# The act of Observation/Measurement is a request of quantum wave information to Spacetime

## Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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.

This makes no sense. There can be NO GAP in spacetime. It's just a coordinate system we use to measure volume and movement.

What happens to spacetime around a black hole is the same thing that happens around any stellar mass. Spacetime curves in the presence of mass; the more mass the more curved spacetime is. Because the matter in a black hole is SO much more dense than a similar amount of normal matter, it curves spacetime even more radically when you get past the event horizon. Far from being a gap, it's so tightly and densely curved that your paths AWAY from the center are eliminated completely. Every path leads to the ultra-dense matter, and no amount of energy allows for a path anywhere else.

Newton reasoned that when you fire a cannon on Earth, the cannonball curves back down in a calculable arc. When you put more gunpowder in, the cannonball flies farther before arcing back down. He reasoned that if you were able to keep increasing the firepower of the cannon, eventually the cannonball would fly so fast that it would miss the Earth completely when it was pulled back down (draw the picture yourself if you like), and from then on would follow an orbiting path around the planet, always falling towards Earth, and always missing it. He also realized this meant the cannonball is always flying a straight path, but the mass of the Earth curves that path. Movement (like from a rocket) is straight through spacetime, which is curved by the multiple presences of mass nearby (and which we feel as gravity).

Also, I wouldn't say the quantum realm is unobservable. We can calculate the energy spectra in virtual particle pairs. I'm not well-versed in this area, but this would seem to imply observable phenomena.

##### Share on other sites

This two pronged approach reminds me of pilot wave theory.

But de Broglie and Bohm also offered maths to go with it.

##### Share on other sites

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)

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A dimension in physics and mathematics both is an independant variable or quantity spacetime has four spatial xyz plus one time dimension.

The seperation between quantum and macro world isn't about spacetime it's the mass energy levels involved. QM deals in units of quanta.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scifimath said:

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.

Spacetime continues beyond the event horizon, so there is no “gap”.

And, as far as we know, quantum physics behaves just the same at, and beyond, the event horizon.

If you are going to say that there is a “good chance” of something, then you need to provide the evidence to support that.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No let's not a single quanta of action is observable. The unit quanta is the boundary between not observable and observable.

4 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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

For example individual VP particles do not have a quanta of energy mass so are not observable as individual particles. Hence the name virtual.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, scifimath said:

you﻿ just aren't going to catch quantum waves.

I don’t know what “catch quantum waves” means but we can measure the wave properties of “particles” (note that things are not either waves or particles as you seem to think).

24 minutes ago, scifimath said:

The﻿ mass in a blackhole is u﻿nobserv﻿able﻿. ﻿

We can observe/measure the mass of black holes in multiple ways.

25 minutes ago, scifimath said:

﻿﻿Yes, spacetime﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ is being curved ..until it reaches the ﻿ac﻿tual ﻿black h﻿ol﻿e.﻿

The curvature continues inside the black hole.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by scifimath

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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

Even making allowances for the fact you may not be a native speaker, it is very hard to follow you. What does “grant it spacetime” mean?

And this (apparently meaningless) statement does not answer either of my points: you are wrong when you claim we cannot observe the mass of a black hole; and spacetime is continuous over the event horizon.

9 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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

So no evidence then.

9 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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

That is just as meaningless. But, again, we can measure the wave properties so your vague claims are wrong. Again.

11 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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

How do you refute meaningless waffle?

##### Share on other sites

Yes, meaningless, with 4,500 views for three days.

You may have got me on the mass thing. I probably should say "matter".

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Yes, meaningless, with 4,500 views﻿﻿﻿﻿ for three days.

Yep, that's the whole point for you isn't it.  Waste of time.

##### Share on other sites

I'm upsetting the apple cart with this. Yes there will be people like you unwilling to listen.

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Yes﻿, meaningless, with 4,500 views for﻿ three days﻿.﻿

How is that relevant?

##### Share on other sites

I've spent years compiling this theory, you don't get to shrug it off as if it's nothing.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scifimath said:

I'm upsetting the apple cart with this.

You really aren’t. You have small number of people trying to explain to you how science works, why you need to use language correctly, have a mathematical model and evidence.

You may think you have clever idea, but you are not going to convince anyone else with this sort of handwaving

4 minutes ago, scifimath said:

I've spent years compiling this theory, you don't get to shrug it off as if it's nothing.

You would have been better off spending that time learning some basic science.

As you didn't and are not able to present a model or any evidence, it looks like you have wasted your time. No one is going to take this seriously, as it is supported only by a variety of false claims and some random buzzwords.

6 minutes ago, scifimath said:

I've spent years compiling this theory, you don't get to shrug it off as if it's nothing.

It is incredible, the number of people who post their crackpot theories and think that the fact they have wasted years (or decades, in some particularly sad cases) on it somehow validates it.

##### Share on other sites

I've been wrong many many times before ..but not this time. The stars have aligned.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scifimath said:

I've been wrong many many times before ..but not this time. The stars have aligned.

You may believe that, but without evidence no one else is going to.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Duality is impossible if something can tunnel or fit through a space smaller than its structure. Waves can do that sort of thing ..not physical (observed) objects.

Edited by scifimath

##### Share on other sites

Another thought, if you drop the name "dimension" and "realm" and add math supported by confirmed observations, how far would you be from the already accepted concept "Quantum superposition"? Are your imprecise statements trying to describe something already known?

##### Share on other sites

My theory hands us a Theory of Everything

##### Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Duality is impossible if something can tunnel or fit through a space smaller than its structure. Waves can do that sort of thing ..not physical (observed) objects.

Evidence?

No, of course not.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scifimath said:

I've spent years compiling this theory, you don't get to shrug it off as if it's nothing.

All these pages and views are us NOT shrugging it off. They certainly don't indicate interest from serious scientists.

I'm so sorry you've wasted so much time guessing when the best explanations, the ones that actually work, were right in front of you. Please accept my condolences on your lack of reasoning skills. I had hopes.

##### Share on other sites
Just now, scifimath said:

My theory hands us a Theory of Everything

It is not a theory (because there is no model and no confirmation by evidence).

It is just some handwaving guesses that contradict known experimental results.

##### Share on other sites

How's your theory of everything going for ya?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

It is just some handwaving guesses that contradict known experimental results.

What?

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×