Jump to content

AbstractDreamer

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About AbstractDreamer

  • Rank
    Atom

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical physics

Recent Profile Visitors

3738 profile views
  1. If you had two or more clones that were absolutely identical in that there was no way to practically (not theoretically) identify one from another, how do you know you have two or more clones to begin with? The identification of multiple clones confirms they were not identical. The absence of identification of multiple clones, suggests you only had one clone to begin with. You either have only one clone until you identify another, or you have many clones that are not identical. And anything that you do not know only exists as a probability, subjectively.
  2. Thanks for the visuals. So Simultaneity is just subjective. But what about concurrency? Lets presume both you and I exist. Is the star shining concurrently for you and me, or sequentially? That is, my detection of photons are registered sequentially by me, and your detection of photons are registered sequentially by you. But are our combined detection of photons registered collectively sequentially, or could some be registered concurrently?
  3. Not a single unexpected macro event that violates GR in this universe, other than singularties. Is that not rather odd, considering all the random branches of possibilities that MIGHT occur with every quantum observation everywhere since the beginning. If the fundamental essence of the universe is random, chaotic, unpredictable, then surely there cannot be any fundamental laws or principles or constants. Conversely if the essence of the universe is determinate, ordered, and predictable, then surely there must be a fundamental laws/principles/constants.
  4. Why is this particular instance of a universe reliable to such a degree that we have not witnessed someone who lived forever; we have not witnessed a variable speed of light; we have not witnessed a single star or planet propelled by a means other than gravity; we have not witnessed an exception to time dilation; we have not seen a single star spontaneously appear anywhere in the our universe, as they inevitably must do in some universes. Why is this particular instance of a universe so predictable that sentient beings have evolved and developed mathematics called General Relativity to model how things behave so accurately? If Many Worlds interpretation describes infinite branches of worlds of possibilities, why is this world so predictable? Or is it? Why don't random macroscopic events happen in our universe? Or is variance of possibilites limited in all universes to the quantum scale only? Is it beyond even the power of infinite universes for one universe to exist where a star is spontaneously created in the sky within the next 24 hours?
  5. So if two stars supernova, and are recorded as simultaneous by an observer equidistant to each, then let me say (for the remainder of this thread) the supernovae were "objectively" simultaneous. That is, there is more than one coordinate where, had a recording been made, then a simultaneous reading would have been obtained, and that all such coordinates lie on a plane perpendicular to the line between the two events. Are there any other points or locus that is not equidistant from the two stars that might read a simultaneous reading for two "objectively simultaneous" events, either though some specific non-inertial frame or other condition? If the two stars supernova objectively non-simultaneously (that is, any equidistant observer would not observe simultaneity), what would the shape of the locus of simultaneity of look like for non-inertial frames as a function of degree of non-simultaneity? That is, there would be some point where two objectively non-simultaneous supernovae would be seen as simultaneous. Lets say the supernovae were separated by 1light year and by 1 hour. Each produces an expanding sphere of observables. What does shape of the intersection of the two spheres look like over some time, and does this shape change with the degree of event separation (either distance or time). Does this shape have a pattern? Is it still plane-like with curves, or something else? Moving away from simultaneity, i think my original post is more about concurrency. Interactions throughout the universe all occurring concurrently, but not observably simultaneously. Or is there not such thing?
  6. “interactions between star B and C are mutually simultaneous” By this i mean Star B is affected by Star C at the same time while Star B is effecting Star C. They are simultaneously (and not sequentially - not even by an infinitessimal small increment in time - true simultaneity - not mathematical equivalence through granularity of calculus) interacting with each other. I do not mean inertial frames, in this instance. If time is relative in all of them, how can any two events separated by either a space value or a time value ever be truly simultaneous? If you cannot compare two events because time is relative to each event, by deduction, the only that can be simultaneous with an event is the event itself, no?
  7. OK non-relative frames. Not really sure what I mean to be honest, but let me try and blurt out something coherent. We have star A,B,C mutually, simultaneously interacting with each other, lets say gravitationally affecting their velocities. The relative frame we choose as star A. So the gravitational "force?" between A and B can be calculated and its effect on the velocity of star B as observed from star A can be calculated. Star C also has a gravitational effect on and affect by both Star A and B, this too can be calculated. So the interactions between star B and C are mutually simultaneous (presumably) but not in the same frame of reference as star A. So that is non-relative frames. What is happening between star B and C are non-relative to measurements or observations from star A, but presumably they are still simultaneous and might even be synchronisable with frames of observations from star A.
  8. I have to read your stuff a dozen times, and then see how what it means for me I'm having trouble formalising my thoughts at the moment. Need some time to ponder what I really mean.
  9. Say two stars are co-orbiting, and there is a third star that is relatively stationary to both of them (I understand it wont remain stationary)
  10. Sorry for the huge time gap between responses. Tbh, I wasnt thinking about an experiment. I was just thinking about how everything is simultaneous (or not)! Each and every observer in their own relative frame is simultaneously observing or "eventing" with each and all others observers within that relative frame. The parallelism is unimaginably vast to degrees of infinity! I'm also thinking about simultaneity across non-relative frames both due to velocity and curvature, and is it possible to measure this and say two such non-relative framed events were simultaneous at a previous point in time? How does the mathematics work for calculating predictions, when the degree of simultaneity between interactables in reality is so vast, and more likely than not in non-relative frames. Take a simple case of just two observers oA and oB, mutually and simultaneously interacting, over the property Ap and Bp. Given some initial values of Apt0 and Bpt0, how would you calculate the value of ApT at time T (after some interaction)? What kind of mathematics allows such simultaneous calculations? How do these mathematics scale to "real" events with simultaneity across many more interactables in different relative frames? So Calculus uses an infinitesimally small change in Apt0 to calculate Bpt1, and Bpt1 is used to calculate Apt1 and so on. But this is essentially sequential not simultaneous calculations. It is also breaking down a continuous scale into a granular one by creating the notion of an infinitesimally small change. The mathematics, if we use calculus, adopts a sequential and quantum model of time. For me, this is a problem and rather contradictory. We declare time is continuous and simultaneous in GR because the underlying mathematical framework requires it to be so. However the same mathematics employ a granular and sequential approach to calculations. I understand spacetime in GR is continuous, but how does quantum mechanics reconcile spacetime if time is not quantum?
  11. What evidence is there to support the suggestion that time is continuous and not granular, or vice versa, or both, or neither, or something else? What evidence is there to suggest that relative-frame-of-referenced simultaneous events are a reality? How do we measure two simultaneous events and declare they are simultaneous if all observables and measurements are ultimately limited by HUP? We may synchronise two atomic clocks, but how do we know they are synchronised without measuring them and how do we know after our measurement they are still synchronised? How can we be certain at the time of measuring two events, that the clocks were synchronised? In a volume of space with no observations or decoherence, must time still exist? In a volume of space with two things each observing the other, is it impossible that time ticks sequentially rather than simultaneously for both of them?
  12. Here's a cool paper on X-ray anisotropies found within the universe, albeit with unidentified causes. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03305.pdf If space expansion is anisotropic, then the distance coordinate axes are not uniform at all scales.
  13. I'm still none the clearer. The two energy states is like a coin its either heads or tails for the electron. I get that. If you have something that checks for heads, you don't have to check for a tail. But you still need to check the coin. The position of a photon is not like a two sided coin. Its like a millions coins, and only one of them is heads. You can check 999,999 of them and find tails. You don't have to check the last one.
  14. The confusion for me is that I can't see the similarity of position state of a photon with say electron spin. The spin of an electron is a property of the electron, I can't see a how you can measure this property without probing the electron. The position of photon is a little different. I can measure an area to the left and an area to the right, and if its not there, its position must be in the middle. I can deduce and obtain the value of this property by NOT probing the photon. What am I not understanding?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.