look.

Of course physicists have found certain ways to compensate (as with clocks in geo-synchronous orbit) as I pointed out in a different thread. But as I've also pointed out compensations are for inabilities to go (to balloon) truly multi-dimensionally up or down, out or in, from a 0-dimensional point-singularity.
-----------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
In merging space with time, Einstein reduced both to a naked singularity of both, a dimensionless or 0-dimensional, point (0-point). It can't be 1-dimensional. It can't even be 2-dimensional. As Einstein said, "It takes three dimensions to describe a point." Including the point, the warp up and out is to four dimensions (a plurality) / to a 4-dimensionality (the point singularity being warped, ballooned, up and out!).

The time stretching twins controversy means that physicists leave space totally out of the picture of their elasticity of space-time. They don't warp space with the warping of time. They don't get multi-dimensional, not really! If you're going to expand time between tics, you're going to expand space between mile markers A and B, so to speak. You're not going anywhere, really. You are virtually stopping yourself cold in whatever your inertial rest frame is, practically speaking. That is, if you aren't dropping down into a gravity well (in which case you doing a localized version of expanding the universe around you). You contract space between A and B, you contract time between A and B,, now you are going somewhere with that 'constant' of accelerating contraction of the macro-verse around you, particularly in the direction in which you are traveling (in terms of time travel, into the future is to the fore; into the past, in exacting equal measure, is to the rear). The more you contract space between A and B, the more you contract time between A and B.

And if you think you are kind of shrinking in mass, and shrinking in space-time, when heading -- warping -- into an expanding gravity well (an expanding space-time) around you, generally heading for a landing, you are more right, relatively speaking, than you might ever realize. And if you think you are kind of enlarging in mass, and enlarging in space-time, when heading -- warping -- out from a contracting gravity well (a contracting space-time) behind you, you are again more right, relatively speaking, than you might ever realize.

What it actually means is that a kilometer is not necessarily a kilometer, a mile not necessarily a mile, open systemically (in an open or opening system). Closed systemically, yes! Open systemically, no! Local foreground yes! non-local background, no! If the distance difference between two tics of a clock can warp expansively or contractively, the distance difference between two mile markers will also warp expansively or contractively at exactly the same time in exactly the same picture of merged space-time! If the second of time expands or contracts, the kilometer or mile of space expands or contracts at exactly the same time in exactly the same open systemic -- the same background -- picture!

Damn it, why can't physicists see the reality of the elastic geometry of space-time?! Not half the geometry, the whole geometry! Not in a split 2-dimensionality (half diamond hard concrete, half elastic warp) but in a merged 4-dimensionality (all -- the whole -- elastic warp)! As far as I can tell -- and which I always seamlessly move between (driving some people nuts) -- Relativity's merged and resulting elasticity of space-time equates to QM's 'principle of 'uncertainty' : Two ways to describe exactly the same thing.

There is no diamond hard concrete land kilometer or mile to the background universe space of space-time. Miles or kilometers per second is 2-dimensionally flat (one dimension of diamond hard concrete / one dimension of elasticity). The point-singularity of space-time is a 4-dimensional unification to that point-singularity, not a badly, poorly, split 2-dimensionality. And the singularly elastic warp look of what I'm talking is a singularly gravitational -- or a singularly gravitational-like -- look.

Of course physicists have found certain ways to compensate (as with clocks in geo-synchronous orbit) as I pointed out in a different thread. But as I've also pointed out compensations are for inabilities to go (to balloon) truly multi-dimensionally up or down, out or in, from a 0-dimensional point-singularity.
-----------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
An even weirder outcome to space/time is the fact that a smallest thing exists and nothing between them.
A measure of a KM doesn't even exist crunched down or not so the original idea is missing that piece of the puzzle.
Size has no meaning since a ruler can't be used to measure anything, just point A to point B with nothing/no space/time between any two points in the universe.
Probably why gravity seems instant speed communication.
Size IMO is an illusion of space/time.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts