General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

[Harry Costas]

You have to get to the root of the creation of the vector fields.
Once you understand than you can apply the vector fields

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

You have to get to the root of the creation of the vector fields.
Once you understand than you can apply the vector fields

Lets think of it as quantum fields wrapped in nothing.
Might be as simple as quantum fields are not the smallest thing that can be and nothing is.
We end up with a medium of space that is fluctuation that has nothing between it.
Gravity can travel from point A to B at instant speed because A and B have nothing between them, every point is A or B.
Matter/light etc can't because they traverse from A to B to C in wave/particle format.
Creating everything from 0 to have vector fields/quantum fluctuation isn't a giant leap of faith that 0 can have a potential energy or be unstable.

JMO and proof of any of that is up for rigorous study

 

[Atlan0001]

In another thread under 'Article Commentary' ('James Webb Telescope: The scientific mysteries no other observatory could unravel' (my post #2 in that thread)) I went way out on a limb and made a mighty strange prediction even for me. Just a possibility but a way, way, out possibility from my constant harping on the existence of a constant of 'infinity' ('1') to the Universe (U) (to include an infinity of universes (u)). After making the prediction of what might be revealed by the JWT (again, if it is powerful enough) instead of what is being conventionally predicted to be revealed by astronomers and astrophysicists (including my own layman's prediction elsewhere on the forum), I had to sit and think hard about how it, the potentially surprising revelation, would, or might, work against an infinity of interference to do what I've predicted it might do. What I've come up with is something I think is just as big in itself as my strange prediction.

Now how to explain a new look "spooky action at a distance" ("quantum entanglement").

Elsewhere on the forum, I mentioned when Einstein made "time" the fourth spatial dimension (0-point) of a 4-dimensionality of space, he never -- that I know of -- thought about an alternative 4-dimensionality where "space" is then the fourth time dimension (0-point) of a 4-dimensionality of time. (Albert Einstein -- "It takes three dimensions to describe a point.")

A 4-dimensionality of time ((Now (t=0)) (Infinity (t=1 [and/or] -1))) would have to deal in "spooky action at a distance" ("quantum entanglement") regarding distance in time (histories -- past and future | past positions | future positions) between entangled particles as well as distance in space between entangled particles (the only way entanglement is currently presented to exist). It would skip what I've termed "inevitably massive patterns of interference producing a different picture (however valid on its own terms that different picture would be)." It probably solves logician-mathematician Kurt Godel's unsolvable problem -- not disputed by Einstein --with his best friend's machinations with time within "space-time."

In any case it, quantum entanglement of time as well as space, solves my problem with my 50-50 proposition of there being an alternative possible revelation coming out JWT's look into a far distance.

Again, the possible scene that I'm predicting might be revealed being that of infinity's potential showing up: the observed collapsed (frontier) horizon of infinity being pushed farther out in space-time: an observed universe doubled to tripled in size; doubled to tripled backward in extent of time; an observation of a vast multiplication of developing and developed bubble-gravitational universes (not Stephen Hawking's "baby universes") of galaxies, stars, clusters and other entities beyond anything ever observed, or thought to be observable, before.

 

[Harry Costas]

Man can see in all directions super clusters of galaxies that contain trillion of galaxies.
Our worst enemy in understanding the functioning of the universe is when we say boldly that we know.
Knowing is a trap, its like an egg shell that we cannot go beyond.

 

[Harry Costas]

See beyond 14 billion light years

 

[Atlan0001]

Once again "sharpening my axe", so to speak:

Infinity is a cosmological binary base (therefore primordially basic) constant!

Infinity equals '(+/-)1', constant!

Infinity ((+/-)'1') cannot be observed, detected, or otherwise realized locally, relatively, finitely, except representatively as its 'potentials' for existence.

One major 'superposition' example: 'c' ((+/-)186,000mps ((+/-)300,000kps)), constant! (0 > 186,000mps < 0)
--------------------------

It's a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, Multiverse Universe.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Once again "sharpening my axe", so to speak:

Infinity is a cosmological binary base (therefore primordially basic) constant!

Infinity equals '(+/-)1', constant!

Infinity ((+/-)'1') cannot be observed, detected, or otherwise realized locally, relatively, finitely, except representatively as its 'potentials' for existence.

One major 'superposition' example: 'c' ((+/-)186,000mps ((+/-)300,000kps)), constant! (0 > 186,000mps < 0)
--------------------------

It's a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, Multiverse Universe.

Infinity can be such a beast.
Infinity of a local area that can't be escaped. (maybe our universe).
The infinity of forever and ever (all of the universes).
Lack of time/activity another sort of infinity ( black hole maybe).
Infinity of nothing.

All interesting ideas of infinity.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

See beyond 14 billion light years

A few hard to explaining things older that our universe now have been detected.
Got to be the pushy neighbors or an oddity of old light/red shift.
Great fun to let loose and study them and try to guess

 

[Harry Costas]

Our universe has no age.
The parts within the universe do go through transformations and we can estimate their agae.

 

[Atlan0001]

A few hard to explaining things older that our universe now have been detected.
Got to be the pushy neighbors or an oddity of old light/red shift.
Great fun to let loose and study them and try to guess

VPE, yet another example of 'Schrodinger's cat' ('superposition'): Nothing in the universes (u) is younger than the Universe (U) itself / Nothing in the universes (u) is older than the Universe (U) itself. It is all time and/or times / it has no time . . . it is timeless (it is all the way inside of time / it is all the way outside of time).

 

[Harry Costas]

You got it

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, yet another example of 'Schrodinger's cat' ('superposition'): Nothing in the universes (u) is younger than the Universe (U) itself / Nothing in the universes (u) is older than the Universe (U) itself. It is all time and/or times / it has no time . . . it is timeless (it is all the way inside of time / it is all the way outside of time).

Time if it's exists is sure to be older than the start unless time is just a property of fluctuations A to B locations.
My opinion is that time as more than just A to B doesn't exist so a start doesn't really exist.
Or did beginning on day one as just a property of an energy balance of a region of forever (our universe).

 

[Harry Costas]

Time has no start or end

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Time has no start or end

Harry a closed mind is a terrible thing. Because someone or everyone says something is so doesn't make it so.
As Einstein said math will get you from point A to B but imagination will get you across the universe.
All of Einstein's math was wrong so relying on those ideas will give results that are based on bad math.
If Ein can be wrong then everyone can be wrong, something to be humble about with any limited knowledge of reality at best.
In 50 years everything will be quaint ideas, as it was 50 years ago.
Study that

 

[Harry Costas]

A closed mind is a mind with limited information.
Expressing an idea without supported information, is like peeing against the wind.

What do you want to know?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

A closed mind is a mind with limited information.
Expressing an idea without supported information, is like peeing against the wind.

What do you want to know?

Unless non fluctuation space (nothing) could be created then proof will never happen unless your willing to dive into a black hole

Dark matter/energy have no real proof either only math to support an idea of missing mass.
Lots of people on the dark energy/matter train that have no proof.

Neighbors are a much easier solution to faster expansion and reason for initial expansion (BB).
Self gravity now less influence than neighbors combined gravity on our universe.
Answers dark flow pointing to a neighbor, BB, faster expansion, reason for BB with collision, need for dark energy/matter not really needed but could simply be temp particle/energy creation of fluctuation.

JMO

 

[Atlan0001]

A closed mind is a mind with limited information.
Expressing an idea without supported information, is like peeing against the wind.

What do you want to know?

Your first assertion is right on.

Your second assertion is half right, half wrong. Having an idea without supported information and it takes someone somewhere they wanted to go; or didn't know they could go (dragging along the support later no one knew was there or even existed), it is classified as the highest level of brilliance or 'high genius' (often, all the more so for its being gut sudden!), though in the beginning it might have been, or might be, called 'loony crazy'. It's one reason Einstein said this in the specific way he said it, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...."

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

A closed mind is a closed mind, not open to new because it's full of old.
Everything understood about the universe is sure to be wrong and proven so.
As it was 50 years ago and will be 50 years from now.

We should always remember that we really are at the start of a never ending journey of discovery and not near the end of it so standing on firm ground will never happen no matter how many people say it's firm.

What i believe is almost sure to be wrong, and what you believe also.
The question is who is the least wrong in these early days of discovery, not who is right because right will be wrong soon enough.

JMO

 

[Harry Costas]

Right or wrong your coming with me.
Dead or alive your coming me.
Is there no escape.

 

[Atlan0001]

Now (t=0) and Infinity (t=1) are the reason why nothing in the universe, any of the infinity of universes, is older, or younger, than the Universe (U) itself. Think about it, if anything exists at the speed of light, and/or -- per superposition -- is faster than the speed of light, it is the immovable object, and at once, the irresistible force, of the Universe (U) itself:

Now (t=0) > past(s) | past(s) - future(s) | future(s) > Now (t=0) . . . Infinity (t=1). The Universe (U) is always behind the game / the Universe (U) is always ahead of the game / the Universe (U) is always in the game. The starting gate belongs to the Universe (U) / The finish line belongs to the Universe (U) / The starting gate is the finish line . . . and vice-versa. The starting gate is 'background' beginning (Infinity (t=1) / the finish line is into the 'background' (Infinity (t=1) / One and the same 'background'.

I've now got a problem with speed itself, regarding speed and space-time. I've said that I think the JWT will push back the horizon of Relativity's breakdown toward and into the infinity it's formed from, revealing a vastly larger universe of stars, galaxies and so on. I still believe it will happen.

Now, though, there is a possible interpretation coming, if the above proves out, that I didn't expect. From something Sean Carroll mentioned in his book, 'Something Deeply Hidden', and from the article in Article Commentary, 'Stars might be forming much faster than expected, new study suggests', astronomers and physicists might leave the horizon right where it is at 13.8 billion light years, and 13.8 billion years, and while still observing the same thing I suggest, interpret it as a speed of space and time advancement which might at one time, relatively speaking, have approached the speed of light (thus keeping the horizon exactly where they want it to be kept) rather than seeing and interpreting a pushback in space and time of the horizon of Relativity's breakdown and vastly increasing the space and time, and the mass and energy, of this our universe (u).

I've said, myself, that infinity was closed in that horizon (multi-dimensionally, that is), thus just short of that horizon as well (superposition), but I never suspected that it just might come back to bite me in just the way I suggest it might , , , if any at all of what I think will be revealed is revealed to be the case.

 

[Atlan0001]

The look of speed toward the distant horizon I mentioned above reminds me of what I wrote about latitude and longitude. Latitudinal lines and space, with all distance away from anywhere gaining, squeezing lines and planes toward a naked singularly of line space with all distance from the equator where we stand. Longitudinal lines and time, with all distance away from anywhere gaining, narrowing lines and tics of the clock toward a polar point-singularity with all distance from the equator where we stand. It may be real relativity speaking (sic) from this the equator, but it isn't real regarding the equatorial territory at a distance where, and when, our location is the nakedly singular line space of latitude and polar point-singularity of longitude.

The point (if you'll disregard the pun) being that if astronomers and physicists interpret the squeeze of latitude (space and mass) and longitude (time and energy) as observed so distant from our place as the equator to be speeded up space and time, and thus real, it ain't (sic) necessarily so on the spot. But, again, like the tale of Schrodinger's cat, the Universe can make both facets, both dimensionalities, both interpretations, the 'dual', if not more than just 'dual', reality of what the case is by way of superposition. After all, the background non-local infinity does have its projections of physics (such as CMBR) everywhere locally. Infinity is an entity having many physical entities flowing this way from it, stemming from its background reality, as well as being a constant ('1') . . . and within that constancy, more than one horizon constant. The background of every foreground universe (u), including our own of course, is the Universe (U),
----------------------------------

It's a 'many worlds' world; a many faceted, multi-dimensional, Multiverse Universe. The Cosmological Constant is Base2 binary base, '0' and/or '1' ('1' including ('-1')). Infinity = '1', constant!

 

[Harry Costas]

It’s a numbers game

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

The look of speed toward the distant horizon I mentioned above reminds me of what I wrote about latitude and longitude. Latitudinal lines and space, with all distance away from anywhere gaining, squeezing lines and planes toward a naked singularly of line space with all distance from the equator where we stand. Longitudinal lines and time, with all distance away from anywhere gaining, narrowing lines and tics of the clock toward a polar point-singularity with all distance from the equator where we stand. It may be real relativity speaking (sic) from this the equator, but it isn't real regarding the equatorial territory at a distance where, and when, our location is the nakedly singular line space of latitude and polar point-singularity of longitude.

The point (if you'll disregard the pun) being that if astronomers and physicists interpret the squeeze of latitude (space and mass) and longitude (time and energy) as observed so distant from our place as the equator to be speeded up space and time, and thus real, it ain't (sic) necessarily so on the spot. But, again, like the tale of Schrodinger's cat, the Universe can make both facets, both dimensionalities, both interpretations, the 'dual', if not more than just 'dual', reality of what the case is by way of superposition. After all, the background non-local infinity does have its projections of physics (such as CMBR) everywhere locally. Infinity is an entity having many physical entities flowing this way from it, stemming from its background reality, as well as being a constant ('1') . . . and within that constancy, more than one horizon constant. The background of every foreground universe (u), including our own of course, is the Universe (U),
----------------------------------

It's a 'many worlds' world; a many faceted, multi-dimensional, Multiverse Universe. The Cosmological Constant is Base2 binary base, '0' and/or '1' ('1' including ('-1')). Infinity = '1', constant!

Tough to say if our universe is still connected as 1 item.
At the end of the visible universe at least for us everything is expanding faster than C so it has lost physical connection with us.

At some point way in the future everything will be moving away from everything beyond the visible a total disconnect.
If expansion continues on it's pace.

That could also be the reason for a universe of onion skin.
BB, Expansion, Disconnect, Energy drops in now void center, fluctuation creation, Energy build, BB.
A different type of cyclic and forever.

Not my fave idea since it wastes so much energy each time but as good a reason as any to make a universe.

 

[Atlan0001]

An infinite Universe (U) of universes (U) already exists. So, a question arises. Is the universe as 2-dimensional as astronomers and physicists would have it in their accelerating expansion of Flatland? Or is it accelerating in its replacement of older surface or foreground universe by a rising pushy younger and more energetic universe out of the depths of a universe far more dimensional than just two dimensional? Has the redshift to do with unobserved oncoming newer younger darker depths of replacement universe rather than the distances between observed aged breadths of universe headed toward and into inevitable black holing, or has it to do with just plain stretching out 2-dimensionally flat-landed universe?

Mass and energy are equivalent. Thus the (Planck) Big Crunch (M) and (Planck) Big Bang (E) are equivalent. The Big Crunch (M) outside in (M=E/C^2) is the Big Bang (E) inside out (E=MxC^2). The Big Vacuum (C^2 (C = C . . . squaring (C^2 = E/M))). The Big Mirror of Universe (U) mirroring within to infinities of self-similar universes (u). Such infinite 'welling' (such infinities of 'welling') being the irresistible force of the immovable object of Universe (U).

I've long read and heard that a particle is a sphere of mostly empty space. Sean Carroll, so far as I've read, in his book "Something Deeply Hidden" disagrees. So do I, and not only on the microcosmic level.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

An infinite Universe (U) of universes (U) already exists. So, a question arises. Is the universe as 2-dimensional as astronomers and physicists would have it in their accelerating expansion of Flatland? Or is it accelerating in its replacement of older surface or foreground universe by a rising pushy younger and more energetic universe out of the depths of a universe far more dimensional than just two dimensional? Has the redshift to do with unobserved oncoming newer younger darker depths of replacement universe rather than the distances between observed aged breadths of universe headed toward and into inevitable black holing, or has it to do with just plain stretching out 2-dimensionally flat-landed universe?

Mass and energy are equivalent. Thus the (Planck) Big Crunch (M) and (Planck) Big Bang (E) are equivalent. The Big Crunch (M) outside in (M=E/C^2) is the Big Bang (E) inside out (E=MxC^2). The Big Vacuum (C^2 (C = C . . . squaring (C^2 = E/M))). The Big Mirror of Universe (U) mirroring within to infinities of self-similar universes (u). Such infinite 'welling' (such infinities of 'welling') being the irresistible force of the immovable object of Universe (U).

I've long read and heard that a particle is a sphere of mostly empty space. Sean Carroll, so far as I've read, in his book "Something Deeply Hidden" disagrees. So do I, and not only on the microcosmic level.

The 2 or 3 dimensional problem could be both.
Distance from point A to B and lack of distance between any 2 points with (nothing) as the filler between the tiniest.
Then both 2 and 3 are valid.

A universe that has been expanding for 14b y but has no real distance.