Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AbstractDreamer

  1. Sorry for the huge time gap between responses.

    On 6/23/2020 at 11:16 PM, swansont said:

    What “simultaneous event in relative frame” experiment did you have in mind?

    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.


    On 6/24/2020 at 6:13 AM, Markus Hanke said:

    You cannot separate time and space, they always exist together as spacetime, regardless of whether the region in question is a vacuum or not.

    I understand spacetime in GR is continuous, but how does quantum mechanics reconcile spacetime if time is not quantum?



  2. 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?

  3. 6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    In a magnetic field, the two spin states have different energy (this is the case in most atoms). A null result from one state means it must be in the other.

    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.

  4. 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?

  5. 44 minutes ago, studiot said:

    In particular there is no such thing as a quantum curve, since a curve is continuous.
    But no one knows the answer to the question is the physical universe continuous or granular (discrete) ?

    1 hour ago, Mordred said:

    The Langrangian in QM and QFT or even GR applies the same principle. 

    A good example is in GR if you take  a curve you can find infinitisimal portions of that curve that is approximately flat. 

    A curve must be continuous if you want to use calculus and all the useful and accurate predictions it can make, but why must it not be granular?

    Going back to small things cause big things.   If there is a principle of bigwards, then it would suggest that quantum mechanics "causes" GR, and not vice versa.  Perhaps, one reason why they havent been reconciled is the mathematics of GR is entirely founded upon a continuous functions and continuous manifolds, and (I'm guessing here) QM isnt entirely (though i am looking up Lagrangian).   The fundamental theorem of calculus is real-valued continuous functions.  Surely it has complications if the function is discrete or made of quanta.

    Perhaps that is the problem... if you take infinitesimal portions of a quantum curve deltaY/deltaX, why should it be flat?  Correct me if I'm wrong, a quantum universe suggests at infinitesimal size, you get a quanta that has a curved property.  A big curve is made of infinitesimally small curves each with a unique curve value.

    If there is a principle of bigwards, it would suggest granular should explain continuity.

  6. So I was out running again.  Sometime during the run, I discovered my heartrate monitor had fallen off my chest strap.  Now I knew when I had last checked it, and this meant it must have fallen off on one of three paths I had run up.  So I went back and searched two of paths for it, and didn't find anything.  At this point I knew it was on the third path.  At this point it also occurred to me that I had measured the position of my heartrate monitor without actually making a measurement or an observation of it.

    Now here's the giant leap of faith to some relevance.  Had I known its momentum before hand, I would have information on both its momentum and position at the same time.  Had it been a quantum particle, I would have the avoided the problem of the Observer Effect - by deducing the value of the observable, by measuring all the states that it is not in except one and finding nothing, instead of making a direct measurement of the state it is in.

    Clearly the Uncertainty Principle remains inviolable.  But if quantum mechanics assigns observables as operators and values as eigenvalues of the operator, how does it model unobserved values or rather values for a operator that remains unobserved?

    Now leaping over the fence, how might this unobserved measurement be involved when considering entanglement, and "action at a distance".  Does the unobserved measurement of a quantum state of an entangled particle still collapse the waveform simply by deducing information without measurement?

    PS.  I did find my heartrate monitor, and yes it was on the third path.


  7. On 5/17/2020 at 4:14 AM, Mordred said:

    A little piece of advise reading several of your recent threads.

    Focus on one question at a time. You cannot truly learn a topic by numerous random questions all at the same time. Study each question in detail instead of relying on short replies.


    Well unfortunately for me, I have tried to "truly" learn some physics previously, but I came across unscalable walls and bottomless pits.

    The biggest obstacle for me was the mathematics.  I simply don't understand them.  I can follow instructions.  I can find the area bounded by two hyperbolic functions.  I can follow matrix calculus operations.  But I can't understand them.  They have no "meaning".  There are mathematical techniques and tricks that are used that I can accept are true, but I cannot logically comprehend them and cannot apply logical proof to the equations once they are added.    In addition I have questions about the legitimate use of some mathematics.  There are some assumptions that are taken for granted, or at least rarely mentioned, but these assumptions underlay ALL the conclusions that are drawn from the results the mathematics give.  Just for example, off the top of my head, integration relies on a coordinate system that is "uniform", that is the gap between integers are consistent, but what if it isnt?  That throws integration out of the window.  Any integration with respect to Time from zero to infinity, assumes that it is uniform and consistent from the beginning and  forever  What evidence do we have this is so?  Sure you can calculate the area under a curve...but only if you assume your axes are consistent and uniform.  What if the gap between 2 and 3 was larger than the gap between 1 and 2, such that 1 +2 =/= 3?  We already know space expands, that is, the axes are stretched.  Are they stretched evenly everywhere at the same time?  Do two volumes of space mutually exclusive from each other's observable universe and future universe stretch at the same rate?  How does space expansion reconcile with an isotropic universe?

    The second biggest obstacle for me was the scope.  If you want to "truly" know one thing, you have to know ten other things first, the rabbit hole never ends.  I am truly awestruck by how vast the scope of physics is.  It is like running up a mountain of infinite size, and everytime you summit a local maxima, there's ten more summits behind.

    The third problem was time and attention.  I don't have the time or the attention or even the ability to learn all the things I need to know to answer my own questions.

    The bottom line is, I am resigned to forever never truly understanding anything, and forever asking questions like a child.

  8. 1 hour ago, studiot said:


    I am thinking about the OP question and the balance between aggregation or accretion processes (bigwards)  contrasted with dispersion processes which break thing down and spread them out.

    The OP seems to favour the former, but we actually encounter both.
    There is also the issue of the observed expansion of the Universe and therefore the question of diminution of density.


    My opinion has no valid basis at all.  I was reading another topic when the thought popped into my head, but now I realise the terms I use are rather ambiguous and poorly explained.  But I guess they were vague enough to make more learned minds think a bit.  I think my use of stars, atoms and quantum particles misses something I couldnt quite formulate into words.

    What does bigwards even mean?   If something disperses, it would have a bigger volume, surface area etc, but smaller density -  both bigwards and smallwards.

    The chicken and the egg things brings to my mind the problem about space expansion and dark energy.

    Does dark energy cause space expansion, or does space expansion cause dark energy, or are they equivalent like mass and energy?


    2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

    Interesting! Maybe Hawking radiation fits into this? AFAIK Hawking radiation, if it exists, is generated near even horizons of black holes. Is a supermassive black hole causing a small quantum effects near the event horizon an example of something (really) large causing something small?


    Is a black hole considered a singular, indivisible object such that Hawking radiation is emitted from "the entirely of the black hole" rather than a point close to its event horizon?

    Of course large things can make small things to happen.  A big star can emit a photon.  A big whale can displace water molecules.  But I think the "cause" I'm referring to is "reason" or "explanation" or "why" something happens.  Why the proton is emitted - what physics, or why the water molecules are displaced.  This WHY or CAUSE is explained by understanding something on a smaller scale and not (AFAIK) on the bigger scale.

    The particle emitted from the black hole is the effect, but the CAUSE is hawking radiation, NOT the black hole.  Another effect is the decay of the black hole.  The direction of cause is bigwards!

  9. 24 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Interesting question. Maybe it is just the way we think about it? Breaking things down to components.

    The collapse of stars, and the collision of neutrons stars, are required to create most of the different types atoms in the universe. So I'm not sure your conjecture is universally true.


    Well the formation of, for example, gold atoms requires high energy, and while a "large" cause such as a neutron star collision provides the energy, it is fundamentally still the physical laws that govern subatomic particles of protons, neutrons, and electrons ( + high energy) that creates the gold atom.

    Its not so much the physical laws that explain a neutron star collision that creates the gold atom. GR will explain how two neutron stars collide, but im not sure how much it helps with describing how gold is formed with a bunch of neurons, protons and electrons.

  10. Why is it apparent that small things determine how big things work and not vice versa?

    Why is cause and effect noncommutative with respect to "size".

    In the sense that CAUSE is due to some physical laws:

    Quantum fluctuations CAUSE real and virtual particles.  Real particles cause leptons, quarks, bosons.  Leptons and quarks cause protons, neutrons and electrons.  Protons neutrons electrons cause hydrogen helium and carbon atoms.  Hydrogen, iron and oxygen cause stars, planets, and water.  Stars, planets and water cause  galaxies, solar systems, and oceans.

    Galaxies do not cause stars. Stars do not cause hydrogen.  Hydrogen does not cause protons.  Protons do not cause quarks.  Quarks do not cause real particles.  Real particles do not cause quantum fluctuations.

    The direction of time is forwards?

    The direction of cause is bigwards?



  11. 13 hours ago, joigus said:

    I don't know exactly what you mean with 'experience.'

    Well let's see.  From what I understand,  EM radiation is affected by curvature. So in this sense, massless EM radiation experiences spacetime.  But is it possible it is only affected by how it is observed by massive things?  That is, although it is massless, it has properties that "only belong" in the massive universe.  For example, its velocity is a constant determined by local curvature in the massive universe, but if it is not a valid frame of reference in itself then velocity is an invalid property of anything existing in the massless universe.  So velocity is a property that only "makes sense" or "takes on a value" in the massive universe. So while EM radiation seems to effect a change in velocity due to curvature, it's not actually a property belonging to the radiation, and therefore no "experience".

    Now consider its wavelength.    If space, volume, distance, length and time are all part of the same continuum, then is waveLENGTH a massive property too?   What properties of a photon actually define what it is in its own universe?   Lets say there is a "red" wavelength photon and a "blue" wavelength photon, both with the massive property of c.  If we removed spacetime physics, then c would not make sense, and so would "red" and "blue".  So what is there left to differentiate the two photons?  What is left of the universe without space time?  There must be SOMETHING left!

    16 hours ago, Strange said:

    And what does it mean for a photon to "experience time" anyway? They are unchanging so it makes no difference.

    This "experience" of time I'm referring to is really about leading to whether the existence of time (and spacetime) is a prerequisite for masslessness.

    15 hours ago, Strange said:

    No. Needing space is a characteristic of fermions (which all have mass). Bosons can all occupy the same space (they can overlap or pass through one another). And there are bosons with mass.

    If two bosons have values in the higgs field and then occupy the same quantum state of position, how do they retain their original higgs values when they separate?

    What relevance or significance does space, position and location have for bosons?

    15 hours ago, Strange said:

    But all massless things are (I think) bosons, and so no't need space.

    So if we removed all massive things from universe, do the physics of spacetime have any relevance?

    If we removed or changed the physics of spacetime, would that affect the nature of any massless things?

    16 hours ago, Strange said:

    I would say that a universe requires spacetime because without that it would be zero-size and exist for zero time; in other words it wouldn't exist.

    I would argue, a universe absent of spacetime requires that anything that might exist within it may have a value for size or for time but that such values are redundant and just meaningless information.  If the presence of spacetime gives meaning to space and time values, then the absence of spacetime removes that meaning.  Zero size and zero time has meaning and meaning requires presence.

    16 hours ago, Strange said:

    But, using the math of GR, you can define a universe with no mass or energy in it; just spacetime. These "vacuum solutions" to the Einstein Field Equations are useful for exploring aspects of the theory.

    I think perhaps I should have started this thread in the quantum fields topic.    GR describes spacetime and gravity through relationships between how things interact on a macro scale.   I wanted to explore how the universe presents to massless things.

    Is spacetime a prerequisite for massive or massless things to exist?

    Do massless things have any non-spacetime properties?

    Do massive bosons have a gravitation effect?

    If spacetime is a continuum and gravity curves spacetime, why is spacetimegravity not a continuum?



  12. So I've been running a lot recently.  And running causes the mind to wander, and wonder.  Here are some wanderings:


    Are all quantum observers required to be massive?

    Can something without mass, cause or contribute to waveform collapse of an another observable?

    Must all massless things in the universe move at the speed of light, relative to the massive things?

    Must all things that move in the universe at the speed of light be massless?

    Do all massive things move at the same speed relative to a massless thing?

    Do all massive things need space?

    Do any massless things need space?

    Do all massive things experience entropy?

    Do massless things experience entropy?

    Does time matter to massless things?

    Do massless things experience spacetime ?  

    Does a massless universe  require spacetime?

    How many dimensions does a massless thing need?  EG, a photon has property of wavelength and a frequency, so at least 2 dimensions.  Could its "movement" through spacetime be a property of spacetime rather than of itself?  That is, if it didn't have the property of c relative to massive things, because massive things didn't exist, would it still have the property of c?

    That's many questions to roughly the same thoughts that were bugging me as I was running.  Ill be running again tomorrow!

  13. So which processes have the most advanced predictions, the least systematic errors, but still a high degree of randomness?

    How far can quantum randomness extend to the macro scale?

  14. But do these functions only describe processes and their behaviour over time statistically?  For the next singular quantum event, are they still unpredicatable?

  15. Actually I asked for the closest thing to true random, as I had assumed a definitive answer would be improbable.    I was hoping for a variety of examples that exist in the quantum world, because ultimately that's where I again assumed any randomness will originate from.   I was rather disappointed at there only being one answer (atomic decay), as I thought there would be more interesting situations where randomness is exhibited.

    On the other hand, rather than looking at the randomness on the smallest scale, and look instead at randomness on the largest scale, such as the observable universe and how the different interpretations affect randomness on that scale.  Under Copenhagen interpretation, if the micro scale is not deterministic, then perhaps on the large scale there is greater non-determinism.  Just like one set of infinities can be greater than other sets of infinities.

    Under Bohm, even if the quantum world is deterministic, can it be proved that this determinism is carried over through all the scales, despite being practically impossible to measure?  All it would take is one non-deterministic event to occur somewhere in the Bohm universe, and the deterministic nature of its quantum world would essentially be irrelevant in a volume that included such an event, and perhaps all "connected" volumes too.

  16. Ok, lets look at atomic decay.  I don't know, lets choose alpha decay.

    We don't know when the nucleus will next produce an emission and decay, though statistically over time we can predict how much emission it will produce over time.   So we say the time of next emission is random but is that because of our limited knowledge and/or detection apparatus? 

    @studiot If I wanted to choose 1 object at random from a set of objects, my definition of randomness is that nothing in the universe can predict which choice that would be.  That is my layman's definition.

    Another query i have is how time plays a role in randomness.  

    For example if an atomic nucleus decays at time t.  If we "rewound" time and passed through time t again, would that nucleus decay at exactly the same time?  If so, then it event was always deterministic, and not random, despite being seemingly random to us.

    A truly random emission would be time independent.   Going back to my example of choosing 1 object at random.... then replaying that random choice process through time would produce either the same or a different result, but still unpredictable nevertherless.

    PS. I thought bell theorem's only disproves local hidden variables?


  17. Not sure if this is in the right topic of Quantum Theory.

    But what is the closest thing to true randomness?  As I understand, computer generated numbers are deterministic at the core; dice do not have even mass distribution; hidden variable theory suggests there is an underlying deterministic function to the probabilistic nature of the quantum world.

    On the other hand, if there is no determinism in quantum probabilities, can true randomness be attained therein?

  18. There is speculation that the next new particle discovered will be called the ALB particle.  It's properties are best described in terms of colors.  Predictions are already abound for the existence of an anti-ALB particle called the ALBino.  It is colorless.



    On 6/3/2018 at 7:49 AM, Markus Hanke said:

    for a region of spacetime to be considered special relativistic, its geometry has to be Minkowskian - in practical terms this means that any two neighbouring events will always be related to one another in the same way, regardless of where and when you are within the region in question.  This means that a number of restrictions apply:

    1. There is no curvature (i.e. the Riemann tensor vanishes everywhere in that region)
    2. The temporal and spatial parts of the metric have opposite sign
    3. The spacetime is everywhere smooth, continuous, and differentiable

    Among some other, more technical ones. Essentially, (1) means that gravitation can be neglected in the scenario in question; (2) means we are dealing with a type of hyperbolic geometry, so inertial frames are related by hyperbolic rotations in spacetime; (3) means that spacetime can be described as a manifold, so it’s a continuum of events, and all world lines are continuous and differentiable everywhere.

    Note that there is no mention here of acceleration, because SR is more general than just inertial frames; it can also handle accelerated observers just fine, so long as the above three criteria apply. For a frame to be inertial is a more restrictive condition, because we also need to add the requirement that proper acceleration vanishes everywhere, meaning we consider only geodesics in spacetime, as opposed to just any arbitrary world line.

    GR then generalises this by abandoning (1), allowing non-vanishing curvature, and hence non-trivial relationships between events. The limits of GR then would be given by (3) - if we have a situation where energies are so high that spacetime itself becomes subject to quantum fluctuations, we can no longer describe it as a smooth and differentiable manifold, making even simple notions such as distance etc problematic. This is where QG has to step in, then.

    Given observers in an Minkowskian volume of empty space, are there any limits to how large this volume is or how much time this volume exists for before one of the three restrictions that define such a space is violated?

    What if this volume of space was so large such that observers on opposite sides of this volume are moving away from each other at superluminal speeds due to expansion?  What if this volume of space is not so large, but over eons grew via expansion to such a size that observers on opposite sides of this volume are moving away from each other at superluminal speeds?

    How does volume or time limit the range of Minkowskian geometry around such observers?

  • 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.