Edgard Neuman

Hi, I imagined a hyper sphere in spacetime (an spherical event) that would be invariant by Lorentz transformation. Given a length R in a (x,y,z,t) space (around any event point) I considere the hypersphere given by : x²+y²+z²+(t*c)² = R Isn't it invariant by Lorentz transformation ?

I agreed with that : mesured in a classic way, density is frame dependant (the object is indeed compressed for the observer). But, because time (dt<1) is slown, it has no effect on the object : from the outside point of view, all its physic is slown in time (so it doesn't heat or collapse). Slown physics is very different from observer physics : all mesurement depending on time (temperature, and pressure for instance) are also multiplied by dt (it become less).

What I tried to explain is that when you mesure density, you basicly use a volume at a moment and count the mass in it. But when the frame change, the "physcial" limits of your volume are shifted in space time. So you can't use these same limits to mesure density in the new frame because it's not at a unique moment for you. Of course, if you define a new box from the outside, you will see more density (the train is indeed compressed) but it wouldn't have any effects because time is now slown for the object. For instance : a star wouldn't heat more, because temperature is given by the average speed of particule : once slown, temperature (mesured from outside) is also divided. etc.. All particule interactions, seen from the outside and mesured like the density was, would be lessen by the time slown factor. So what I sayed is that density mesured the "regular way" is frame dependant, but density mesured in a spacetime box (with time extension) is frame independant (because time is slown so the "hypervolume" of the box is bigger). This give me a idea to solve the shape of particule paradox : - shape of particules can be frame independant, if they are not only considere as a sphere, but as a spacetime hypersphere. The particule would have a certain extension in space time, that explain that when the frame is changed, time extension replace space extension (as the rotation in space time leave the hyper sphere unchanged). Time extension would be like a persistence : it's possible if we considere that particule are quantic and so extended in time. Interaction probabilities are not only depending on size of particules also on how long a particule is along its trajectory (it's wavelength) So in a compressed object travelling near light speed, particule wouldn't be compressed, because what is "time extension" in the moving frame is now seen as space extension in observator's frame and vice versa. I don't know if it's true, but it blows my mind.

It's moving at the same speed but it's late in time. The front border of the initial volume (you used to mesure density) is now at a different moment for you that the back. The video explain it very well : It's the same problem that the train in the tunnel, because the question of density can be seen like "would the mass of the train fit in the volume of the tunnel"

I think the main probleme is the way you define the "volume" to calculate your density. A volume is a limit in space at a given moment, and density is define by the quantity of mass/energy in it. But when the frame change, the limit of the volume are contracted, but the moment is also shifted through time along the direction, and also slowed. So if you define a volume in a frame, it won't be valid to mesure density in other frames. I think the right way to mesure density is to use a spacetime volume (extended in time).. this way, when the frame change, time slowing increase the size of the box in time (and also rotate it so the front get to be at another time that the back). the new density wouldn't be frame dependant.

If I may speak about this : Density is defined for a given volume at a certain moment, but the volume would be changed (by a transformation) in shape but also in space time : the back of the volume would be late in past. That's the same problem with the earth seen from a light-speed particle point of view : it's compressed into a disc, nearly frozen in time, but law of physics are still the same in it because the back of the flat disc isn't directly in the same time as the front. Let's say somebody on earth send a photon from the back to the front side of earth disc (in the particle frame). From the particle point of view, the photon goes through the disc very fast (because it's compressed), but because the back of the disc is very late in (earth) time, it would still be coherent with the earth point of view and physics. The compressed (by relativity) star wouldn't become a black hole, because the front and the back wouldn't be in contact : because the whole star is moving near the speed of light, a photon coming from the back of it would have to travel a very long time to catch up with the front of the star. In contrary, a photon coming from the front to the back have to travel (in our frame) a very short time. So probably that if you sum the effect of photon going from the back to the front (very slowly) and those going in the other direction (very fast), you statisticaly come to the same interaction probabilities that if it was in a immobile star. I suppose the "gravity field" would also be compressed and time shifted from back to front. It's the "common" explanation, but it's still strange to me. For instance, if we consider particle as a sphere : it mean that, for some reason, the global speed of the star would "compress" also the particles into flat disc (for the interaction probability to be coherent with a regular star).. same things for quarks in protons and neutrons : nucleus in the fast star would be for some reason flattened. The situation is very different for the black hole as a system because it is localy curved, but globaly immobile. So of course, a ship would feel its left part crushed into its right part approching the black hole, because the distorsion wouldn't be globally as simple as a frame change. That's actually the geometric curvature of the frames that explain the acceleration.

No, what I meant is that the inner univers could appear similar to ours when seen from the inside, and still appear frozen in time and ultra-compressed around the center from our point of view (the outside). (with a full 90° Lorentz tranformation).. Just like a 0.999 ship would appear compressed to us and still be itself. The only difference here is the spherical aspect of the black hole, imposing tearing of matter. If the space around black hole was linearly distorded (if the black hole had an infinite radius), and softly curved, a space ship could survive it. There's an other fact I think of : Some say that black hole could be a "doorway" to another univers. But a thing is sure : the matter that goes into the black hole stay there, because we can still mesure its mass and gravity. If the univers inside was somehow connected to others door or opened etc, we could imagine some kind of mecanisme that explain the mesured mass by the content of the inner univers, but it would not strictly depend on the mass that entered the black hole since its creation. For instance : a black hole would be linked to another empty or massive univers, and would have any mass. Or the matter gone inside would fly away in the inner univers and so the black hole would loose weight by itself. Or some matter from the other side would go inside the black hole, and we would see it gain mass for no reason. It would also be difficult to imagine a mecanism that explain the mass only by the space curvature (without the matter), because it would imply that potentially any curvature would be self-generating. So I suppose that all the matter that goes inside stays inside and is localised there from our point of view.

There's several things I suppose : - I only speak about simplest black hole (no momentum, no electric charge) - since the black hole a least huge mass in a restricted volume, matter can't be in a the same state that it is outside. And it seem to exist a complete range of different state for the matter : Stars are made of plasma, neutron stars are like a big nucleus and quark star made of degenerate matter etc.... - the very concept of relativity, is that ultimately the state of matter is subject to relativity. Because space and time are submitted to relativity : what we see as a compressed space for a moving object is for itself a totaly regular space. - because every object is globaly not moving for us, the relativity effect are only "local". so globally the matter is simply in a dense state in a closed volume. But, localy, because of general relativity, the space itself near the horizon is moving at the speed of light (from our point of view). - special relativity tells us what it look like from our point of view (the lorentz transformation) when you move at the speed of light : the space is infinitely compressed, the time is stopped. But it is only from our point of view, because for the moving object, nothing is changed (of course : extreme geometry of spacetime tears things apart, but at each infinitesimal point, is like regulare space time) - So when we look at matter inside the black, it should be, relatively for us, in a state that is the same state as a light speed particule : no time. Time is ultimately a property of matter mesured by "events" in the "law". Like a clock sets a regular serie of "clic" events. So what we would see : is "no events" : no clics, frozen matter. - Causality is at the core of the definition of time : and so, relativity is based on the shifting of causality (the "now moment") around space (that's what is the lorentz transformation) - law of physics doesn't depend on causality : it means that we must think that when we go "out" of time and causality, univers may just be like a story ruled by laws. Ultimately, some things are "according to the laws", some aren't, regarless to causality (like the univers would be a set of mathematic axiomes) Like a story on a DVD would be only guided by the logic of the character or initial conditions. The DVD would "evolve" like we would make a story evolve: adding more and more complexity anywhere from the start to the end of the story. - the horizon tells also us that black holes gain more and more entropy, and that this entropy is proportionnal to the surface of the horizon. - the holographic principle state that the degree of liberty of a physical system is also proportionnal to the surface of the matter. It state that the content in information of a volume of matter is only proportionnal to its surface. - If we considere what lorentz tranformation is, a space/time which is bent to the speed c, may be considered like a "90°" rotated space time (the lorentz transformation can be seen as hyperbolic rotation, since dt²+(v/c)²=1 ). A 90° rotation of "v/c" and "dt" can be interpreted as a swap of dimensions (like x and y are swapped by a 90° rotation). So my idea is to consider that what's inside the black hole is (relatively) out of time for us (because what is after the horizon is supposed in a space time moving (just localy) faster than light so the light can't escape) and may be in a frozen state. For us : no "clics" would be observable (which is simply the application of the special relativity). Relativity is more than just what we see : it describe really how things are in the euclidean space we imagine for us. So the black hole is not just a hole : the matter in it really change it's state and the geometry and timespace for it is really different in regards to the point of view. The same reality is mesured differently. If we had matter to the black hole : it grows. The matter in the black hole would be an entire univers, but the time of it would be described for us as the distance from the center. Each surface of sphere in the black would be spatial dimensions of the inner univers. Maybe adding matter would add complexity to the inner univers, like the story of a DVD would become more complex (maybe it would be some time added to the inner univers). It's purely speculative ideas.

hi, I read that there's evidences indicating that black hole could host universes. I have some idea about how it could be, inspired by bending of space-time - the radial dimension from our point of view would become the time line of the inner univers - the surface dimension would be the holographic (see the holographic theory) version of the content of the inner univers. My idea is that since relativity tells us that something going at the speed of light should apear to us frozen in time, and since the general relativity tells that what is inside the black hole horizon seems to us going at that speed, the inner univers should be frozen in time. So the space-time content of the univers should appear to us like a story in a DVD. In a way time dimension would become a space component in ours (like the written data stream line of the DVD is a dimension) It's also a good idea of the next limit of the univers : since we understand that space time is a "whole", everything we could possibly imagine "outside" would be localisable in it, except in the futur (which would be outside of our own black hole container). What do you think about it ?

yes, that's it. So an object located at the univers observable limit (it's seen at an age closer to 0, like the wave background) gives a expansion factor close to 0 (like we see it : a compressed space) (because [math]\frac{log(t_O-t)}{log(t_O)}[/math] is close to 1 ) I'm not sure exactly how to add the log in the first equation.. i'm just trying things. I don't even know what is the real expansion factor curve.

Spyman, on 20 Mar 2014 - 3:15 PM, said: The age at the current moment of observation is thought to be the same as the current age of the Universe. Of course, but the equation is suppose to work at any time. "[math]{t}_{o}[/math]" is not a variable here but nearly constant for any observer "t" is the own age of the object observed, so it's related to apparent distance For any point in space / time, we have a number which is the absolute "age" of the place, and is linked to the size of the observable univers at this point, because it's the time/length the light from the big bang has traveled. I suppose the shape of univers slightly change over time, as [math]{t}_{o}[/math] and it's related to the fact that the apparent size of observable univers is constantly growing

thanks everybody I was going to use it, but for now I can't download on this computer The age of this observer is the age at the moment of the observation, like 13 billion years for us. I don't really know how this ideas could be interpreted, I just figured that in special relativity we have : [math]dt^2+(v/c)^2=1[/math] and I thought that age and apparent position of things may be related the same kind of way : If we (instantly) travel to another planet, the apparent age/distance of all this object would be changed, and their distribution would appear to be compressed near the limit, just like speeds distribution would be with a Lorentz transformation. It looked like the way speed of objects are added in special relativity . [math]w = \frac{v+u}{1+(v*u/c^2)}[/math] If we assume that the "univers size" at a given time act like the speed of light I know it's not that simple, so I added Log because I read that Moore's law were also observable in living organisme and even before http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/ So maybe the time we should considere as "absolute" is something like [math]log(t_{o}-t)[/math] (to reflect Moore's law)

oops, the equation is (log(tO-t)/log(tO))² + (f/fO)² = 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Measuring_distances_in_expanding_space when you look at the graph, the curve looks like the one my second equation gives : (log(tO-t)/log(t))² + (f/fO)² = 1 f(t) = sqrt(1- (log(tO-t)/log(t))²) * fO I just want to know if my theory is relevant

Hi, I have some ideas about expansion, and I'd like to know if they are confirmed by observation. One idea give me a equation for expansion factor of space : given the age, t, and the age of the observer tO given the expansion factor, f, and the expansion factor of the observer (at t= tO) : fO the equation would be : ((tO-t)/tO)² + (f/fO)² = 1 Or it could also be : (log(tO-t)/log(t))² + (f/fO)² = 1 Could it be some how related to observations ? My idea is to establish a relation between "age" and "distance" similar to the relation between "time speed" and "relative speed" in special relativity Thanks (excuse my bad english : I used "formula" instead of "equation")

Here is my question : could we make a crystal with an specific atom that have different quantum states and a particular structure, so it hosts a cellular automaton (like a 3D Conway's game of life) ? Close states would react one to others, because of the specific properties of the crystal. Since cellular automaton can carry any algorithm, we could use this crystal as a computer. Is it possible ?

I have an idea to clean space of its debris, but I don't know if its a good one : I would use some kind of spray bombs as mini satellites, containing self hardening foam that would inflate themselves to become big, low density balls of plastic foam. We could put in orbit a cloud of those mini satellite that would then be able to slow and capture little debris. It would have to be a very sticky and slimy material, in order to always stay in one piece after violent impacts with debris (but we would need to avoid contact with other functionning satellites). We also need to insure that the ball of foam doesn't stay long in orbit, and fall on earth with its debris stuck inside, before it becomes too damaged and explodes into new debris.

Yes I understand that. The answer (the specific invariant distribution) must be in the book I referenced..(I can't find it on the web) What is weird for me now, is that the form of this function should be like the letter "U" within ]-c;c[ limits (because when you apply the transformation of a frame close to "c" , more particles should be seen with a velocity close to c.). Let's say we have a lot of virtual electrons and positrons (in average equals according to the vacuum null momentum and charges) at random speed according to this distribution which is invariant : there should be much more electron close to the "c" velocity than close to 0 (the "U" shape of the function). This is what bothers me. This fact make me think that some quantum effect should explain why those very fast (and so energetic) particles are not as effective as the slow ones (or are they ?). This effect would be a consequence of the quantum theory. And then we could use this mecanism to explain why a given system, with high speed, seem to have a slown down time : High velocity system, would be, somehow, relativily disconnected to the observer, and it would so explain both : that vaccum can contain high velocity virtual particles, and that time is slown for each one from the other. That could maybe explain relativity by this effect. I have an other way to say that : let's say that for a particle, probability of interacting with photon depends of the speed of the particle : because it's a wave, photon would be stretched along particle trajectory (it would be relative of course). So for a system seen in a high speed frame, photon should be much less interacting with electrons and positrons (the fine structure constant). Could this explain why "time" appears slown ? Photon interactions could logicaly be the ticks defining the clock of the atoms.

The fact that a theory is invariant by a transformation doesn't imply that its states are equivalent before and after the transformation for an observer. Let's say (on a single axis) that the probability to find a given particle with the speed X (between -c and c) is a constant. The lorentz transformation by a frame whose speed is Y would change the speed from X to (X+Y)/(1+(X*Y)²/c²) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities). The speed distribution would certainly not be constant anymore (the vaccum would be rather different), even if the behavior of the new particles would be conform with Quantum theory. Of course, I understand that the fact that vaccum is the same by any lorentz transformation : so the speed distribution (of virtual particles) must be very specific, for it not to change by X -> (X+Y)/(1+(X*Y)²/c²) transformation. That I don't know.

The fact that the quantum theory is invariant under Lorentz transformation, mean that given the states of particles we consider, after the speeds positions(etc) are transformed, the whole thing is still in accordance with the theory. I don't think that necessarily imply that the vacuum itself is invariant (the vacuum could be described for instance by the velocities distribution of virtual particles, and not any distribution is invariant when frame reference change : it should slide and sum near the egdes ( = c)). I don't know what the quantum theory says about distributions of virtual particles caracteristics.

I only consider the special relativity. The poincare symmerty, I don't understand how it singles out vacuum. Can you explain ? For instance, let's say we take the velocity distribution of particules in a specific reference frame. For this distribution to be invariant under the Lorentz transformation, it has to have a specific form where more particule are close to the speed c (something like cosh?). (i found this book http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhLA...44..537B , but not the function itself) But that doesn't answer to my point, which ask if the fact that relative time speed (dt) for an object according to an other, could be (or not) explained by some variations in the probability of quantum interactions between each other. Like if each mass spread a "clock field" (some way explained by quantum physics), and moving into it would slow clocks relative to it.. (obvioulsy, it's not the simple effect of speed, which would make the clock faster). My first idea was that the speed of particule could change the probabily of basic interactions. So instead of simple "ball like" interaction, speed would effect the probability.. (but it would have been already surely detected).. my other idea is that speed could globaly modify fine structure constants of a system, which would directly change it's clock (it would be undetectable by the system itself, like relativity). To proove it, we would have to find, in quantum theory, a mechanism, that give you the formula : dt²=1-(v/c)²

Hi, I have this idea of mine about relativity and quantum theory, and I'd like to know if it is absurd or if there some idea in it. I have my own understanding of those theories, I hope you won't disqualify me too fast for this. (please excuse my english, it's not my main language) So. First we have quantum theory, which can describe matter using Feynman diagrams : a lot of "classical" scenarios made of trajectories and interactions (particule paths), that are combined to get the actual sum of probabilities. This, I know, is a well verified interpretation. We suppose that, for any scenario, the particules are "unmodified" between interactions. The conservations principles define what happen at each interaction (for instance, a photon would deviate an electron) If you put this in relativity theory, you have the same scenario, which can be describe in any frames, after applying any Lorentz transformations. These transformations, as you know it, change speeds and also distances between events. At that point, it seems to me that given a scenario, or a group of scenarios for a given system, some specific frame can be defined as those who minimize distances. For a given system, it seems to me that this specific frame can be described as the inertial frame of reference. Think now about the probabilities you have, for instance, to see a particule from a given system, regarding to the interactions that are possible in all the scenarios. Let's suppose, that, at a very low level of description, a conservation principle implies that the evolution for a system is not happening "by itself" but only in reaction to interactions with the rest of the universe. Can we imagine that the probability of interaction, for a given system with its own reference frame, can define the quantity of information transmited and received by the system to an other. And so, for a group a particule moving in the universe, could it define "the inner quantity" of events, as if the clock of the system was simply more or less ticking, according to the probabilities of interactions with the univers ? We could consider then that time is not define by the system itself, but more the result of external events reaching to it (simply variating with the speed) ? And so, we could say that relativity is the result interaction probabilities in quantum theory ?

Since earthquakes occure when energy is suddently released (with some chain reactions), could we prevent it by regularly shake the ground with devices or bombs in specific zones, so energy is often released in small scale.

I understand that, and I don't imply that the comoving frame has any effect on local physics (other than background microwaves).. I'm just wondering if it could be used to create a coordinate system for real events... If a spaceship (with a stars database) emerge at a random point in space time, could it tell where and when it is ?

Hello, It seem to me that there is a way to measure absolute coordinates of any events in the univers, using the cosmic background. First, you have to correct the relativist effect of speed, using the measurement of the Doppler effect affecting background (it give you the absolute speed).. Then, you can measure the size of the observable univers at this moment : it give you an absolute age for the event. From a event, you can define the trajectory where background relative speed stays null (the time trajectory), and the spatial surface where the background age stays the same (the spatial (3d) plane component). You can now simply measure coordinates of any events using its time trajectory, by finding the point where it touches the reference event's plane. Time difference along the trajectory give you time "coordinate" and, position on the spatial plane give you spatial coordinates (though it should be a curved space).. First : is there any relativist problems with that ? What is the function that transform coordinates from a reference to another.. ?