scifimath

I should say, observing the mass of a blackhole isn't going to grant it spacetime.

I said there was a good chance because of what this thread implies about reality.

Catching a quantum wave would be seeing the particle in a wave of information.

All of you are pretending like the start of this thread didn't exist. You know, that thing you couldn't refute?

you want to say "mass energy levels involved. QM deals in units of quanta. "

I want to say size ..it's basically the same thing you are talking about. We can call it quanta if it makes you feel better.

cool, let's put it in a package called "observable".

Quantum sized objects are observable when observed ..you just aren't going to catch quantum waves. 

The mass in a blackhole is unobservable. Yes, spacetime is being curved ..until it reaches the actual black hole. Spacetime is a dimension, not just a coordinate system. 

This whole thread is about the separation of observed (spacetime) and the unobserved (quantum waves)

The EH is still spacetime.

I want to add that I think there is a good chance a black hole is a spherical gap in spacetime with the unobservable quantum realm exposed.

No, it's the entire life of both particles. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed.

Unobserved Quantum waves are not part of spacetime. They get to be part of the universe when they are observed (swapped to being physical).

Quantum waves are not going to turn physical unless a human wants it to be real/physical during its path/life. Or if it becomes part of an object that is already large enough to be anchored to spacetime.  A detector can be anything that lets a human know it passed by. Placing a detector is the ritual required to summon a physical particle.

Why do I need to discuss the wave function?

Dimension might not be the best word, how about realm? Two realms in this domain. Observed vs Unobserved

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Before there were any living observers in the universe, there was no spacetime, or just no "reason" for spacetime to exist?

So particles are not "physical" until observed.

 

How come yet unobserved photons were affected by spacetime even before there were observers? Light from distant objects travelling through space were affected by gravitational lensing long before anyone decided to create a telescope able to see those photons. The photons were not in some separate unobservable dimension, the photons were affected by curved spacetime.
 

The dimension of unobserved quantum waves has always been and always will be. Spacetime has a beginning. 

They are not physical until we request them to be physical

Unobserved quantum waves don't need anything from spacetime to function. Photons don't use our version of time. The distance the photon travels doesn't matter. If we request it, its state has been decided.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Then how can you test it to see if it’s correct?

 

So what if you shoot a particle at the slits, and place (or remove) the detector after you shoot the particle? The slits are far enough away that it takes longer for the particle to get there than it does to make the change.

Gravitons won't exist. Particles won't be a duality at the same time.

The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of the particle is known. It will know if it will pass through a detector in its path.

It's the bridge between the two dimensions. Observation is the reason spacetime exits.

The interaction is someone placing a detector wanting a particle to be physical. Observation is magical ..deal with it.

I don't think observation has a symbol

I predict what happens when spacetime gets involved from observation. You are all blinded by your own clout.

oh, you are right, I should hang my head in shame from coming up with a Theory of Everything ..I'm such a jerk.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

How would one test your conjecture? How could it be falsified?

Wouldn't you like to know! ha. My theory already fits to what double slit type experiments demonstrate. 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which if statement?

If (full spacetime object){//larger than abbes diffraction limit or being observed

current situation = General Relativity;}

else{current situation = Unobserved QM;}

The if statement.

I'm arguably the person that knows more about the double slit than anyone. It held the key to the Theory of Everything.

The state of the particle is decided before it leaves the gun.

I already gave you a conditional statement.

Any method of analyzing that a particle existed while moving.

The theory of the very large and small are unified.

lol

This will be seen as a joke, but I laid out a refutable theory ..deal with it.

If (full spacetime object){//larger than abbes diffraction limit or being observed

current situation = General Relativity;}

else{current situation = Unobserved QM;}

20 hours ago, Mordred said:

As Strange mentioned the HUP is  fundamental in our universe.

I'll take this to mean you didn't even read what I wrote.

23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

So you are saying spacetime or the maker of spacetime is nice to living things???

That does not seem like anything in the realm of science.

I'm saying there isn't a reason of for spacetime to exist. Spacetime was written to use unobserved wave information for mortals. I've had time to consider what my post implies and it points at a god being involved. Not a god man has described, but one bored out of its existence. The meaning of life is to entertain a god with nothing but time to waste. Each observation we make is something to entertain this god.

This contains the Theory of Everything, I'm free to say whatever crazy thing I want. 

It's unobservable, the best we can do is probabilities with the wave function. Side note:  The reason for spacetime to exist is for living things to be able to observe. Living things wouldn't like being in an unobservable world.

The Uncertainty Principle is a side effect from repeated requests to make the QM object real/physical.

It's a delay/smear from the system not being able to process quick enough. Swapping from wave to particle is apparently taxing, especially if it has to do it to each observable event (frame/timeline), for momentum.

The double slit shows us that a particle can be requested to decohere and remain decohered until it hits the detector.

The Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of decoherence to get the momentum.

What's newly discovered is that each request is causing the particle to cycle from wave to particle, setting fuzziness because it wasn't fast enough to do the swap.