Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AbstractDreamer

  1. Does the electron collapse its own wavefunction?

    mass of an electron is about 1 x [math] 10^{-30} kg [/math]

    mass of Earth 6 x [math] 10^{24} kg [/math]

    mass of a large human (not me) 1 x [math] 10^2 kg [/math]


    So if i float in a vacuum, enveloped within a sphere of mass 6 x [math] 10^{56} kg [/math]. I would effectively be gravitationally insignificant, undetectable and most importantly unobservable and unmeasurable, and assume my true waveform!!

  2. So it IS a question of relative scale, as i asked in my OP?


    And on that basis, if I were to find a location in space far enough away from everything so that i am only RELATIVELY undetectable by anything in the universe, then my waveform could be reformed and my superposition regained. I would change from being matter, to being a wave, and simultaneously exist in all the other undetectable locations that i could assume, according to Fermat's Principle. And as long as i stay undetected, my location is only a probability function.

  3. Divulging information to who/what? Why does it need to be passed on beyond the first observation?


    An electron has charge and mass. Mass has gravity. The Earth's gravitational and magnetic field should be able to interact with the electron the moment it is emitted and vice versa.


    Clearly the experiments don't nullify the Earth's gravity or magnetism. So how is superposition not lost immediately?

  4. So you're telling me, in the double slit experiment using electrons, that while a single electron is in transit, it encounters NOTHING before it hits the detector?


    NOTHING that interacts such that superposition is lost?


    So no magnetic fields, no electric fields, no gas molecules, no thermal radiation, no gravity field, ... NOTHING that could detect its presence other than the detector?

  5. Login security is usually administered serverside with a username and password.


    Application protocol is directed over port forwarding, setup from your router/sonic wall/firewall.


    Configuring WAN-LAN for static WAN IP is rather silly unless you are a service provider or hosting VPNs.


    Assigning static LAN IP to mac addresses is certainly NOT safe. But then its probably safe enough.


    Servers should have static local IPs.

  6. No responses. Either my question is totally stupid and meaningless, or my reputation is not worth responding to.


    Let me simplify. Which of the following are quantum observers:

    • The entire universe
    • My future event horizon
    • My particle horizon
    • A super cluster of galaxies
    • A galaxy
    • A nebula
    • A super massive black hole
    • A star
    • A planet
    • A continent
    • A mountain
    • A human
    • A chair
    • A monkey
    • A cat
    • An insect
    • A mushroom
    • some Algae
    • A plankter
    • A bacterium
    • An amoeba
    • A virus
    • A complex molecule
    • A simple molecule
    • An atom
    • An ion
    • A proton
    • A neutron
    • An electron
    • A photon
    • Quantum stuff.
  7. Conceptually I think I'm close. Every time i re-read some articles, more things make sense.


    I think some theories make huge mathematical jumps, or substitute in other equations from physics. This always stumps me as i have to get distracted to learn something completely different just to keep pace, only to get further distracted by something else that i don't understand.


    Is this right:

    • peculiar velocity is like local velocity, and it is limited to c
    • inertial velocity im guessing is based purely on expansion. It is proportion to distance from observer, and can be superluminal.
    • recession velocity (im guessing apparent velocity) is the total of peculiar velocity and inertial velocity, and can be superluminal.
    • comoving distance stays the same over time for two distant objects by "including and removing" expansion from the calculation, when the two objects have zero peculiar velocity relative to each other.
    • proper distance changes over time due to expansion, for two distant objects with zero relative peculiar velocity.
    • comoving objects have zero relative peculiar velocity, so that over time, the change in proper distance is purely down to expansion.

    Not really sure on conformal, coordinate or cosmological time/observer. I do have some conceptual ideas i just don't know which way round they are called. Need to process more.

  8. From what I've learnt so far.


    Since the period of inflation about 13 billion years ago, location is not absolute, as the cosmos is assumed to be homogeneous. Instead position is relative.


    So to ask "Where are we?" is an incomplete question. More meaningful would be to ask where are we in relation to something else. Then someone can give you spatial coordinates in reference to that something else.


    But without any frame of reference, the best answer I guess would be "Anywhere" or "Nowhere in particular"

  9. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506079v2.pdf



    I could swear i found that link above from something you posted on this thread, but its gone now. But that paper really answered a lot of my questions!


    The section on concluding remarks really makes clear the assumptions that I had problems with.



    "It is worth mentioning the physical assumptions behind the above mathematical formalism. First we have the principle of cosmological relativity according to which the laws of physics are the same at all cosmic times. This is an extension of Einstein’s principle of relativity according to which the laws of physics are the same in all coordinate systems moving with constant velocities."


    "In cosmology the concept of time (t = x/v) replaces that of velocity (v = x/t) in ordinary special relativity. Second, we have the principle that the Big Bang time τ is always constant with the same numerical value, no matter at what cosmic time it is measured. This is obviously comparable to the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light c in special relativity."


    "Velocity in expanding Universe is not absolute just as time is not absolute in special relativity. Velocity now depends on at what cosmic time an object (or a person) is located; the more backward in time, the slower velocity progresses, the more distances contract, and the heavier the object becomes. In the limit that the cosmic time of a massive object approaches zero, velocities and distances contract to nothing, and the object’s energy becomes in- finite. "

  10. Very true. Point taken.


    Apparently the "transit" method finds most exoplanets. This is when the planet moves between us and the star and the star dims. So it would seem the transit effect is related to volume of planet/object, which is related to mass and density. So the transit method's detection population reflects on the how common objects are in relation to their volume.


    Of-course if objects are transparent to EM radiation, or even translucent to different degrees, that would negatively affect their observability via this transit method too.


    So the numbers would not reflect well on highly translucent or highly dense objects, both of which could have significant gravitational influence on the solar system they are in.

  11. There's lots of other threads on this. I started one myself recent and got hooked lol.



    My summary so far:

    Nothing in the universe has been observed or even modelled to go backwards in time. Nothing in quantum mechanics, nothing in cosmology, nothing in theories like string theory or super-symmetry.

    So if there's no backwards in time (negative time), there's no meaning to forwards (positive time)

    Onwards is the only "direction" for time to go apparently.

    Time is about measuring change.


    Theres' Time Reversal Invariance, which is: for simple collisions time makes no difference if its "forwards" or "backwards".


    I'm trying to argue that time might not be linear over time. I can't get my head around this thought myself though


    That's about it as far as mainstream physics go. The rest is in philosophy section.

  12. Is there anything that doesn't interact with a quantum mechanic system such superposition is/would be lost?


    Isn't the quantum universe in perpetual interaction with all the layers of fields around it and all the particles whizzing around doing their thang?


    Lets take a photon as an excitation in the EM field. I cant imagine anywhere on Earth this photon could be moving in that has no other excitation. I mean there's EM radiation everywhere right? Radio signals, light, gamma rays from space, charged particles, Earth's magnetic field, CMB thermal radiation, all sorts of excitations.


    Or a quark in the gluon field, or higgs field. Are these fields generally at base excitation level such that most excitations are NOT interacting?


    Even if the fields themselves do not count as observers, surely other excitations do?


    Would these other excitations need to be removed or at least absent from Schrodingers box?


    In the double slit experiment when electrons are used; Does the Earth's magnetic field not observe the electron's path infinitesimally small that might be?

  13. Your Hell-o's mass would not have any net gravitational effect on anything within the visible universe. This is something that Newton proved with the Shell theorem. If we consider the galaxy in your diagram, it will feel no net pull in any direction due to the mass surrounding the visible universe. Look at it this way, If you draw a vertical line through it extending up and down through the "Hell-0", you divide it into two halves, one to the left of the galaxy and one to the right. Now while the galaxy is closer on average to the right half, there is more mass to the left. The result is that the gravity pulling to the left will be exactly equal to the gravity pulling to the right and the galaxy has no tendency to accelerate to the right.


    Whilst there are plenty of things I disagree with OP's model on, I think Shell theorem assumes a lot of things; its a Theorem; it doesn't invalidate OP's model. Straw man fallacy.


    For instance it's a theory of a perfect symmetrical sphere. Any tiniest deviation from perfection will lead to tiny variance in gravitation potential, which over time will distort the shape of the sphere, leading to greater variance in potential and so on. OP's model is not dependent on the sphere being perfectly spherical.


    It also assumes symmetrical mass distribution. Whilst the cosmos is isotropic, i don't believe it is perfectly gravitionally isotropic, even within the limits of our event horizon, let alone just our particle horizon.


    However if the sphere is not perfectly spherical, and assuming the outside forces are acting uniformly "pulling" the universe outwards with an even force in all directions, then expansion "inside" would not be even - indeed there would probably be some areas of contraction and other areas of expansion, although it might conceivably expand eventually into a perfect sphere, once the outside forces reach equilibrium with the "other side", and then Shell theorem would be valid lol.


    As I've contradicted myself, I'm definitely wrong somewhere.

  14. Is that a typo on line 14 ish. You wrote [math] e_c(t)/c^2 [/math] did you mean [math] \epsilon_c(t)/c^2 [/math]


    Is this critical energy density as a function of time?


    With a decreasing scale factor wrt time (or decelerating expansion), more and more distant objects would appear as our particle horizon overtakes the photons coming towards us. But H would need to be really really small (though still positive), considering that these newly appearing objects must initially be outside our "observable" universe; that is, there's so much distance for expansion to work over, so expansion must be really really small in relation to that distance and the time taken for the photon to reach us.


    With a contracting universe, would the night sky get brighter and brighter, as photons from objects outside our particle horizon catch up with each other, in effect increasing the intensity as observed here on Earth?

  15. Random notes is generally discordant. Music is beautiful.

    Is beauty found in Order from Chaos?


    Frequency patterns of waves is natural patterns of beauty. Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio is natural beauty too

    I wonder if these patterns appear in the Cosmos too?


    If virtual particles terrify you, and if dark matter is everywhere in the universe, and if the universe is the night sky, then


    The Night is Dark and full of Terrors.

  16. Evidence that volume expansion is occurring suggests that distance is not "flat" over time. Terrible word to use, but I can't think of another right now. What i mean by not "flat" is that the units of distance are stretched by expansion. Perhaps "uniform units" is a better word. The grids on the graph are morphed, not just the function that describes motion.

    What evidence is there that c is universally (at any location in the universe), locally, historically (periods since inflation) , momentarily (now) and futurely (either infinitely or until the end of time) constant?

    What evidence is there that time is "flat" or "uniform units". That is, the "gap" between 1 second today is the same as the "gap" between 1 second just before the end of time or [math] 10^{99999} years [/math] in the future, or the same as the "gap" between t=0 and t=1 seconds?

    If its possible that time is not "flat", doesn't that invalidate the use of indefinite integration when the boundless value is infinity or -infinity? So when we integrate some function of velocity to obtain a distance or displacement, that's fine when the limits of time are "local" (i dunno say a few million years, time is probably "flat").

    But when we integrate [math] \int^{t_z}_{t_0} [/math] we are assuming that the "flatness" of time extends uniformly all the way back to the very moment time started, including the period around [math] t= 10^{-33} seconds [/math], and including the crazy period just before that then when [math] 0<t< 10^{-33} seconds [/math]. So for example when measuring the instantaneous distance to the particle horizon, the lower bound is t=0.

    And when we integrate [math] \int^{\infty}_{t_z} [/math] , we are assuming that "flatness" of time will always be the same, right up to the point when time ends or say when the universe has big crunched, or expanded to nothingness, or some other fate. So for example when we measure the instantaneous distance to the event horizon, the upper bound is [math] t=\infty [/math]

    However, even as integration is an approximation, is that not a dangerous assumption to assume time is "flat"? Similarly is differentiation with respect to time only accurate when time itself consists of uniform units (regardless of scale).

    In the same way to calculus, are trigonometric function only valid for a flat "axes"? So whilst a static universe is perfectly flat, as soon as we differentiate with respect to time we introduce a potentially non-static function, which may invalidate our premise. Even if time were flat, and even if the geometry of the universe is almost perfectly flat, by definition of space expansion is it fair to say volume is not flat over time?

    I'm not sure how time dilation is involved in my problem, as this is nothing to with relative velocity or gravitation. It gets very confusing conceptually if time is not "flat" over time. Whilst distance can be an instantaneous measurement independent of time, its hard to picture the same with time. Is there evidence to suggest that everything in the universe that is co-moving and "co-gravitationalfielding" is also co-aging?

    Over the distances and scale of space expansion, how can we ever know an object is instantaneously comoving with us, if what we can measure of the object is millions of years old. Is there not some uncertainty principle at work here? Just like location and momentum of a particle is uncertain, can we say the same about distance and age of anything far away, even if we know how the scale factor has changed over time?

    Do we know why the scale factor is changing over time?

  17. Just to be clear, there's noway I'm right i know, and I'm not trying to argue against the accuracy of FLRW parameterisations of Einsteins field equations, when compared to observations.


    I just want to probe conceptual alternatives, without making speculations, or at least discount alternatives.


    However, whilst I am slowly improving with my pure maths, I'm struggling when applying it to physics. And whilst i have no intention of disbelieving equations that are the foundations of theoretical physics, I find it troubling to simply accept everything that is presented before me, without working up to that point of conclusion myself from the basics.


    Thanks for your replies, I need more time to process before responding hopefully sensibly, without you having to repeat or stress something that i do not fully comprehend.


    It is not homogeneous in time (that would be a steady state model, it is homogeneous (and isotropic) spatially.



    If the distance between points is stretched, then the volume they are in must also increase, surely?


    Apologies for continuing my baseless thoughts:


    If expansion is defined as (change in volume)/(time), the only way for expansion to be non-zero and for change in volume to negligible, is through some function of time.


    With that in mind, is it possible that rather than space expanding, time is contracting?


    So rather than observing super distance objects are moving away from us faster than closer objects, and deducing that the intervening volume is expanding (which is the obvious answer), could you not interpret it as "The further the distance from an observer, the slower that time ticks at that very distant location, simultaneously". And to preserve isotropy of volume, then it must be that relative to that distant point, our time is ticking also slower, simultaneously".


    This would appear to both satisfy the inhomogeneity of time, and the isotrophy of volume.


    So consequently the speed of light is what it is locally for any observer in the universe. But very distantly relative to each and every location, it could be much slower due to time contraction, giving the illusion of volume expansion.


    What i think i mean is: the speed of light is 300,000 m/s locally relative to a location, at each and every location in the universe. But at the edge of the observable universe relative to each and every location in the universe, the speed of light could approach zero relative to that location.


    Sorry, i know this is speculation territory here. I will attempt to stay on track, once i have processed more information.

  • 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.