Markus Hanke

Unless my understanding of this is badly flawed somewhere (which I can never entirely rule out), then the answer is yes, fermions interact with the Higgs in a manner similar to gauge bosons. From what I remember this is implemented in the (unbroken) Lagrangian via a Yukawa coupling term between the fields. When you break the symmetry, this leaves behind mass terms in the new Langrangian.

It should also be remembered that mass arises from a quantum field’s interaction with the Higgs field, so in some sense it isn’t actually an intrinsic, isolated property at all. Prior to electroweak symmetry breaking, all elementary particles were massless.

I can throw a few more theories into the mix, if you like We’ve quite a selection to choose from!

What it models is 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, which is precisely - you guessed it - Special Relativity. What are you hoping to achieve by denying the basics of one of the most studied and well-tested model in physics? This is standard undergrad stuff.

I have not stated any “ideas”, only the current scientific consensus. Whether you think that I “know what I am talking about” or not is irrelevant to me. What you get is an interference pattern, which is a distinct entity from the wave function itself, since the pattern is formed by a distribution of individual hits. No it can’t. In fact, the exact opposite is the case - the interference pattern looks the way it does only because spacetime in the region of the apparatus has Minkowski geometry, and is hence flat. If the region between the slits and the screen had a non-trivial spacetime geometry - specifically, a gravitational wave field (i.e. your “time\space waves”) of sufficient average amplitude -, the interference pattern on the screen would look quite different. The other problem of course is that, if you were to measure which of the slits the electron moves through, the interference pattern disappears - even if nothing changes in the geometry of spacetime. So it’s trivially evident that the pattern has nothing to do with the geometry of spacetime, but arises from the wave-particle duality of the quantum system itself.

As already stated earlier, relativity is a model of spacetime. The two are not different things. Special Relativity is just Minkowski spacetime, General Relativity describes any semi-Riemannian manifold (=spacetime) that is a solution to the Einstein equations. As for the physical interpretation of spacetime itself, it is simply the set of all events, i.e. all points in space at all instances in time. The theory of relativity simply describes how these events are related to one another.

Both relativistic quantum mechanics, as well as quantum field theory are special relativistic models, i.e. the work on a Minkowski spacetime background. So no, it is not restricted to classical theories. Going even further, String Theory is formulated on a smooth and continuous spacetime background, the geometry of which must be described by the field equations of General Relativity.

True, and that is a good thing. I would encourage you to keep learning, also across many different disciplines. However, to really understand something (such as e.g. quantum mechanics) thoroughly, having broad yet superficial knowledge isn’t enough - one also needs in-depth knowledge of the subject matter in question. And acquiring this generally takes time and effort, which is why most scientists are experts only in one particular field.

There is no “2 atoms thing” in physics.

There is no hierarchy, but the different scientific disciplines deal with different domains of enquiry. Psychologists are not trained in quantum mechanics, and you wouldn’t want a phycisist attempting to treat you when you go into a mental hospital, would you? Inter-disciplinary communication and cooperation is crucially important, but most scientists have in-depth knowledge in only one particular area.

None of the examples you list are either strange nor unexplained - these phenomena are perfectly well understood, and made use of extensively in practical engineering applications. There may be different ways to interpret them epistemologically and ontologically, but that doesn’t make them unexplained. You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

Quantum mechanics has nothing to say on the subject of reincarnation - that means it neither affirms nor denies the idea. It’s simply outside the scope of physics. And Ian Stevenson is a psychiatrist, not a phycisist.

This doesn’t make any sense. The theory of relativity is a model of spacetime. The two are not different things. And as for simultaneity, it is obvious that this is always a relative concept.

We wouldn’t be here if the universe were any different. So simply on account of us being here and asking this question, there’s little surprise in the universe being what it is. Given the existence of human beings, it simply cannot be any different. But there’s a more scientific issue at stake here - you say that the universe being the way it is comes with an astronomically low probability. How do you actually know this? In order to assign specific probability values to particular configurations of universes, you have to first know the space of all possible configurations. But we can’t really know this, because the question of just what fundamental laws govern the emergence of a universe is of yet unresolved (or at least there is no consensus on it yet). So actually, it is conceivable that, given the set of all possible (with respect to the fundamental governing laws, whatever they are) configurations, our particular outcome might be a highly probable one. Basically what I am trying to say is that your initial supposition tacitly depends on three assumptions: 1. The space of all possible configurations of the universe is unconstrained, i.e. any arbitrary set of laws of nature is possible 2. All possible configurations are equally probable 3. Only one possible configuration has been realised In my mind, each one of these assumptions is highly questionable, so saying that the probability of our universe is astronomically low is at best an unfounded speculation.

Firstly, what objects in relative motion gain is relativistic mass, which is a very different concept from rest mass. Secondly, relativistic mass is not a source of gravity - otherwise things could be either normal objects or black holes at the same time, depending on who observes them, which is an obvious contradiction. This being said, placing a massive disc spinning at relativistic velocity into a pre-existing gravitational field will of course have some effect - but it is not going to be anything like a neat “counterforce” that balances out earth’s gravity. In fact this is a very challenging problem, mathematically speaking. Solutions to Einstein’s equations for spinning discs do exist, but they generally assume the absence of background curvatures. Here are some examples, to give you an idea how complicated this gets. It is very difficult to predict what happens when you add background curvature, but I’d say you’d get a whirlpool-like frame dragging effect, not unlike the Kerr metric itself. In fact, if the background curvature is small enough, the Kerr disc would be a good approximation.

The speed is invariant, not constant. That’s a very important difference. Either way, what you propose amounts to a violation of Lorentz invariance, and we have overwhelming evidence that under normal circumstances (i.e. outside the domain of quantum gravity) this symmetry holds to a very high degree: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

I think that very much depends on how you define “reality”. If you take it to be a subjective model, as you state above, then it is necessarily dependent on the presence of a subject who experiences and creates it. Without such a subject, the notion no longer makes any sense. I am not trying to claim that nothing exists without an observer, it’s just that we might perhaps need to broaden our understanding of what “reality” really means. To bring this back a bit more towards physics, refer to the concept of counterfactual definiteness in quantum physics.

There are probably many different philosophical stances towards this, so this is just my own opinion. I think the answer is yes, they are both part of the same “continuum” (if you so will), and “reality” is given by the relationship between subject and object. There is then again the question of how fundamental that duality actually is. But this is not a discussion that belongs on this thread. That’s a good question. It’s a definite yes to the first part, but I’m not so sure how to answer about the second. I would tentatively say “yes” to the latter also, since we don’t experience raw sense data, but rather our mind’s interpretation of it. In that sense, we do perceptually “alter” the observed in quite radical ways. We are a physical system subject to all the usual laws of physics, so this is manifestly (and trivially) true, so long as you don’t add other elements that are not part of physics, such as a soul, or some kind of non-physical form of consciousness that is separate from the physical body. So this issue is somewhere on the interface of physics, philosophy, and spirituality.

Yes of course. Obviously. I think that question is ill posed, since the very notion of “reality” is inherently dualistic, and thus dependent on the observer. If you remove all observers, the question no longer makes any sense. I think it is rather more interesting to turn things around - given a particular observer with particular physical and mental structures, what kinds of realities can be experienced?

Carlo Rovelli (a contemporary theoretical phycisist working in the area of quantum gravity) has written extensively about this, and makes a specific proposal how time naturally emerges from the statistical behaviour of small-scale systems that are themselves “timeless”. It ultimately comes down to thermodynamics and entropy. Rovelli works specifically on Loop Quantum Gravity, in which neither space nor time are fundamental to the world - they arise only from the macroscopic statistics of microscopic background-independent systems. The Wilson loops which give LQG its name can be taken as solutions to the Wheeler-deWitt equation for specific forms of the Hamiltonian constraint, so LQG is more than just an ad-hoc invention. Many of Rovelli’s publications are aimed at the general public, and are easy to understand for anyone with elementary physics knowledge. I highly recommend his books on the subject - if nothing else, they are fascinating and thought provoking. Whether or not his ideas have any physical value still remains to be seen. Just to clarify this here, it is not my attention to make any claims with regards to this. I do not know the ultimate nature of time and space - no one does. There is a variety of interesting, yet very disparate, models out there on this subject, but no consensus on which - if any - of them might describe our world. I have my own thoughts on which direction I think might be most promising, but I am keeping an open mind, and do not outright subscribe to any specific model just yet. It is safe to say however, that many of these models will require us to fundamentally change the way we think about space and time - quantum gravity will be an even bigger paradigm shift than relativity was. I am merely attempting to point out that the notion of “change” is not enough to give rise to a flow of time as we experience it, and as it is used in most models of physics. Quantities can change with respect to other quantities, without the need for time. Clearly, time as we experience it requires more than just “change”. But this does not mean that time plays no role in the macroscopic world - it is, for example, an integral part of how gravity works, so we can’t just do away with it, at least not on large scales. I think it is more a matter of recognising that our notion of time might be scale-dependent, and might not be part of physics at the Planck scale. But then again, it may - there are still many unresolved problems around all this.

I am not sure I would agree with this. First of all, distance does not require any “objects”, I do not see any issue defining separations between points in a completely empty space. You may not be able to physically measure those without introducing objects, but that’s a different issue. As for time, consider an elementary particle with a finite lifetime - while it is in existence, there is no notion of “change”, since it is elementary without any internal structure or mechanisms. Yet there clearly is some notion of time here, because otherwise it would not end up eventually decaying. On the other hand though, the notion of “change” does not actually imply the existence of time at all. Consider two physical quantities A and B; usually when we say that these quantities “change”, we assume that they are functions of some other quantity “t”, so we write them as functions A(t) and B(t), and say they change with respect to that third quantity. This is one possible notion of change - introduce an external reference point. However, we have to remember that this is a purely arbitrary convention. The quantity “t” is not a physical observable, it’s simply an abstract concept; it would be just as possible to describe the situation as A and B changing with respect to each other, rather than some external notion of time. Like so: [math]\displaystyle{\frac{\partial A}{\partial B};\; \frac{\partial B}{\partial A}}[/math] This is also “change” - but no time is involved. Our two quantities are now simply interdependent functions of each other: A(B) and B(A). This is not just philosophical nitpicking, but has deep physical significance - for example, it is ultimately the reason why no “time” appears in the Wheeler-deWitt equation for quantum gravity. On a fundamental level, time does not appear to exist at all, there is just a vast network of interdependent physical entities changing with respect to each other. The nature of these “entities” depends on the specific model you use, but the overarching principle remains the same.

No, but there can be infinitely many, infinitesimally small sections of pencil at an instant in time - which add up to a finitely long pencil. This is just the basis of ordinary calculus, where you integrate up infinitesimal quantities to obtain a finite result, in a mathematically well defined and fully self-consistent manner. Yes, for the above reason.

Sure it does. There are plenty of examples of such concepts, which are mathematically (and hence logically) sound. To pick out just one, consider a Sierpinski cube - it’s a cube with a finite and well defined edge length, yet its surface area is infinite, while covering zero volume. How is that for a mind-boggler

Well, those are shear stresses, in the Newtonian sense: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress I can’t see how one could look at this in terms of non-uniformities.

A very valid point...I completely concur. Thanks for pointing it out, and for clarifying