Where does reality exist in physics?

[Obvious Leo]

I don't think we got it wrong, I think we just look at everything backward. The present is not out there, it is our consciousness that is dilating in time with photons, it is the center connection we call Mass that ties us in time to the past. I see space as my present moment, centered in my one-second frame of reference, but it is also my future because of all the photons that have been emitted but just have not reached me yet, that is the future I can not change while my position is something I can change.

This is quite an interesting way of looking at it and I like to use this little thought experiment to illustrate a similar point. The universe can only be meaningfully said to exist in the observer's own moment NOW. Imagine you have a Superman's telescope which can illustrate an image to any desired detail of resolution. You focus this telescope onto a planet which is precisely as distant from you as your own age in years. You zoom in with your telescope and are somewhat startled to discover an elderly alien bloke looking at you through a Superman's telescope. Would you give him a wave?

Which of you is observing the real world? Obviously neither of you is. You are looking at a long-dead alien stargazer and he is watching an alien philosopher being born.

[petm1]

I don't think we got it wrong, I think we just look at everything backward. The present is not out there, it is our consciousness that is dilating in time with photons, it is the center connection we call Mass that ties us in time to the past. I see space as my present moment, centered in my one-second frame of reference, but it is also my future because of all the photons that have been emitted but just have not reached me yet, that is the future I can not change while my position is something I can change.

This is quite an interesting way of looking at it and I like to use this little thought experiment to illustrate a similar point. The universe can only be meaningfully said to exist in the observer's own moment NOW. Imagine you have a Superman's telescope which can illustrate an image to any desired detail of resolution. You focus this telescope onto a planet which is precisely as distant from you as your own age in years. You zoom in with your telescope and are somewhat startled to discover an elderly alien bloke looking at you through a Superman's telescope. Would you give him a wave?

Which of you is observing the real world? Obviously neither of you is. You are looking at a long-dead alien stargazer and he is watching an alien philosopher being born.

What if he were to jump into a machine that would instantaneously transport him to my side, would he be able to greet me on my first day of life? I would think not he would meet me standing next to my telescope because both of our presents are tied together, he would not be going back in time because my present moment would get in his way.

[Obvious Leo]

In an abstract sense one could say the your moment NOW and his moment NOW are the same moment but this doesn't actually mean anything because they are not causally connected. Both you and he are continuously coming into existence at the speed of light so any causal connection between the two of you will take at least the length of time of your temporal separation to have an effect.

The best way to think of this mathematically is as always from the perspective of the observer, the most misunderstood bloke in the history of physics. The observer in this case is YOU. There is nothing special about you because you are simply made up of matter and energy just like every other physical entity in the universe. We know from Einstein that matter and energy are the same thing so imagine yourself at the most fundamental level as being comprised as little bits of energy configured in a particular way. This most fundamental level of physical reality is way way smaller than the sub-atomic scale , in fact it is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the sub-atomic scale. This is the Planck scale, the scale at which the universe is actually being MADE. Every sub-atomic particle in your body is actually an emergent entity composed of little bits of massless energy flying around. This may not sound very scientific but just because it isn't a very technical sounding statement doesn't make it any the less absolutely TRUE.

The sub-atomic particles in your body are made up of little "bits" of massless energy flying around. Massless energy moves at the speed of light so this is the way you must think of yourself as a physical entity. Imagine the "bits" as mathematical points on a wave of time which is continuously coming into existence. This gives us a notion of the "speed of time" which is exactly synonymous with the speed of light and this allows you to precisely define yourself as the observer. The speed of light is the speed of time is the speed at which YOU are becoming a new YOU.

At the Planck scale, YOU, the observer is being CONTINUOUSLY RE-MADE at the speed of light. There is nothing special about you. If this is true for you then it must be true for everything so this is the Theory of Everything, the holy grail of physics.

THE UNIVERSE IS CONTINUOUSLY RE-MAKING ITSELF AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

That's all there is to it, boys and girls.

[petm1]

I do not think you need to go all the way down to Planck to understand dilation, we all receive signals from the outer edge of atoms, try thinking that an atom is not vibrating but as always dilating, one thing getting bigger in time even if we do not see it in space. I like thinking that I am the biggest thing in my universe looking back from my present the way I do, everything else looks smaller and that the dilation I see in everything else as I approach them is the real motion in time. The street sign I see on the side of the road dilating as I approach it is temporal motion, I see it because as I bring my presence closer to it presence I am moving in time. This motion is always going on I only see it when I change my position in space or as I see it the present but I don't think of energy as being remade it is just continuously dilating in time as measured by our accelerators. Gravity is us dilating into the future.

[Dalek Prime]

I do not think you need to go all the way down to Planck to understand dilation, we all receive signals from the outer edge of atoms, try thinking that an atom is not vibrating but as always dilating, one thing getting bigger in time even if we do not see it in space. I like thinking that I am the biggest thing in my universe looking back from my present the way I do, everything else looks smaller and that the dilation I see in everything else as I approach them is the real motion in time. The street sign I see on the side of the road dilating as I approach it is temporal motion, I see it because as I bring my presence closer to it presence I am moving in time. This motion is always going on I only see it when I change my position in space or as I see it the present but I don't think of energy as being remade it is just continuously dilating in time as measured by our accelerators. Gravity is us dilating into the future.

And if there's no gravity? What then?

[Obvious Leo]

And if there's no gravity? What then?

There is ALWAYS gravity, Dalek. This is why SR is not a model of a physically real world because SR ignores gravity. QM is entirely predicated on SR so QM is not a model of a physically real world either. It too ignores gravity. Gravity is not something which will simply go away if you pretend it isn't there.

[Dalek Prime]

And if there's no gravity? What then?

There is ALWAYS gravity, Dalek. This is why SR is not a model of a physically real world because SR ignores gravity. QM is entirely predicated on SR so QM is not a model of a physically real world either. It too ignores gravity. Gravity is not something which will simply go away if you pretend it isn't there.

Some areas less effected than others, no?

Please remember, I am not a scientist. Think I'm glad I'm not, too. Probably should stay out of the science area and let you guys get on with it.

[Obvious Leo]

Some areas less effected than others, no?

Absolutely yes. Gravity is the most inconstant physical property of the universe, being variable all the way down to the Planck scale, but there is no place in the entire universe where gravity is absent so when you hear of scientists speaking of zero-gravity they are gilding the lily somewhat because what they mean is "very little" gravity.

The latest gee-whiz caesium clock can measure variations in gravity over a distance as little as 1cm on the earth's surface. Gravity is a function of time and so precise are these clocks that if you placed one on the carpet and one on the bare floorboards beside it they would go out of sync with each other. However since these clocks are about the size of a volkswagen this fact was actually arrived at by calculation rather than by direct experiment.

However here's something to think about, Dalek. As accurate as these clocks are they can still only measure the speed at which time passes to an accuracy of a hundred billionth of a second or thereabouts. The shortest possible interval of time is the Planck interval and this has a duration of about a million trillion trillion trillionth of a second. If you can imagine Superman's clock which can measure the speed of time on this scale then the caesium clock is a sundial by comparison. If you could imagine a Superman clock on every single sub-atomic particle in an atom then every one of these clocks would be ticking at a different speed. This utterly uncontroversial FACT is completely ignored in the Standard Model of Particle Physics because this model is based on the gravity-less model of SR. The geeks are ignoring the elephant in the room because this is quantum gravity but the sad part is that they have no choice but to ignore it. For a century they've been trying to force a square peg into a round hole because they're conceptually locked into a bogus paradigm of the relativity of space and time whereas the real universe is all about the relativity of time and gravity, as was revealed in GR.

Please remember, I am not a scientist. T

This puts you at a distinct advantage because you are not bound by the constraints of group-think which infests the priesthood of physics. There is more than one way of interpreting the evidence available to science and quite frankly physics has got it WRONG. The unification model they're looking for is not to be found in the maze of their equations because these are pointing to a universe which makes no sense. The Theory of Everything is simply a different way of thinking the world which is more compatible with all the ancient truths of metaphysics. Remember where you heard it first, mate.

Probably should stay out of the science area and let you guys get on with it.

Don't do it. The universe is something that a child can understand and don't let the geeks ever tell you any different. I quote as my authority for this opinion two of the greatest minds of 20th century physics.

"It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid"....Albert Einstein

"The universe will ultimately reveal itself to be an entity of the most sublime austerity".....John Archibald Wheeler.

[petm1]

Reality: is anything you can think of by assigning it a number of one, This idea is one idea out of billions, now that it is out there I can start counting its existence with a clock. Time is real as one thing, space as one thing dilates everywhere at one time and our universal clock started at one point and we have been using it as a clock since we found it, think of Einstein's calendar and the beginning is a little bang. This one Planet we call Earth started at one time and we as humans have been arguing about it age for our entire history. Mathematics is how we exist in physics but we all think of space as the real part of physics and time as the illusion yet it is when we put the two together that we can map the process. The largest and smallest denominator is always, time. Is there a time without space in my mind yes, is there space without time no, because you need something to exist with a juxtaposition in order to visualize one space.

[petm1]

One over time, 1/t is as simple as it gets. Numbers are dimensionless and it is only "when" you look at it over time that it becomes real. Picture me as a 4-dimensional worm, you can graph me over time that way but you see me as one being. This is not because we are not seeing all four dimensions but because my past is centered with my mass, not in space alongside myself. When you give up the notion of a fluctuating atom and think of it as a dilating atom, we interact with its outer shell, it is easier to view the true motion of this frame we share that keeps us all accelerating at 9.8 meters per sec per sec. The dilating motion of matter is measured as mass, not an observable, but a temporal measure going back in time to its common past with all the others.

[Obvious Leo]

petm1. In a process universe you must think of the atom as continuously coming into existence at the speed of light. The atom is not an object but a PROCESS because reality is that which is continuously re-making itself. The Cartesian space is unnecessary in such a modelling.

[petm1]

petm1. In a process universe you must think of the atom as continuously coming into existence at the speed of light. The atom is not an object but a PROCESS because reality is that which is continuously re-making itself. The Cartesian space is unnecessary in such a modelling.

An atom's existence is continuous back to its creation, its energy is always dilating in time, push on one it pushes back. An atom is the smallest part of our objective reality, unless you want to talk about our ruler the photon, and must exist at the same pace as light just to interact without gaps.