ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?

I suspect in the QM theory it isn't necessary to consider time as a fundamentally necessary theoretical aspect.

No, you did misinterpret the words. I quoted Bohm as saying QM does not deal with time. That was his complaint. Read the "red" highlighted portion of his statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

duplication

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, so the "only GR does"-bit was just something you came up with, but it's wholly unsubstantiated, and you just wrote it in such a way as to insinuate that this article claimed that. OK, glad we cleared that up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, Bohm came up with that (a verbatim quote) and he knew what he was talking about.

 

So Bohm said: "I just read an interesting article that QM does not deal with time at all, only GR does.", and you simply forgot to properly attribute that quote? OK, glad we cleared that up.

 

No, I wrote that and then followed it up with a verbatim quote from Bohm. Did you read the quotation?

 

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/16/6c/c9166c3848b6c5b2b9ba4dc37b1ff80d--regular-hexagon-a-circle.jpg

In the geometric of the Expanding Sphere Membrane model, shown here as a equatorial slice, The age of the universe 13,8 years, would be the radius 0A, the distance in time the membrane has expanded through. The horizon of the CMB radiation, the Horizon, would be a circle around A having the radius ~BA or~ AF, like A0.
The total diameter of the visible Universe on the membrane would be ~28 billion light years. BF 1/3 of the membrane would be the visible universe.

The total girth of the expanded membrane would be 87 billion light years, of which 2/3, BCDEF would be beyond the horizon from A.
The halfway point, the antipode of A would be D, beyond the horizon from A. hidden in the Background radiation.
When the Universe was I year old, it would have taken 6 years of telescope time to see it all, including the back of your head, In the Big Bang. Hyperbole needed to visualise it.

 

Let me recap:
Post #423: you write: "I just read an interesting article that QM does not deal with time at all, only GR does. I don't know if this has any bearing on anything, but perhaps someone else can see some important factor in this.", followed by quotes from a linked article.
Post #425: I quote that first sentence, and ask: "That is obviously false, but I suspect that's just a mis-writing on your part?"
Post #427: You say: "Read the quote from post # 423 Apparently this was Bohm's view."
Post #434: I reply: "Please point out the specific section/quote, because I cannot find it in that post."
Post #437: You respond with several excerpts from the quotes, and add: "What am I misssing here?"
Post #438: I realize you were talking about the first part of that sentence "QM does not deal with time at all" (which is obviously false too), while I ment to refer specifically to the "only GR does" part. I clarify this, and refine my question: "Please point me to the section where Bohm says GR does deal with more than just one moment only."
Post #439: You say: "I never said that. I quoted Bohm as saying the exact opposite." which is false: Bohm never mentioned GR, as far as I can see. So if you didn't say it, and Bohm didn't, who wrote that part of post #423?
Post #440: I point this out to you.
Post #441: You once again talk about the first part of the sentence, ignoring that you now know I'm explicitly talking about the second part.
Post #443: I conclude that Bohm didn't say anything about GR, and that you make up with that second part of the sentence yourself.
Post #444: You once again claim that you got it all from Bohm.
Post #445: I point out that the only way out seems to be that the entire sentence was quoted from Bohm, but not properly attributed.
Post #446: You make clear you wrote that sentence yourself.

And here we are. You admit that you wrote that sentence yourself. The first part is a misrepresentation of what Bohm said. However, nowhere have you been able to quote Bohm talking about the handling of time in GR. So can I safely conclude that the second part of the sentence ("only GR does") is fully your creation?

About the misrepresentation: Obviously, QM deals with time in some ways, as Bohm says himself: "It really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one." That's a form of time: an ordered sequence of moments. Bohm's complaint is that QM can't seem to deal in a satisfactory way with processes: things that don't just happen "in the moment", but happen over a stretch of time. Everything has to be broken down into moments instead. Funny thing is: GR does the same (to the best of my knowledge). Which I already pointed out in post #425: "It seems to me that the limitations they are talking about are also present in GR in the exact same way?".

 

oh c'mon, I clearly said that I ran across the article and then proceeded to properly copy and paste 4 quotes from that article, below which I gave the link to the entire article.

THE ONLY WORDS I WROTE WERE; "I just read an interesting article that QM does not deal with time at all, only GR does. I don't know if this has any bearing on anything, but perhaps someone else can see some important factor in this".

The rest were quotes from that article, without any further comment.

Now can we discuss the content of that article?
On second thought, I've lost interest as no one seems to be interested and you are obviously unable to even read it as posted.

 

Yes, I understand that is how your model works, however, this picture is (obviously) not about your model; its creator didn't know about it at the time. This picture thus also has to be interpreted differently by default, although you can certainly re-purpose it. Point is: no, this picture isn't proof that in mainstream science, black holes reach back to the big bang, because that's not what the picture shows (in the meant mainstream scientific interpretation of it).

Indeed, but in the mainstream scientific model of the universe, past spacetime isn't empty, so that's not a problem.

Yes, and that tracing creates the worldline.

In the mainstream scientific view, yes, the worldline is abstract. But no, it doesn't traverse empty space: it follows particles as they traverse space. By definition.

I cannot answer that question, since:
1) You haven't given an explanation what "wedge up" means. The cable will automatically be moving to larger radii with the passage of time.
2) You haven't given any description of how your gravity works; without a mathematical model of that there is no way to calculate what the "wedging against gravity" does.
3) You haven't given an expression of the universal expansion, or the spacetime curvature. If space stays the same size, then adding a stretch of length to the cable will just make it looser.

 

All I'm asking is where the "only GR does"-bit is coming from. Why are you so unable to answer that question?

 

I thought that if I let Bohm answer the question it might draw more interest.
[quote]Bohm : You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have any concept of movement or process or continuity in time. It really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one. But there is obviously process in the physical world.[/quote]

Do you disagree with that statement by Bohm? I realize he made that statement some time ago and may have been superceded by a new interpretation of QM. That was my question.

p.s. Bohm was a brilliant physicist, who was intimately familiar with QM (at that time)

 

Look, if you're not willing to answer my question, then just say so.

 

OK. According to Bohm, QM does not specifically deal with the concept of movement or process or continuity in time.

Correct Bohm if he is wrong. I did not make that statement, he did.

 

Look, if you're not willing to answer my question, then just say so.

 

1) Since the cable would have to be lifted, the same everywhere, unless the universe is rotating, wedging up would mean supporting it against the surface gravity of the membrane. the same all the way around, evenly. (it has to be lifted 8 ft bsw. (50 feet added only).
2) Gravity?-- this is not a quantum gravity model. on the macro scale it works just fine, as Newton/Einstein defined it, mainstream is fine. a field, a dilation of time, and all.
3) The expansion of the sphere model is assumed to be steady through time during its existence, but if the inflation theory if correct, that would not change the basic model.so:
The cable would become looser? how much does the slack amount too, if evenly distributed?

 

But the cable is already being "lifted"; just wait a couple of seconds, and it is now at a larger radius.

Why would the universe rotating (whatever that means) affect the flow of time?

But again, there's no need. Just wait a couple of seconds, and the cable has lifted itself up.

No, as we established before, your model has a version of gravity that is incompatible with the mainstream one. Your gravity can be emitted into the future, and perhaps even into the past. Without a proper quantitative model of that gravity, I can't answer the question.

If we were to use Newton/Einstein gravity, for example, the radius of the membrane would be completely irrelevant, as those gravities are purely confined to the membrane itself.

Well, if you add a meter of length to a tight cable, the slack would be one meter. I think that's quite straightforwardly so.

 

If the universe membrane were rotating, the cable would lift, through the centrifugal "force" acting on ot, it would be in orbit like the rings of saturn. ca turn.

before lifting a cable is usually snaking along the deck. It is the 8 feet gap around the membrane that is interesting, as the slack is taken up , lifted off the deck everywhere.

how would that levitation be affected?

The model assumes that the membrane has all the gravitational properties of a Newton/Einstein sphere. all matter effects are inside, that such a sphere would have no effects on the outside, would be novel. In reality, a sphere has all its gravitational effects on the outside, non in the interior. The projected effects into timespace would be an interesting , unexpected aspect of the model.

Of course, but the question in post #430 was not about the 50 feet longer cable but the slack distributed all around (increase of the radius) from the membrane. the increase of the radius for 50 feet added to any circle. Can it possibly it 8' ?

 

So now you are also re-defining centrifugal forces?

Irrelevant; this is not true in your described scenario.

Typically, if the cable is unstretchable and tight, trying to stretch it will result in it breaking. I suppose that's most likely the outcome if no additional length of cable is added.

The levitation isn't affected; the cable simply exists inside the moving membrane.

Exactly, and since one of those dimensions is time, it's incompatible with standard Newton/Einstein gravity.

We've already been over this: this part of your model is fundamentally different from Newton/Einstein, and thus you are not talking about the same (kind of) gravity.

If you add 50 feet of cable to a tightly stretch cable, and then stretch the cable out 50 feet, it would be tightly stretched again. Stretch it out more: it breaks. Stretch it out less, you'll have the difference in slack.

 

Since we value your opinion:
The cable was defined in post #430 as un stretchable. Stretching (as a verb) an unstretchable, absolute tensile strength, cable around an object means to make it tight everywhere, which in the model's example -, or any situation, requires to put spacers (wedges?) under it, all around, in this case 8 foot posts? or?
The question was not about the nature of the cable, but the gap.

Not re-defining centrifugal forces, just citing the rings of Saturn as an example of gravity vs/ orbital velocity balanced forces, whatever you care to call them.

PS: I like Saturn because it's surface rotational velocity of the surface near the equatorial/ring plane is cancelled by its orbital velocity, since the universe does not rotate, not applicable here. just in case.