General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

[Atlan0001]

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.

You can't use a standard ruler to measure the distance from here to the Planck Horizon, therefore you can't use that ruler to measure the distance from here to the Big Bang Horizon. The same Horizon (it overlays / inlays micro-macro / macro-verse | micro-verse -- a nakedly singular Horizon far, far, outside us / and at once far, far, inside us). So exactly the same distance, dimensionally speaking, here to there; there to here. No difference whatsoever multi-dimensionally (Planck-Big Bang-Horizon). How many different kind of measuring sticks, relatively speaking, would you have to use to measure point A to point B, and point B to point A, of what is in fact a naked singularity of distant Horizon (once more for emphasis, what is in fact exactly the same Horizon) in seemingly two different places, including, also seemingly, two different times? Talk about "quantum entanglement", that is entanglement to the extreme of entanglement where and when A is B and B is A : Where when a 0-dimensional point-singularity-balloon balloons big time to a relative extreme of large, and to a relative extreme of small.

Thanks, VPE. You among some others, in expressing things the way you see them, do help me to greater clarification and confirmation of my own picture and modeling. I derive my picturing and modeling from the likes of Einstein and Hawking, but they are no help at all in helping me to surety and a fine detail and polish. I hope I provide the same help along the way to you and others, even if the energy initiated might be in opposition to some aspect or detail of the cosmological picture I'm advancing. Thanks again.
----------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe | Physics | The Guardian

 

[Atlan0001]

Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe | Physics | The Guardian

Hogan follow's Chaos Theory's smooth-course ("chunky"), smooth-course, smooth course, vertical continuity of planes, infinities of the two that reduce to the order of two, then overlaying and inlaying one into the other rise to the dimensionality of an infinite multi-dimensionality.

Smolin takes the opposite viewpoint that I've always fought against, including within myself as some have realized, the "closed system" view (Smolin's words -- "The universe is a closed system" with "nothing outside" view). Smolin, with such a finitely closed systemic viewpoint only, seems to have no understanding that an infinitely closed system is at once all by itself simultaneously an infinitely open system (infinitely closed / infinitely open simultaneity; like "Schrodinger's cat" simultaneity).

If I were told to judge between Hogan's track view and Smolin's track view, I would have to disqualify myself since my train always simultaneously travels on two paralleling tracks over interconnecting cross beams, whether I like half of my own modeling or not. The forks in this road aren't forks in the road to me, or rather are always diverging and merging -- the "cross beams." I always interface since I always deal in multi-dimensionality down into and up out of a Base2 (a base of 2: '0' and/or '1').

Good article, though. Very good.
------------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

You can't use a standard ruler to measure the distance from here to the Planck Horizon, therefore you can't use that ruler to measure the distance from here to the Big Bang Horizon. The same Horizon (it overlays / inlays micro-macro / macro-verse | micro-verse -- a nakedly singular Horizon far, far, outside us / and at once far, far, inside us). So exactly the same distance, dimensionally speaking, here to there; there to here. No difference whatsoever multi-dimensionally (Planck-Big Bang-Horizon). How many different kind of measuring sticks, relatively speaking, would you have to use to measure point A to point B, and point B to point A, of what is in fact a naked singularity of distant Horizon (once more for emphasis, what is in fact exactly the same Horizon) in seemingly two different places, including, also seemingly, two different times? Talk about "quantum entanglement", that is entanglement to the extreme of entanglement where and when A is B and B is A : Where when a 0-dimensional point-singularity-balloon balloons big time to a relative extreme of large, and to a relative extreme of small.

Thanks, VPE. You among some others, in expressing things the way you see them, do help me to greater clarification and confirmation of my own picture and modeling. I derive my picturing and modeling from the likes of Einstein and Hawking, but they are no help at all in helping me to surety and a fine detail and polish. I hope I provide the same help along the way to you and others, even if the energy initiated might be in opposition to some aspect or detail of the cosmological picture I'm advancing. Thanks again.
----------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

Your most welcome.

Great fun to try and pin down reality.
We are probably all missing lots of the puzzle pieces so for now all of us are best guess work.

I'm of the opinion we live in an infinite number universe that our universe is just one.
Starting by or from nothing is boundless so if nature creates 1 then in a boundless system it probably creates boundless numbers.

Infinity and nothing are tough concepts to wrap a brain around for sure.

 

[Atlan0001]

"....an infinitely closed system is at once all by itself simultaneously an infinitely open system...."

With the above short portion of a sentence, I'll define a primary physicality of gravity as I see it (the Looking Glass of Universe (U) (the Big Mirror of Universe (U)) that within its infinitely closed systemic confines can mirror universes (u) to open systemic infinities of infinitesimals (infinities of finite universes)).
---------------------------------
Planck Big Bang (E) | Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum (C^2)
M=E/C^2
E=MxC^2
---------------------------------
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or indeterminacy principle (Britannica):

"Statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.

"Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed...." and so on the article goes regarding the very, very, small (the not very relative to the not at all relative).

In interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, space-time (exactly as in the space-time of the micro-verse) there is no such thing as a fixed 'Earth' to measure "both the position and the velocity" of the object traveler by. But that is exactly what physicists and other other observers tied to the inertial rest frame of a fixed Earth do regarding everything whatsoever -- thus every position and velocity whatsoever-- in the macro-verse, observed from -- relative to -- their fixed immovable center and ground (their own unmoving, motionless, inanimate, exact center and ground) of universe!

So! Regarding both the macro-verse and the micro-verse not in the inertial rest frame of any observers any where and any when whatsoever, the principle of uncertainty identically applies :"that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature."
-------------------------------

((Infinity (t=1 (constant!)) and/or Now (t=0 (constant!)) are in no way tied to encapsulated [pasts (-) <-> futures (+)].) Travelers traveling through the universe travel encapsulated [past-futures] ([roots-branches]) from foreground Now (t=0) to foreground Now (t=0), never departing its equivalency to the constant of (t=1), via some [past (root) - future (branch) : Infinity (t=1) always being the background horizon constant to these foreground encapsulated [past-future] elastic warps and the foreground horizon constant of Now (t=0).

(C = '1' and/or '0' (c = 'Infinity' = (constant of '1' (aka (+/-) 300,000kps))) and/or c = 'uncertainty' (constant of '0')). Not even the automobile above can have its exact position and exact velocity measured together, exactly, if in motion relative to any measurer. The speed of light is not instantaneous. The implication is both measurements can be made instantaneously simultaneously. So the space-timing must always be approximate, never exact. The difference may not matter to the observer ('good enough for government work," as the saying goes) but it matters to a universe where everything is in motion, in animation, in space-time at all times, thanks almost entirely -- if not entirely -- to gravity. And being far more greatly in relative motion, in relative animation, accelerating in relativity of motion, in relativity of animation, in the non-local background universe relative to and versus the local foreground universe (have I enough relativity engaged here?). Smolin might say that that cannot be so, for exactly the opposite is what is observed. The observed deep background universe, that is the observed (sic) universe, collapses to a collapsed state, is virtually frozen frame solid in its mural-like photo-stillness. The unobservable, undetectable, universe, of course, I think according to Smolin, simply does not exist; it being "outside" of the observable and detectable universe (the other unobserved and unobservable, undetected and undetectable, universe existing "outside" to the observed and observable, detected and detectable, universe). I say "unobservable universe" as if it were singular. That is impossible when you really think into it. It has divided into many, many, space-times. It continues to divide into many space-times. Divided already, and still dividing, into an infinity of space-times.

Not to worry though. As Stephen Hawking might say concerning potentials for infinities, the Multiverse Universe is already there at infinity (at a Base2-like constancy -- a reductionist constancy -- of '1' and/or '0'). Schrodinger's cat is dead | Schrodinger's cat is not dead (so either stalemate or checkmate, or both: Your choice.

Infinities of paralleling point singularity bubble universes (broad and deep) at sea in an infinite ocean-sea of Multiverse Universe. But all of them, without exception share exactly the same Universe (U) Horizon : Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2) | Planck Big Bang (E). All of them being the open systemic infinities of universes (u) inside (being within the closed systemic confines of) the Big Mirror infinite of the Multiverse Universe. The reduction, though, is still to a Cosmological Constant of Base 2 ('1' and/or '0').

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"....an infinitely closed system is at once all by itself simultaneously an infinitely open system...."

With the above short portion of a sentence, I'll define a primary physicality of gravity as I see it (the Looking Glass of Universe (U) (the Big Mirror of Universe (U)) that within its infinitely closed systemic confines can mirror universes (u) to open systemic infinities of infinitesimals (infinities of finite universes)).
---------------------------------
Planck Big Bang (E) | Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum (C^2)
M=E/C^2
E=MxC^2
---------------------------------
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or indeterminacy principle (Britannica):

"Statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.

"Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed...." and so on the article goes regarding the very, very, small (the not very relative to the not at all relative).

In interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, space-time (exactly as in the space-time of the micro-verse) there is no such thing as a fixed 'Earth' to measure "both the position and the velocity" of the object traveler by. But that is exactly what physicists and other other observers tied to the inertial rest frame of a fixed Earth do regarding everything whatsoever -- thus every position and velocity whatsoever-- in the macro-verse, observed from -- relative to -- their fixed immovable center and ground (their own unmoving, motionless, inanimate, exact center and ground) of universe!

So! Regarding both the macro-verse and the micro-verse not in the inertial rest frame of any observers any where and any when whatsoever, the principle of uncertainty identically applies :"that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature."
-------------------------------

((Infinity (t=1 (constant!)) and/or Now (t=0 (constant!)) are in no way tied to encapsulated [pasts (-) <-> futures (+)].) Travelers traveling through the universe travel encapsulated [past-futures] ([roots-branches]) from foreground Now (t=0) to foreground Now (t=0), never departing its equivalency to the constant of (t=1), via some [past (root) - future (branch) : Infinity (t=1) always being the background horizon constant to these foreground encapsulated [past-future] elastic warps and the foreground horizon constant of Now (t=0).

(C = '1' and/or '0' (c = 'Infinity' = (constant of '1' (aka (+/-) 300,000kps))) and/or c = 'uncertainty' (constant of '0')). Not even the automobile above can have its exact position and exact velocity measured together, exactly, if in motion relative to any measurer. The speed of light is not instantaneous. The implication is both measurements can be made instantaneously simultaneously. So the space-timing must always be approximate, never exact. The difference may not matter to the observer ('good enough for government work," as the saying goes) but it matters to a universe where everything is in motion, in animation, in space-time at all times, thanks almost entirely -- if not entirely -- to gravity. And being far more greatly in relative motion, in relative animation, accelerating in relativity of motion, in relativity of animation, in the non-local background universe relative to and versus the local foreground universe (have I enough relativity engaged here?). Smolin might say that that cannot be so, for exactly the opposite is what is observed. The observed deep background universe, that is the observed (sic) universe, collapses to a collapsed state, is virtually frozen frame solid in its mural-like photo-stillness. The unobservable, undetectable, universe, of course, I think according to Smolin, simply does not exist; it being "outside" of the observable and detectable universe (the other unobserved and unobservable, undetected and undetectable, universe existing "outside" to the observed and observable, detected and detectable, universe). I say "unobservable universe" as if it were singular. That is impossible when you really think into it. It has divided into many, many, space-times. It continues to divide into many space-times. Divided already, and still dividing, into an infinity of space-times.

Not to worry though. As Stephen Hawking might say concerning potentials for infinities, the Multiverse Universe is already there at infinity (at a Base2-like constancy -- a reductionist constancy -- of '1' and/or '0'). Schrodinger's cat is dead | Schrodinger's cat is not dead (so either stalemate or checkmate, or both: Your choice.

Infinities of paralleling point singularity bubble universes (broad and deep) at sea in an infinite ocean-sea of Multiverse Universe. But all of them, without exception share exactly the same Universe (U) Horizon : Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2) | Planck Big Bang (E). All of them being the open systemic infinities of universes (u) inside (being within the closed systemic confines of) the Big Mirror infinite of the Multiverse Universe. The reduction, though, is still to a Cosmological Constant of Base 2 ('1' and/or '0').

Could be both.
A closed universe until it interacts with a neighbor.
An open infiverse with infinite numbers of others all closed until physical interaction.

A few signs of that exist, dark flow, uneven expansion, dents on the microwave background, galaxies/stars older than our universe.
All of them signs that our universe has at least gravitational interaction with neighbors and previous physical interactions for microwave dents and distant captured or visible neighbor galaxies that could be on the edge of other universes.

I have a feeling that all universes interact with all others at the gravitational level since it seems to interact at instant speed.
With nothing as a medium all points in our universe are together and all universes are together, just A and B locations.
Instant speed through nothing isn't magic

That unique gravitational interaction will make every universe similar but unique so just 1 of me and 1 of you in forever.
JMO

 

[Catastrophe]

I cannot interact with something which is clearly (imho) a semantic mess of pottage.


Mess of pottage - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mess_of_pottage

A mess of pottage is something immediately attractive but of little value taken foolishly and carelessly in exchange for something more distant and perhaps ...

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

How Quantum Computers Will Correct Their Errors | Quanta Magazine

VPE, look closely, real close, at the top of page lead illustration for this Quanta Magazine article. Though the article itself has to do with quantum computing that illustration illustrates to perfection, in 1-d / 2-d, my description of the traveler space traveling / time traveling, space-time traveling, inter-planetary, interstellar, intergalactic, and macro-verse inter-universe space-time. My described constants (background Infinity (t=1) and/or foreground Now (t=0)) bracketing the capsules of [pasts (roots) (-) - futures (branches) (+)]. The space-time traveler always at (t=0) always traveling into the spray of that middle, with that background horizon (t=1) always in its background place. The warp elastic capsules are reversed to the rear of the space-time traveler (t=0), [futures (branches) (+) - pasts (roots) (-)] going away to that same constant of horizon (t=1).

It is as I said, there is no difference in space-time micro-verse and space-time macro-verse once the traveler is away from the observer's Earthly inertial rest frame. Only his own inertial rest frame matters as he time travels space (he slips into and runs down time corridors in space). His ship is his only closed systemic ground within that open systemic frame, that time-scape so well illustrated in that quantum view illustration.

Look at it close, study it close, because with that micro-verse illustration you have an illustrating piece of my macro-verse picture though down dimensioned (an illustrating piece of my macro-verse model though, once again, down dimensioned).

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

How Quantum Computers Will Correct Their Errors | Quanta Magazine

VPE, look closely, real close, at the top of page lead illustration for this Quanta Magazine article. Though the article itself has to do with quantum computing that illustration illustrates to perfection, in 1-d / 2-d, my description of the traveler space traveling / time traveling, space-time traveling, inter-planetary, interstellar, intergalactic, and macro-verse inter-universe space-time. My described constants (background Infinity (t=1) and/or foreground Now (t=0)) bracketing the capsules of [pasts (roots) (-) - futures (branches) (+)]. The space-time traveler always at (t=0) always traveling into the spray of that middle, with that background horizon (t=1) always in its background place. The warp elastic capsules are reversed to the rear of the space-time traveler (t=0), [futures (branches) (+) - pasts (roots) (-)] going away to that same constant of horizon (t=1).

It is as I said, there is no difference in space-time micro-verse and space-time macro-verse once the traveler is away from the observer's Earthly inertial rest frame. Only his own inertial rest frame matters as he time travels space (he slips into and runs down time corridors in space). His ship is his only closed systemic ground within that open systemic frame, that time-scape so well illustrated in that quantum view illustration.

Look at it close, study it close, because with that micro-verse illustration you have an illustrating piece of my macro-verse picture though down dimensioned (an illustrating piece of my macro-verse model though, once again, down dimensioned).

Trouble with matter beings going from point A to point B is we can't.
We are stuck in the travel from A to B to C etc and in it's essence that is time.
A graviton might see the universe as a place that only Has point A and B and every destination is point A or B traveling through no/space/no time.
Same rule would apply to any universe at any location for a graviton.

A graviton bypasses space/time then figuring out how matter beings can create a graviton bubble and travel to point A and B can happen without C D E etc.

JMO but i think the mechanism for travel to any point at any speed exists but then gravitons see the universe and all others that exist as only point A and B so going on that trip might be going everywhere at once instantly.

The empty space travel might be the great mystery of gravity.
Empty space also makes it impossible to set a size on anything.

 

[Atlan0001]

Trouble with matter beings going from point A to point B is we can't.
We are stuck in the travel from A to B to C etc and in it's essence that is time.
A graviton might see the universe as a place that only Has point A and B and every destination is point A or B traveling through no/space/no time.
Same rule would apply to any universe at any location for a graviton.

A graviton bypasses space/time then figuring out how matter beings can create a graviton bubble and travel to point A and B can happen without C D E etc.

JMO but i think the mechanism for travel to any point at any speed exists but then gravitons see the universe and all others that exist as only point A and B so going on that trip might be going everywhere at once instantly.

The empty space travel might be the great mystery of gravity.
Empty space also makes it impossible to set a size on anything.

Oh I know fully, and have stated such in many posts, that it is impossible to set a real size on anything. A relative size, yes, but a real size, no. The first is finitely foreground closed systemic. The second is infinitely background open systemic.

I'm still stunned to find in Quanta Magazine's article on quantum computing, expanded to micro-verse Quantum Mechanics in general, an exact illustration of a macro-verse space and time (space-time) subject I've been dealing in -- that I describe -- in many threads and posts herein on space.com. I shouldn't be, a graduating merger is emerging more and more over time, but my initial sight of that particular illustration.... And it's certainly not the first illustration and/ or animation, or even article itself, of its kind that parallels so closely my own picturing of the Multiverse Universe I've run into and referred to. I've said before that I'm not that original in my views and modeling. Well maybe I am, largely, when it comes to inserting infinity into the picture and story (especially as the constant of '1'), but not the rest of the picture and story,

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Oh I know fully, and have stated such in many posts, that it is impossible to set a real size on anything. A relative size, yes, but a real size, no. The first is finitely foreground closed systemic. The second is infinitely background open systemic.

I'm still stunned to find in Quanta Magazine's article on quantum computing, expanded to micro-verse Quantum Mechanics in general, an exact illustration of a macro-verse space and time (space-time) subject I've been dealing in -- that I describe -- in many threads and posts herein on space.com. I shouldn't be, a graduating merger is emerging more and more over time, but my initial sight of that particular illustration.... And it's certainly not the first illustration and/ or animation, or even article itself, of its kind that parallels so closely my own picturing of the Multiverse Universe I've run into and referred to. I've said before that I'm not that original in my views and modeling. Well maybe I am, largely, when it comes to inserting infinity into the picture and story (especially as the constant of '1'), but not the rest of the picture and story,

I'm always shocked that so few people have dived into what is between the smallest things in the universe and what that means for the universe.
Could easily be the answer to time, space and gravity and all the properties and laws of the universe.

I totally agree that trying to measure anything is going to run into nothing at some level.
It gets into a smallest thing and the next smallest thing with no/time/space between them so every smallest thing is right beside every other smallest thing no matter it's location.
Graviton SPAD instant travel or location awareness?
A simple mechanism for both.

Infinity can be just our universe that simply goes on forever.
It expands looses energy, rebuilds at the core and expands again.
Has and will be doing it forever.

Could be we are just 1 universe in forever of them and interactions of ugly cyclic start and stop expansions with cannibal growth, destruction of some, consumption of parts, semi universes etc.
Ugly bubbles.

Could be just 1 universe that runs out of steam to build space/time.
It collapses, has BB when E is to high at central location, repeat forever.

My personal opinion is Ugly bubbles.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Ugly bubbles"? -- In an infinite ocean-sea of such bubbles, not a one of which isn't the exact center of that ocean-sea. 0-dimensional point-singularities. Infinities of infinitesimals (to the infinite) / countless relatively finite universes (to the finite) / virtually (virtual) size-less micro-verse and macro-verse blackhole event horizons ("From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other." -- Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Scarlet, by A Canon Doyle.)

"Nothing"? In a movie about the crusades, 'Kingdom Of Heaven', the commander of the Christians asked the king of the Moslems what the Jerusalem and the bloody battle for it meant to him. The initial answer was "Nothing!" Then as he turns and walks away, he turns back and spreads his arms, saying "Everything!" 'Everything-ness' meaning 'Nothing-ness' (thus, of course, 'Nothing-ness' also meaning 'Everything-ness'). 'Something-ness' then being the third dimensionality of the two dimensional extremes.

When Lee Smolin pompously states that "nothing is outside of the universe" he has no clue that he is stating at the same time, in the same statement, that "everything" is outside of the universe (a double-meaning statement I've made before, but unlike some, knowing what I was saying). When he, or anyone else, including me, states that "nothing" came, comes, before the Big Bang," they, and also I (but, again, I know what I'm stating), are in fact also stating that "everything" came, comes, before the Big Bang. Mindlessly, they are short by half, if not short by "everything."

The actual (fundamental) battle of cosmological physics is between (or is akin to) Berkeley's idealism and Johnson's rock : Meaning; between the magic show of creationism and binary base2 ('0' and/or '1').

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"Ugly bubbles"? -- In an infinite ocean-sea of such bubbles, not a one of which isn't the exact center of that ocean-sea. 0-dimensional point-singularities. Infinities of infinitesimals (to the infinite) / countless relatively finite universes (to the finite) / virtually (virtual) size-less micro-verse and macro-verse blackhole event horizons ("From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other." -- Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Scarlet, by A Canon Doyle.)

"Nothing"? In a movie about the crusades, 'Kingdom Of Heaven', the commander of the Christians asked the king of the Moslems what the Jerusalem and the bloody battle for it meant to him. The initial answer was "Nothing!" Then as he turns and walks away, he turns back and spreads his arms, saying "Everything!" 'Everything-ness' meaning 'Nothing-ness' (thus, of course, 'Nothing-ness' also meaning 'Everything-ness'). 'Something-ness' then being the third dimensionality of the two dimensional extremes.

When Lee Smolin pompously states that "nothing is outside of the universe" he has no clue that he is stating at the same time, in the same statement, that "everything" is outside of the universe (a double-meaning statement I've made before, but unlike some, knowing what I was saying). When he, or anyone else, including me, states that "nothing" came, comes, before the Big Bang," they, and also I (but, again, I know what I'm stating), are in fact also stating that "everything" came, comes, before the Big Bang. Mindlessly, they are short by half, if not short by "everything."

The actual (fundamental) battle of cosmological physics is between (or is akin to) Berkeley's idealism and Johnson's rock : Meaning; between the magic show of creationism and binary base2 ('0' and/or '1').

Ugly bubbles are just like a kid blowing bubbles into the air.
Some pop, some combine, some are torn apart any thing goes for a bubble.
Only thing that always remains is the energy of any bubble not it's original form.

IMO we are just 1 bubble

Nothing i think is the only thing in the universe that can't remain as nothing.
An instability or potential energy of nothing is quantum fluctuation.
Nothing between the smallest things will be certain but only nothing smaller than a fluctuation.
Outside the universe more of the same of nothing converted into fluctuation and nothing in residence at the smallest realms.
JMO

 

[Atlan0001]

Planck Big Bang (E) | Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum (C^2).
Mass and energy are equivalent (mass-energy).
Binary Base2 is '0' and/or '1' : The Cosmological Constant is binary base.
I have infinity's constant to be '1'.
Big Crunch (M) = infinity = '1' (constant!).
M = '1'.
E = MxC^2.
C^2 = '1'xC^2.
'1' = C^2/C^2.
Mass and energy are equivalent (mass-energy).

The Big Mirror mirrors:
(mirrors) Planck Big Bang, left to right . . . the positive (+) of the negative (-).
(mirrors) Big Crunch, right to left . . . the negative (-) of the positive (+).
C = (+/-)186,000mps ((+/-)300,000kps).
C = '1' (open systemic 'infinity') (background constant!).
C = '0' (closed systemic 'uncertainty') (foreground constant!).
C = C . . . squaring(!) (C^2) (Big Vacuum (C^2)).
C(!) = C(!).
The Big Mirror mirrors.
-----------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Planck Big Bang (E) | Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum (C^2).
Mass and energy are equivalent (mass-energy).
Binary Base2 is '0' and/or '1' : The Cosmological Constant is binary base.
I have infinity's constant to be '1'.
Big Crunch (M) = infinity = '1' (constant!).
M = '1'.
E = MxC^2.
C^2 = '1'xC^2.
'1' = C^2/C^2.
Mass and energy are equivalent (mass-energy).

The Big Mirror mirrors:
(mirrors) Planck Big Bang, left to right . . . the positive (+) of the negative (-).
(mirrors) Big Crunch, right to left . . . the negative (-) of the positive (+).
C = (+/-)186,000mps ((+/-)300,000kps).
C = '1' (open systemic 'infinity') (background constant!).
C = '0' (closed systemic 'uncertainty') (foreground constant!).
C = C . . . squaring(!) (C^2) (Big Vacuum (C^2)).
C(!) = C(!).
The Big Mirror mirrors.
-----------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

I'm of the same opinion the multiverse goes on forever, endless bubbles in every possible format.
E is the true equation of any of them since everything is just a format of E.
The origin of E and the set point (conservation of energy) IMO are just a property of Nothings conversion into fluctuations energy balance.
Fluctuation the creator of particles and energy until it balances energy.
Mergers of areas over unthinkable time scales until a locations E is to high and the first BB.

Simple reason for a universe is no reason, just a property or instability of nothing

 

[Harry Costas]

What are you trying to say?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

What are you trying to say?

Who?

 

[Atlan0001]

Correction to #114, plus . . .:

Infinity = '1' (background / foreground constant (collapsed, universal 'horizon', constant)).
C = '1' ((+/-) 186,000mps) ((+/-) 300,000kps) (all velocities, all frames / all fronts (all incoming from every point of the compass), measure 'c' equal to 'c').
'(+/-)' Particle (+) / Tachyon (-) (equivalent).
C='0' ('uncertainty').
-----------------------------
Every single one (sic) of an infinity of points of the infinite Universe is the exact center point of the infinite Universe (thus 'c' will measure 'c' at every point of the compass). But never betwixt and between (c = '0' ('uncertainty')).
-----------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[Hardcrunchyscience]

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.

Someone wrote a nice random sentence generator???

 

[Atlan0001]

Interesting. I don't know if this is elsewhere, but I think it fits here with addition of my thoughts upon the matter:

What if the universe had no beginning? | Live Science

Singularities or no singularities depends upon what a singularity is . . . and where in space and time it is if it isn't (if it might not be (if the principle of uncertainty and/or a realization of Schrodinger's cat applies)) where / when / what you think it is. It might even be an entire expansionary Planck Universe Big Banging from Big Crunching (just in a different direction, maybe!). The two ((the Big 'M') and (the Big 'E')) always being equivalent (mass-energy). The grand total of energy in the universe is said to equal '0'. Me . . . I have it (M = '1' (Infinity)) (E = '0' (Average) (E = '0' being the average of positive (+) and negative (-) energy)). The irresistible force always meets the immovable object and always results in being (becoming) the irresistible force of the immovable object.

(c=c (c^2 = c . . . squaring.))

One thing should be understood about the infinitesimal Universe (U), it elastically warps infinite (it is infinite!) || One thing should be understood about the infinite Universe (U), it elastically warps infinitesimal (it is infinitesimal!) || One thing should be understood about that naked singularity, infinities of infinities of universes (u) . . . plurality. Infinity totaling up to, reducing to, a cosmological constant of Base2 ('1' and/or '0') with byproduct, finite (local) relativity / (local) relativities, to an infinity of finite (finites). The micro-verse beyond local relativity models the macro-verse beyond locl relativity. Discretely discrete.

(c = c (c^2 = c . . . squaring.))

No beginning (end) actually means a timeless cosmological constant of countless beginnings (ends). Meaning, totaling up to, reducing to, being always in beginning (end) (Infinity (t=1) and/or Now (t=0) (Infinity (t=1) always averaging to Now (t=0)).

Einstein's observer stands still by a railroad track on Earth. Relatively still. The group picture, Einstein's fixed rest frame zero of a fixed universe. It isn't the Universe's (U) or the universes' (u) rest frame zero. The Earth is in motion at velocity multi-dimensionally in space-time (space and time). Thus, so is the observer on Earth. It means there exists velocities to the Universe (U) and universes' (u) slower, to vastly slower, than that rest frame of Einstein's observer. Does it mean then that 'c' can equal as much as 372,000mps (600,000kps) in difference, or even more?! No, it doesn't! It means that the single-sided 2-dimensional 'front' that is the speed of light is locked constant to all velocities, all reference frames, without exception. It also means that there can be velocities regarding space-time infinitely greater than (a contractive universe), and infinitely slower than (an expansive universe), the rest frame of Einstein's observer on Earth, just none of them, as far as the open system (the great unknown) (the unobserved and unobservable (U) and/or (u)) is concerned, able to close with the speed of light any closer than 'c' (186,000mps (300,000kps)). The spaces and times (the space-times) "betwixt and between."

(c = c (c^2 = c . . . squaring.))

"Reality has so many things that most people would associate with sci-fi or even fantasy." -- Bruno Bento, physicist, University of Liverpool, U.K.
----------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So, all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it." -- Sherlock Holmes: A study in Scarlet, by A. Canon Doyle.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Interesting. I don't know if this is elsewhere, but I think it fits here with addition of my thoughts upon the matter:

What if the universe had no beginning? | Live Science

Singularities or no singularities depends upon what a singularity is . . . and where in space and time it is if it isn't (if it might not be (if the principle of uncertainty and/or a realization of Schrodinger's cat applies)) where / when / what you think it is. It might even be an entire expansionary Planck Universe Big Banging from Big Crunching (just in a different direction, maybe!). The two ((the Big 'M') and (the Big 'E')) always being equivalent (mass-energy). The grand total of energy in the universe is said to equal '0'. Me . . . I have it (M = '1' (Infinity)) (E = '0' (Average) (E = '0' being the average of positive (+) and negative (-) energy)). The irresistible force always meets the immovable object and always results in being (becoming) the irresistible force of the immovable object.

(c=c (c^2 = c . . . squaring.))

One thing should be understood about the infinitesimal Universe (U), it elastically warps infinite (it is infinite!) || One thing should be understood about the infinite Universe (U), it elastically warps infinitesimal (it is infinitesimal!) || One thing should be understood about that naked singularity, infinities of infinities of universes (u) . . . plurality. Infinity totaling up to, reducing to, a cosmological constant of Base2 ('1' and/or '0') with byproduct, finite (local) relativity / (local) relativities, to an infinity of finite (finites). The micro-verse beyond local relativity models the macro-verse beyond locl relativity. Discretely discrete.

(c = c (c^2 = c . . . squaring.))

No beginning (end) actually means a timeless cosmological constant of countless beginnings (ends). Meaning, totaling up to, reducing to, being always in beginning (end) (Infinity (t=1) and/or Now (t=0) (Infinity (t=1) always averaging to Now (t=0)).

Einstein's observer stands still by a railroad track on Earth. Relatively still. The group picture, Einstein's fixed rest frame zero of a fixed universe. It isn't the Universe's (U) or the universes' (u) rest frame zero. The Earth is in motion at velocity multi-dimensionally in space-time (space and time). Thus, so is the observer on Earth. It means there exists velocities to the Universe (U) and universes' (u) slower, to vastly slower, than that rest frame of Einstein's observer. Does it mean then that 'c' can equal as much as 372,000mps (600,000kps) in difference, or even more?! No, it doesn't! It means that the single-sided 2-dimensional 'front' that is the speed of light is locked constant to all velocities, all reference frames, without exception. It also means that there can be velocities regarding space-time infinitely greater than (a contractive universe), and infinitely slower than (an expansive universe), the rest frame of Einstein's observer on Earth, just none of them, as far as the open system (the great unknown) (the unobserved and unobservable (U) and/or (u)) is concerned, able to close with the speed of light any closer than 'c' (186,000mps (300,000kps)). The spaces and times (the space-times) "betwixt and between."

(c = c (c^2 = c . . . squaring.))

"Reality has so many things that most people would associate with sci-fi or even fantasy." -- Bruno Bento, physicist, University of Liverpool, U.K.
----------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So, all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it." -- Sherlock Holmes: A study in Scarlet, by A. Canon Doyle.

I've always thought of a singularity as just the place that light can no longer communicate to the rest of the universe.
A black hole just a time well of increasingly longer days as you do deeper.
Since the nuclear forces are overcome by a black hole it isn't matter so really the only thing stopping a black hole shrinking forever is lack of activity/time.

I agree the C speed can simply be the wave point in visiting A to B.
Just the travel from something through nothing then to something again.
Light traveling at C is a particle with a wave traveling through?
Can't have a wave without a medium of some format and that could be as simple as fluctuations potential energy points are the medium.
Call it quantum foam for the medium.

All guess work for sure.

 

[Atlan0001]

I copied this here from Space Travel and SpaceX because of what I said toward the end, so to make sure I had it all in cosmological -- cosmopolitan too -- physics context. In many cases A may seem to be unrelated to B (and not relevant to a thread of discussion), yet be far more related and relevant than one might think:

Stage one is as it has been, assembly in low Earth orbit, and stage two to come, on the Moon.

From there, stage three: Construction small (ships and multi-functional stations and facilities) and large (custom structured colonies) in Lagrange point orbital space using raw material resources from the Moon, near Earth asteroids, along with a salting as necessary of Earth elements. The one thing we do not want is bulk mass raw materials being brought and built up too close to Earth, especially not landed / dumped on Earth. And there will be no need of it. Money is a token of energy, and growing energies in space, especially including migration to space, means two growth frontiers, not one. It means growing wealth and activity at both ends of the pipelines, and at all points in between, of frontier opening (an opening system (if you notice the universe, as well as the spread and evolution of life on Earth (particularly mankind), an opening system -- an opening frontier system -- is inherently, intrinsically, a creatively energizing system at all points of it)).

Sheesh, what did I just say?! "An opening system -- an opening frontier system -- is inherently, intrinsically, a creatively energizing system at all points of it"!!! ("If you notice the universe"!!!)

Brought here from another of my threads and its initial posting updated because it also goes with:

Try this on for size, returning from structural domestication to the wild, the wild frontier, so to speak, is a return from the entropic to the energetic. Thus, all created, formed, structure -- whether ours or the universe's -- is production of entropy from mass-energy, the entropic, and all erosion and breakdown is return from it to the primordial wild it came from: is return to mass-energy; a return to the mass-energetic. Always in production, and always returning.

 

[Atlan0001]

What separates General Relativity from Quantum Mechanics? Good question. What separates the equivalents [space | time] from the equivalents [mass | energy]?

 

[Harry Costas]

Quantum mechanics may explain the vector fields created and General Relativity apply the maths to it.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Quantum mechanics may explain the vector fields created and General Relativity apply the maths to it.

The medium of quantum fluctuation explains lots of the mysteries of time/space/duality and even origin of everything.
From tiny to large everything is part of fluctuation just larger things have gravity fields making them appear different. Relativity is just A to B in quantum fluctuations medium. JMO