Mordred

Yes the double slit experiment will show the wave-particle duality. You may be interested in this study. Wave-particle duality photographed for the first time. http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html There was a non paywall paper published on this above study but I can't recall where on arxiv it was. I lost track of the full paper. However it is not the wave being spacetime itself. It is a fundamental property of the particle. Particles are both point-like and wave-like by nature. here is a simplified lecture note on the topic https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemistry/5-61-physical-chemistry-fall-2007/lecture-notes/lecture6.pdf

There are times I truly wish I could post a textbook or better yet posters that post these wild speculations ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD MATH. There is a particular lesson that can be learned from this equation. Kalazu-Klein 4d space-time+electromagnetic 1d [latex]ds^2=g_{\alpha\beta}dx^\alpha dx^\beta[/latex]=[latex]g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^v+\Phi^2(a_v dx^v+dx^5)^2[/latex] which leads to [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=h_\mu^ah_v^b\eta_{ab}[/latex] without going through the lengthy procedures of which no one but myself is likely to understand (unfortunately) roughly 14 pages of equations we can derive the 5D Langrangian [latex]R=R^{ab}_{ab}=RR^{ab}_{ab}+2R^{a5}_{a5}[/latex] using the overdot to separate the 5th dimension involving electromagnetism. [latex]R=\dot{R}-1/4F^{ab}F_{ab}+F_{ab}=\dot{R}=1/4F^{ab}F_{ab}[/latex] the full solution can be found in Lewis Ryder. I'll give the full reference at the end. However there is a key passage in this book. "This then is the result of this theory: The action of the 5th dimensional theory is simply the SUM of the actions for General relativity and Maxwell's equations. This is of course a disappointment in that it does not amount to a unified theory. Gravity and electromagnetism separate out like oil and water. There is no coupling between them. If there were cosmic switches allowing the different actions to be switched off and on at will, gravity could be switched off without affecting electromagnetism and vice versa" page 423 Lewis Ryder "Introduction to General Relativity" the solutions is pages 419 chapter 11.5 equations 11.140 to page 423 equation 11.168 this is the last lesson in this particular textbook. Essentially what the above means is that you can have electromagnetic interactions seem to counter gravity. However this does not mean it is anti-gravity. It is simply a result of the sum of two separate forces. gravity and electromagnetism. NOT ANTI-GRAVITY. It is the SUM of GR and Maxwell equations. You can google Lens-Thirring but you will find rotation also does not produce anti-gravity. Even if you combine the two you will not produce anti-gravity sorry no way no how.. One of the Key differences between charge potential between electromagnetism is that in the electromagnetic case, you have two polarities + and - charge. In gravity if you treat mass as a charge you only have a positive charge. There is no negative mass charge. Not even anti-matter as once believed but proven wrong when we produced anti-matter at the LHC. Though if you dig deep enough you can still find those articles on the web lol. NOW I Ofiicially CHALLENGE the OP to show the math proving the above math incorrect. No pictures no links just math. Math is the language of physics not pictures and bad fonts

Time with a direction is a misnomer. It is not really going left or right etc. It simply means that if we mathematically treat time as a vector. The future is considered a forward direction. ie we can never goto the past. Don't confuse this with a true direction. Its simply meant time goes from present to future not present to past. You can't really stop time nothing lasts forever no matter how long it seems to stay in the same state. The universe itself isn't infinite. It will end eventually.

Well your callsign certainly matches your post lol. "abstract". no force makes time go forward. time is simply a rate of change or duration nothing more

The universe doesn't care how we measure it. It will keep on changing. The system we use to measure that change doesn't make any difference to the universe. In that you are correct. However to state the BB occurs without time is incorrect as it obviously did change. I've often stated physics including GR is far easier to understand if they remember the basic physics definitions. Time dilation and mass included. Too often people think GR states something beyond those definitions which isn't true.

how are defining time. The definition is "rate of change or duration". What more do you need? Its nothing more than a measurement of change. GR does not change the definition of time. How can have A BB without change? It does not matter what math, units or tools we use. We are measuring change itself. The only invention is tbe chosen system of measurement. Units etc.

You cannot have a BB without time. It doesn't matter what our chosen units of measure is. We are measuring rate of change. Which is time. So to claim we invented time is inaccurate. We measure rate of change. That rate of change existed long before Man existed. Just like objects on your table has a length, temperature etc. Time is simply a measurement of rate of change or duration on the same state. Nothing more nothing less. Yes a second as a unit of time is man's invention but so is the unit metre. We still require something to measure.

We didn't invent time, we simply found ways to measure it. We could not even exist if time wasn't a reality.

how can you possibly dilate something that doesn't exist? Thats complete nonsense

I'm afraid unless some actual math is forthcoming from the OP. This thread will simply get locked. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. To be honest I have seen zero effort to understand basic physics from the OP. Just claims. Which is rather annoying as every formula needed was handed to him. it is up to the OP to prove this statement wrong. " Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible" I have yet to see his proof that quote is false. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity the truly stupid part is the formulas he needs are contained on this one paper. Schwarzschild and Kerr Solutions of Einstein's Field Equation | an introduction | https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02172.pdf. You have the formulas for Lens-Thirring, gravitomagnetism etc all contained in this one little article. They certainly don't produce antigravity LMAO. Bugger me blind just look at a fast spinning Magnetar. We have recorded them spinning as high as 43,000 times per second with an electromagnetic field trillions of times higher than on Earth. .... yet they still attract matter, just like any other massive body. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/new-phenom.html You can even see extremely fast spinning magnetic fields in accretion disks surrounding a Black hole. Gravity still works the same way http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. Bugger me the energy involved in this last case is sufficient to convert matter to energy in far greater excess than any manmade particle accelerator. Yet no Anti-gravity. We have plenty of evidence that the OP's theory is false without any additional experimentation. All at the Low low cost of free datasets, time and energy into understanding the equations involved. What can be better than free? The universe is your Lab experiment

I already presented papers showing the math behind planetary spin both with electromagnetism and without. All the he needs is contained within those links. He has yet to even present math of his own. That is the issue. White holes has nothing to do with anti gravity. Anti gravity requires anti-mass Do you know any source of anti-mass? Antimatter doesn't produce anti-mass. Think about how an electromagnetic field regardless of vector direction regardless of charge field flow always adds to the total energy. In other words it adds to the mass budget. This is true regardless of the vector direction. Changing the vector directions doesn't produce antigravity that is a false claim. This wiki quote is actually appropriate. "Anti-gravity is an idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift" In other words one can create situations using electromagnetic energy to lift objects. That is not the same thing as antigravity. claiming otherwise is wrong. That is simply using a different force to counter gravity. NOT anti-gravity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

Here is the thing. We know all about gyromagnetism. There is 1000's of professional papers on the subject. How does your idea differ from this research? Gyromagnetism does not apply to every object in space. Comets, asteroids being a mere two examples. Have you read any of the links I provided.?

Of course with absolutely no math presenting your idea.... How can we move forward in the discussion without continuosly repeating over and over again the same statements. No math and no experiments lol. Not a productive approach. Why not start with at least the escape velocity formula? Or even Newtons formulas? Anything is better than nothing.

You will always see your time as the shortest. You will view everyone elses time at a slower rate unless the object your measuring is in the exact same frame of reference. However if you switch observers the reverse is true. The observer will always see the emitter as running slower. Never future unless tachyonic like signals are involved.

yeah the term physical is often misunderstood. Ie physical property.

Now what is the correct metric for a 4d volume with time as a vector? (ct,x,y,z) Three volume components +1 of time using the constant c×t for a measuring rod. The ct component just gives the dimensional equivalence to length. No particles added at this point. Thats spacetime that's it thats all. Thats spacetime without any particles. This is your ground state metric until you add mass. Your transformations is x=x', y=y'z=z',t=t'. When you have velocity or gravitational potential this is when the Lorentz transformations take place. However there is no curvature until you add SM particles.

Understood but one of the biggest misconceptions in GR is people thinking space has substance. It is merely the volume that the SM particles reside in. This includes quantum virtual particle production. Spin foam and string theory doesn't change this key detail. The time component is simply treated as a vector under the spacetime. Spacetime by definition is any metric with time as a vector. By definition (truthfully I wish more ppl paid closer attention to the definitions used in physics lol) it would stop a lot of misconceptions lol Just like mass by definition is resistance to inertia change. Thats it thats all folks

Incorrect space is just volume. Study your basic physics definitions. The cosmological constant does not change this fact. The cosmological term correlates to roughly 7.2×10^-10 joules/m^3. We may not know the cause of the cosmological constant but physics does not treat it as space itself despite pop media articles poor wording. If you wish to properly model under physics. The terminology potential energy and kinetic energy appropriate. Or negative vacuum is acceptable but only if you apply those terms correctly

space by itself by definition is just volume. It isn't some fabric with its own mysterious particles. If you want to apply a spacetime energy the term is potential energy. Which is always a positive value. Unless you are comparing it to a higher vacuum potential ie false vacuum ( inflation by Allen Guth.) the lowest possible energy state by Quantum mechanics is a positive value. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy anything less is either absolute zero which according to zero point energy is impossible. You cannot have a state below absolute zero. Energy density is always positive.

no you must follow the definitions used on physics. Otherwise you are not doing physics. Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. If there is any capacity to perform work it is a positive value. Plain and simple. It does not matter which direction your momentum vectors are going.

no the math above is incorrect as it does not follow the definition of energy and the conservation laws. Energy is literally the ability to perform work. Nothing else is acceptable. It is a property of particles or objects does not exist on its own

Lets start from the beginning. Space by itself is just a volume. Energy is a property, it does exist on its own. Then recognize that energy density is always a positive value unless it is compared to a higher energy density state. Thirdly not all particles constitutes matter. Only fermionic particles are considered matter particles. Finally you require the math to support your conjecture. In other words you require showing this with the 4 momentum/velocity without violating the conservation of energy/momentum. Which you will not be able to do. Lets start with a VERY BASIC question. If Spacetime is negative energy. How could matter form in the First place? Rather impossible, the fermionic particles would never combine to form matter. End of theory.... your momentum vectors would be in the wrong direction for matter particles to collapse. Negative pressure or positive pressure still equals positive energy/density. Energy is the ability to perform work. So negative energy means a lower ability to perform work from a higher energy potential. You cannot have a base negative energy state at least not globally.

thats strange I click on that link and it downloads the pdf. However my point is there is no "official" relativistic presentism under Block. It is presentism or eternalism. Not relativistic presentism. That is something you made up. Unless you can provide a paper showing otherwise. Though there has been "attempts" to make presentism compatible with GR. They require privileged observers which in and of itself is incompatible with the principles of SR and GR.

I understand your trying to avoid the math. However in this particular case gravitomagnetism is such a well researched subject the math is readily available. There has been well over a century of research on the subject. If you actually study that research every tool is already available. Without additional experimentation. Your problem will come down to proving the math and experimental evidence wrong. Considering 1000's of previous PH.D physicists has tried this route already Good luck lol. Here this is one of my favourite articles "Elements of Astrophysics " https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~kaiser/lectures/elements.pdf Its extremely informative on planetary motion, galaxies etc. See chapter 7 on Faradays and the Maxwell equations. The main point is you need to first prove you understand gravitomagnetism, electrogravity, the Klien Gordon equations and GR. Otherwise your just randomly conjecturing with zero actual knowledge of the subject matter except a complete lack of understanding of those models. Which thus far, you have shown zero understanding of any of the physics your quoting. Unfortunately the vast majority of the posters in Speculations actually understands the physics behind the models they are trying to change. Sad truth that. It is incredibly rare to see proper modelling and understanding of the current models posters are contesting against. If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules now you understand why I have that expession in my signature.. Now here is the real smacker. Gravitomagnetism does not lead to anti gravity. There is actual studies on gravitomagnetism which you are ignoring. Study Lens-Thirring precession. That material I have also included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession

You can treat spacetime as a field but more accurately it is the sum of all fields. (electromagnetic, strong, weak). These all influence mass. A better treatment however is the Einstein field equations which includes all possible contributors mentioned above. So yes according to the EFE spacetime is a classical field theory. All forms of energy/mass contribute to the stress energy tensors. It is the stress energy tensor that tells spacetime how to curve. The curvature tells matter how to move. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations Just to be clear under GR space and time is not separable. It is part of the same coin. Just as mass and energy is flip sides of the same coin.