Conjurer

Nothing is unstable. If you try to quantize nothing, you will find that anything less than the Planck Units of spacetime would still be considered nothing, since it has no detectable influence on the universe. A point-like particle at rest could exist inside of the Planck Units of spacetime and still be considered nothing, because it would have no mass and energy. There would be nothing to compare it's frame of reference to, so it could assume that it is traveling at any constant speed due to relativistic theory. Therefore, it could then have mass and energy in another reference frame. It could then interact with itself in time-like loops due to being in a state of superposition with an action at a distance. Spacetime would have to expand, due to the Pauli Exclusion principle as it circled this Planck universe. Boom! It has it has been more recently discovered that a particle cannot be contained without exploding out of the container. Any theory attempting to describe it breaks out into infinity, so none of them were ever accepted. I believe the main reason this is the case is because, 1. Action at a distance isn't fully understood, and 2. They don't consider the Pauli Exclusion principle to avoid points of infinite energy. Basically, the universe can just come from quantum weirdness itself.

The expansion of space or dark energy hasn't been shown to be conserved with anything in physics. If energy conservation of dark energy was even going to be remotely possible, then things should lose energy when dark energy is added to the system. If things didn't lose energy from dark energy, then dark energy would be free energy. If it isn't free energy, then things would naturally lose energy from it occurring. The problem is that there is no theory that links dark energy with other energy in a system.

Anyone willing to go back and read what you actually said would find that you did just the opposite of what you are claiming here. You said that you were making progress with me by showing me the correct equation given by Einstein in his 1905 paper when I already knew that all along. You were either making the assumption that I have no idea what I am talking about and just basing your replies on that assumption, or you have some other type of hidden agenda which requires you to make it sound like no one knows anything here about what they are talking about. Now you are trying to cover up that error made by yourself. I don't know what you mean by variance here. That really doesn't make any kind of sense to me. I am saying that the correct equation could not be found by using this method of deriving it. Then "they" is everyone who has ever tried to derive the equation this way. The equations are different, because no one has been able to derive it using this method correctly. I consider it my own intellectual property. I don't think you have, and they are not intended to show two different quantities. It being a different quantity is a result of people being unable to derive the correct equation in this fashion. It explains this a little in the Simple Inference of Time Dilation section in the Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation This setup of the equation is wrong, because it uses the dilated change in time as taking the longer diagonal path. It is wrong, because the observer at rest would measure this path and use their own time to calculate the distance, not the moving objects dilated time. The observer that is in motion would measure the straight up and down path of light using their own dilated time from their own frame of reference. I find this statement, in of itself, a deformation of my personal character. You are implying that I have some motive of providing personal abuse when I do not. People will read that we are even talking about this, and they will probably end up believing that it is true just from the fact that we are discussing this as being some kind of issue. I really just don't appreciate being talked down to by people in these forums. I believe it is a issue that is blinding the real topic that I am trying to discuss here.

No, that equals 15% more than nothing and the accurate description of an extra planet than Newton. I guess you have a better idea?

I clearly meant that it was his mathematical model of this universe he was trying to formulate. It was a long held christian belief that the universe was static, but Einstein was not even christian. I think he believed in some sort of Hindu religion, but that was the best guess of what the universe was like at the time. He wouldn't be able to make an accurate mathematical model of turtles being stacked on top of each other infinitely which could be proven by science.

Traditional Boltzmann Brains would be limited to each system, but the closed timelike looped Boltzmann Brains could store information from across any number of connected systems.

Back in the day, when Einstein developed the cosmological constant, he did it with the intention to make the universe static, so it would stay a certain size despite the force of gravity. When Hubble discovered that space was expanding he retracted this part of his theory, because he didn't know that it could also be used to describe an expanding universe or dark energy. Then telescopes got a lot better than the ones Hubble had, and scientist couldn't figure out how to explain dark energy. Then they discovered that the place holder for the cosmological constant was the only place in the theory that could explain dark energy. Then they checked the cosmological constant (as-is) and discovered that it already fit the data fairly closely, but it was still unknown if the universe would keep accelerating or come to a stop or be a part of a big crunch. Then it was again tested in 2014, and they found out that the expansion was even a little bit faster than they had predicted before, and the universe will probably end up going into a deep freeze. Then they won the Nobel Prize in physics for it. Then it was like Einstein discovered dark energy, tried to erase it, but it ended up being right anyways. They just didn't know that the universe was supposed to be increasing the rate it accelerated outwards back then, so he didn't try to predict that it would.

I didn't say there was a problem with physics. You just assumed that I thought there was a problem with physics. What I am saying doesn't cause any problems with the Standard Model. It was already discovered before the Standard Model was completed. The problem is that it seems like these forums have become pseudoscience, since the general public won't accept the apparent violation of conservation laws. Then they just made up science to fit conservation laws where it shouldn't even exist in quantum theory. Then classical laws do not apply to quantum physics, period! Even an electron seen in a bubble chamber has to produce electrons in order for it to be able to show up. Even that would be the trail of light an electron would leave behind. There is no such thing as "electron vision goggles" or anything similar. If the electron was absorbed to be detected directly, it wouldn't be able to leave a track. Then that is the footprint it leaves behind, and the photon is supposed to be the force carrier of that footprint. If every theoretical physics book off the shelf is considered pop-science and almost everyone of them talk about Hawking Radiation as one of the main subjects, then Hawking Radiation is pop-science. Therefore, it would take an expertise in pop-science to know about Hawking Radiation from it being one of the main subjects of pop-science. I probably read a good dozen or so that talk about Hawking Radiation in this similar fashion, and all of them describe it in exactly the same way. I know of a different library I can try to check tomorrow to post the information on here if you guys are too lazy to go check yourselves.

Your link there claims that the Higgs Field is not universal, and I don't believe that is true. Do you guys even use peer-reviewed references? I don't see how this all comes out to being proof when it is not peer-reviewed. Then most papers on the subject that are peer-reviewed don't talk about any details, and they only try to avoid talking about anything in a manner that could be seen as wrong to anyone by using big words with no apparent real world logical connections. Then it doesn't seem like any information about who is actually right or wrong could actually be proven by a reliable peer-reviewed reference. Then our only hope would be a moderator that actually read about Hawking Radiation in a pop science book that often includes an introduction about these random particle pairs, so the reader will know what they are talking about. In other words, we are all doomed.

I don't see how this could be viewed as anything other than an intentional sabotage of science at this point. The Higgs Field is supposed to give all the other particles mass by them traveling through it, so it needs to be started to be viewed as such. It should be the leading theory of quantum gravity. I have no problems admitting I am wrong when I know I am wrong. I don't go around trying to act like I know everything when I don't. I don't try to use some kind of job position to show that I am right about everything either. You obviously are having some kind of boyfriend problems, and you just end up trolling me because he has horrible game.

If there is one theory which has the potential to describe quantum gravity and it has been proven to exist by experiment, then why do we need other quantum theories of gravity that could never be proven to exist? The reason why they developed them to begin with and they gained support was because there were never able to find the Higgs Boson at Fermilab.

In the theory of the Higgs Boson, all mass comes from particles traveling through a Higgs Field. Two theories of quantum gravity really shouldn't even be necessary if one is capable of accurately describing it.

Then you just don't accept quantum theory in describing this situation. That is one known problem with the theory is that there is no photon that creates the random particle pair. The problem is there is not a deep enough explanation as to why any two particle pairs create a photon. Then it is unknown if it is actually necessary in this situation. The theory assumes that particle pairs can be created without them, since the virtual particles are the exact opposite of each other in positive and negative energy through some kind of means that is different than the normal generation of particle pairs. It would be perfectly valid to say that a photon converts into two virtual particles that then annihilate to create another photon. Energy would be conserved in this situation. Then the original photon has not been able to have been discovered in this situation, so conservation doesn't exist in this one single particular instance of quantum theory. Then conservation of energy existed in science in general when Hawking described it being related to black holes... These free energy particles allow for conservation to exist for a black hole, because he added energy that is popping into existence from out of nowhere. That way physics, as a whole, obeys conservation of energy.

That is the way it is described to happen in pop-physics. Are you saying that random particle pairs are just two squiggly lines that circle each other with no other particles involved? How were such particles that can never be detected ever have been seen to exist in order for us to be talking about them now? I was saying that they were NOT PREDICTED TO BE ABLE TOO come from a Higgs before it was discovered. Electrodynamics had a rule that said that photons could only come from charged particles, and the Higgs is not a charged particle. Let's see, there was quantum loop gravity, the graviton, and many more theories of gravity made up as competitors to the theory that got a lot of attention. The Higgs Mechanism was one of the most least favored theories to explain this in pop-science. Particle accelerators don't even use bubble chambers. They used plates that gave these same kinds of pictures unless it has been replaced by some newer technology. I see the e- on the picture now, so they are electrons. Then the electrons are able to emit light which then leaves the tracks. Here they call them nuclear emulsion plates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_emulsion Anyone who writes any books has to look into the names and dates of people that actually discovered it, and they have to get their references first hand. I think you would actually be disappointing if you ever read one. Most of all they talk about ends up being more like a history lesson of strange things discovered. The pop-science part is just the amazingly unbelievable science that was discovered. I think it is a shame this kind of information is only published in these books, and the information isn't put on the internet from them. There would be a photon on the end, because that is the entire reason why they thought there were random particle pairs even to begin with. A particle accelerator can have everything turned off but the detector, and they will see about one photon appear every cubic meter a second. Also, any particle/anti-particle collision produces a photon... If you did a vertical line test across those Feynman Diagrams, the total energy of each line should be the same. It should be the same when they are real particles, and then it should be the same when they are virtual particles (I am not even sure if I fully agree with my reference of Gordon Kane on this point). Then random particle pairs would not pass this vertical line test. A vertical line before the random particle pairs would have no energy, because there is nothing there. Then a vertical line after that would show energy, since there are virtual particles and then a photon.

What is this? Some kind of government cover-up? Is this supposed to be some kind of joke or prank or something? I stated this in my original post when I made this thread in the last line of the second paragraph. "This started to become a problem, because this was not the same equation that Einstein developed in his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, which was \[ t'=t \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} \] ." It seems like I was unable to present the information in a way you could understand it more clearly or you failed to actually read it. I recommend you go over it and read it again, so you can see the significance of the derivations I was talking about and the actual point I was trying to make. I am simply showing a new derivation in Minkowski spacetime which has been unknown, and that is why text don't use this to explain relativity. Then they explain it using the light clock example which comes out to an inaccurate equation, which is not the same as Einsteins original equation in his paper, but the Lorentz Factor is the inverse of itself. If the object traveling were two spaceships and they launched a beacon at the starting line, they would come back to the beacon showing that both of their clocks no longer showed the same time as the beacon at the starting line or position, if the beacon just remained stationary the whole time. They would both observe each others time slow down as they are moving and this creates the Twin Paradox.

Pretend that Maxwell's Demon got his hands on a time machine. He could alter any number of gates between two separate systems stacked on top of each other through time. He notices that the top system is caught in a time loop that is different from the bottom system. Each time the time loop happens, different information ends up dropping into the bottom system when the timeline branches into a different one below it. Maxwell's Demon ended up getting the time machine in the bottom system, and then he has to restore it to always remain the same in order to insure that he is in the same timeline where he got his hands on a time machine. He also discovers that he can create any type of system he wants from branching off the timelines in the bottom system and shoving parts or sections of it into his own bottom system. He also has the ability to change any interaction between particles in both systems. Each time he opens a gate to transfer information from the top or bottom system, he notices that the information to preserve all time loops is stored in a Boltzmann Brains. The Boltzmann Brains are then capable of changing each system in just a way that all grandfather paradox's are avoided, and each time loop is then preserved by the Boltzmann Brains manipulating a situation in any way they can change anything with their minds in order to preserve every time loop. Each time a time loop is completely removed from a system, the Boltzmann Brain will then only give Maxwell's Demon the information needed, so he could have always have still removed the time loop giving him troubles. Could Maxwell's Demon ever defeat these temporal Boltzmann Brains? Could he ever successfully change the top system, so it is exactly the same as the bottom system he gained his time machine in, so he never has Boltzmann Brains changing the system he was from ever again? If he was successful, how many different systems could he stack before he ended up angering another Maxwell's Demon that got a time machine in a system below his with different time loops?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ It think it makes a lot more sense that you are going against the grain here, because you cannot accept one of the most written about aspects of quantum mechanics. To put this in the most practical sense possible, photons are observed to come out of nowhere that are not involved in the particle collision. The virtual particle pairs are just the best explanation for it so far. If they are impossible to detect, then they could be coming from anything that particle physics just hasn't been able to explain yet. You are just doing the world an injustice by trying to say that there has been a way discovered so far to show how these extra photons follow along with conservation. The problem is that I think the particle physicist that discovered this are smart people, and no one believes them when it comes to this being an exception to the rule. I don't even think anything else is to be discovered here. That may be all there is too it, but it is very similar as the same situation every other discovery was made in particle physics. You are just preventing people from being able to work on that discovery. In order to explain something new in quantum physics they have to explain how it allows conservation of energy. If it was up to me, I would make it a law already that conservation has to be violated there just to screw with peoples heads.

It is a play on words, since they are pronounced the same. Do you see the spiral corkscrew line coming out of here? That is a photographic trace of light or a photon coming from a quark that was converted into energy. Correct, the virtual particles wouldn't add to the energy of the particles in these diagrams. The problem is that random particle pairs have no input into their Feynman diagrams. It would look like two squiggly lines coming out of each other and then coming back to each other, converting into a photon at the end. Then the input doesn't equal the output of the diagram. In all these diagrams, all of the inputs and outputs are the same. Photons coming from the Higgs was not associated with each other in HISTORY. They are now, since the DISCOVERY of them. Most of my knowledge of the subject comes from reading about the history and their interpretations of it. In the time of HISTORY they were discovered, the Higgs would have never been considered a candidate to replace random particle pairs, because the Higgs was thought to be more like pseudoscience by pseudo-scientist. I don't think there is no real big difference between conservation of information and conservation of energy, even mathematically. Is that as much as they allow you to get away with saying about it without someone saying it is wrong here? I was the one trying to answer questions and talk about stuff, so I feel more like the teacher that is getting this type of reaction by all these accusations that everything I say is wrong, not the other way around. I have read some books that even talk about how physicist don't have much of a vocabulary when dealing with this kind of stuff, and that is something they needed. After reading a bunch of different positions about it in order to gain a logical vocabulary for it myself, it makes them out to be a bunch of evil liars from responses I get on the internet. It is like nobody just doesn't want that no-matter what is said or done. I feel mostly distraught instead of angry about it, because it is like I just have to be forced to only be allowed to discuss the most rudimentary and basic concepts of everything. Then I will never be able to talk about something that is actually interesting about it, since a majority of people can't all agree on the fundamentals.

This is the image you linked to me of Einsteins paper, where it clearly shows the solution to the proper time after the word "therefore"... The funny looking "t" there is called tau, and it is exactly the same as t' from how I got to it using Minkowski spacetime. By definition, it is the correct time that would be read on a clock from another inertial frame. The part of the equation after the second equal sign in that same line can just be dropped for the equation, and then it is exactly the same equation as the proper time...

In figure 2.4, they get the Lorentz Factor as a part of the solution. In the equation for the Proper Time, the Lorentz Factor would be inverted. So, it doesn't come out exactly to what has been found to be in experiments, since experiments show that the Proper Time is the more correct equation. They give slightly different answers. Then it would seem like, yes, bastard triangles are needed in order to obtain the Proper Time in this example.

Then why are there virtual particles? Why do you think they are claimed to exist from scientific experimentation? What possible use do you think they can have? How do you think they could even be relevant to anything? Do believe they all just sit together in their own separate system independent of everything and anything? What possible influence do you think a virtual particle could ever have? A quark screw is a device used to open a wine bottle. How could we even know what is inside of a quark then or the fundamental forces that govern it then? Quarks do not even remain stable once a baryon is broken apart... How am I supposed to believe anything you say you know about quantum physics after this comment? It is explained in Sean Carroll's new book, Particle at the End of the Universe. Is English not your first language? Others are found indirectly, but the emission of light is the final outcome in which all particles are calculated to exist in the nuclear reaction. Random particle pairs are not included in the calculations involved in the nuclear reaction, so their added energy is just ignored. Then it can be ignored in all other parts of quantum physics. It is like background noise that is filtered out. This was my point exactly! It looks like we agreed on something. Why are you even mentioning this? Did you make the mistake of thinking I was wrong about this when you agree with it? Why do you think Stephan Hawking even used random particle pairs to show conservation of information for black holes even to begin with? Then why would they think a random particle pair collision occurred to begin with, and it was not a unicorn and a faerie smashed together to make pixie dust?

I never said virtual particles were discovered, and gravitational waves have actually been discovered. The affects of them are only seen indirectly, and they are only theorized to exist to influence and create other real particles that are observed. I don't see why you seem to have been under the impression that I have been saying otherwise. I just completely changed my position on it from what I said earlier. It is just as possible for random particle pairs to actually be an undiscovered Higgs-like boson. The ability of the Higgs boson, to emit photons, was not discovered yet at the time these virtual particles were even believed to exist. It is the same way they discover particles in the first place, in this type of situation. They see light coming from something, and they make a framework to describe it as other particles, virtual or real. Obviously, whatever they detected to be random particle pairs hasn't been completely explained yet, from the apparent violation of conservation of energy. A Higgs-like boson could allow for conservation to be maintained.

I wasn't aware that had ever been proven to have shown to be an exact relation to each other. It sounds like that would just end up giving you a proper distance.

The amount of red-shift increases the further out the galaxies are from where it is coming from. The type 1a supernova is assumed to emit the same wavelength of light, so then they can know the distance the star is away from us from how much that light is red-shifted from what they think it should be from that explosion. The further out the supernova in the galaxy is away from us, the faster it would have had to go to be at that further distance. When they assume everything use to be in one location at the start of the Big Bang by trying to rewind the clock on their movement, they find that everything would have had always have been accelerating in order for it to be in the location it is now from that type of event. Then it would have always had to have been accelerating at an exponential speed which would look the same as a parabolic curve. Then this rate of acceleration has not always fit this type of graph exactly, and there had to be slight increases more recently and at the time of half of the age of the universe in order for it to come out right to what they observe in the sky. The distance stars are calculated to be away from us is measured in light years, and one light year is the time it takes for light to travel in one year. Then the distance it is away from us is the same as where it was that many years ago. Then how many light years it is away from us is calculated from the amount of red-shift the light has from it. It is believed that the amount of red-shift is caused by spacetime itself actually stretching out between galaxies. Then the waves of the light gets stretched out and red-shifted as it travels through that space which is stretching out. The amount of expansion is really uniform in all directions, and it is more uniform than any other type of explosion known to exist on a total scale.

Yes, virtual particles PREDICT the behavior of a quantum system, so that basically means that they have values that are imposed on other "real" particles. They can combine into real particles. I say "real", because the Standard Model doesn't even discern from which particles are actually real or physical. For instance, a quark is only known by the quark-screw pattern light makes when one is broken apart. Then they have never actually got anything to actually check if it is a physical object or not, even though it is often considered to be one. One old rule of quantum mechanics is that photons can only come from two other charged particles, but this didn't happen when the Higgs Boson was discovered. Then the particle pair would just be assumed to exist, even though it may be possible that they don't. They could have just been put in to fit this rule using Feynman diagrams, which means it could be possible that just photons are coming into existence. That would be completely for another thread, but I don't think it matters to talk about it because no one even believes there was ever a photon to be detected in the first place. Then it is a mute point. According to Feynman, it would have been impossible for a photon to even come into existence from nowhere without coming from a pair of charged particles. Like I said, this rule seemed to be broken by the Higgs Boson, and I am not sure how it has been resolved lately.