The CMS experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has completed a search for microscopic black holes produced in high-energy proton-proton collisions. No evidence for their production was found and their production has been excluded up to a black hole mass of 3.5-4.5 TeV (10^{12} electron volts) in a variety of theoretical models.

Microscopic black holes are predicted to exist in some theoretical models that attempt to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics by postulating the existence of extra "curled-up" dimensions, in addition to the three familiar spatial dimensions.

At the high energies of the Large Hadron Collider, such theories predict that particles may collide "closely enough" to be sensitive to these postulated extra dimensions. In such a case, the colliding particles could interact gravitationally with strengths similar to those of the other three fundamental forces – the Electromagnetic, Weak and Strong interactions. The two colliding particles might then form a microscopic black hole.

If it were so produced, a microscopic black hole would evaporate immediately, producing a distinctive spray of sub-atomic particles of normal matter. These would then be observed in the high-precision CMS detector that surrounds the LHC collision point. CMS has searched for such events amongst all the proton-proton collisions recorded during the 2010 LHC running at 7 TeV centre-of-mass energy (3.5 TeV per proton beam).

No experimental evidence for microscopic black holes has been found. This non-observation rules out the existence of microscopic black holes up to a mass of 3.5–4.5 TeV for a range of theoretical models that postulate extra dimensions.

The CMS results have been submitted for publication in the *Physics Letters B* journal. CMS will take much more data next year when the LHC resumes running in early 2011 after a brief technical stop.

**Explore further:**
CMS celebrates the lowering of its final detector element

**More information:**

-- Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider, arXiv:1012.3375v1 [hep-ex] arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375

-- CERN's Scientific Summary

## Mercury_01

"Large Hadron Collider finds no signatures of microscopic black hole decay"

## solar2030

Dec 19, 2010## Quantum_Conundrum

So if they've never seen a particle from something they KNOW is a black hole, how could they be sure they have or haven't seen a black hole decay particle from something they DON'T KNOW is a black hole?

This is as absurd as two people who were born blind trying to explain a rainbow to one another, when neither has ever seen light at all, nevermind the full spectrum of color.

## Noumenon

## Quantum_Conundrum

1) I read the book. Still got a copy of it right now, in fact.

2) It's quite a different matter between seeing something and trying to make a hypothesis or theory to explain it, as compared to theorizing something ridiculously hard to find actually exists and then trying to go find it.

## yyz

Like, um, neutrinos: http://en.wikiped...rguments

## Noumenon

@QC,... The point is given the mechanism of black hole evaporation, there would result a unique detectable signature. Since it's not possible to create black holes (in our detectable 3 dim) with existing colliders the above finding places a limit on the possibility of the existence of extra curled dimensions, which is quit ironic given you last paragraph.

## StillWind

There is no science here.

Since the existence of any black hole is nothing but speculation, let alone something as exotic as "micro-black holes", how absurd to suggest that we have any idea how it would "act", or what would be produced, should it decide to "evaporate".

Millions of people are dying from want, and our society is so self-absorbed and decadent that we will pay people to play a video game on an enormously expensive game console that will produce absolutely no useful information, or anything of value.

## Noumenon

The standard of living and life expectancy around the world has increased as the centuries advance, as a result of investing money into research, and competition and self-absorbed egoism,... the intrinsic mechanisms responsible for a successful capitalistic society.

## Dummy

Really? Says who? Ever see pictures of the old American Indians? They lived well into their 90's and virtually cancer-free.

## lexington

## Roj

Quantum-scale black holes may require a higher critical energy, similar to the critical mass requirement for nuclear weapons detonation.

The necessity of experimentation is the mother of invention. Give the LHC a few more tries.

With enough energy the whole facility could implode revealing the spectacular signature of billions of burned-up Euros.

## Noumenon

## ubavontuba

According to Hawking, as the VP pair splits, one particle escapes and one falls in. He forgot to include the GP/KE for the infalling particle in his calculation. This is real energy that must exist in the system, as described. When you include it, the violation becomes apparent.

So a lack of Hawking radiation is no surprise. I'd be more concerned with jet quenching (already reported).

## beelize54

http://www.math.c.../?p=3333

BTW String theory failed supersymmetry test, too.

http://www.math.c.../?p=3338

## Husky

## Cave_Man

## sstritt

That's pretty bold of you to dismiss Hawking so matter of factly.

## Raveon

I don't even think time is a dimension. Time only exists for us. It doesn't exist for the universe because there is no past or future for it, there is only the present. The past exists for us because we can remember it and the future exists because we can imagine it. The universe has no memory or imagination, only life does.

## lexington

The energy of the infalling particle is negative.

## Quantum_Conundrum

Maybe there is an incorrect interpretation of Special Relativity as it regards the mass and/or gravity of an object, or maybe there are special cases that violate relativity due to quantum effects.

If you can only have quantum units of mass, then you can only have quantum units of energy and gravity. If you can only have quantum units of gravity, then you can no longer have a black hole caused by a vertical assymptote.

Microscopic black holes come from the notion that if you have a point mass, then over a small enough distance it should have an event horizon. However real mass isn't a point, it's always associated with a particle with a width that always exceeds the limit under normal circumstances. The purpose of colliding is to try to get the energy from the velocity to count as momentum, and consequently relativistic mass.

It may be that the universe doesnt apply relativistic mass to gravity.

## Quantum_Conundrum

It would take infinite energy to approach C from the left, that is to accelerate to speed of light.

So then to have a black hole with a gravitational acceleration equal to c per second square, would equate to infinite "force," since by the principle of equivalence Einstein said you can't tell the difference between gravity and uniform acceleration in a rocket (actually he used a train, but modern physicist often use rocket).

So force to accelerate rocket by c per second is infinite. Makes no difference whether the rocket engine does it, or whether a black hole does it. Principle of equivalent says it's the same either way.

So then in order to have an event horizon would require infinite mass, since infinite force is required to accelerate anything to c, much less have an acceleration of C per second.

Problem is people started backwards, by putting C in the gravitational formula for Force. This is nonsense.

## Quantum_Conundrum

Why? Because by definition of the lorentz transform, "C" cannot be obtained except by infinite force.

Infinite energy or infinite force cannot exist in a finite space, and even if it could, this puny particle accelerate can't get anywhere near infinite energy.

so the micro-black hole theory is pure fantasy and a fallacy caused by a mathematical blunder: Plugging in the number "C" for "F" when "C" is outside the range of the lorentz transformation and outside the range for "real world velocity". If C is outside the range for "real world velocity" then it certain is outside the range for "real world acceleration".

It is a fallacy of interpretation combined with a fallacy of the "plugging in" a value to an equation outside it's range.

Mathematically, there is no such thing as a micro-black hole, and maybe not even a true "macro" black hole...

## Quantum_Conundrum

"C = gM/(r^2)"

or

"C/s^2 = gM/(r^2)"

And saying something like "r equal some constant 'a', so solve for M." or "M equal some constant 'b' solve for r."

Is an illogical question since Lorentz transform indirectly forbids A to equal C.

F = MA

But we measure acceleration in V/s^2.

In relativity V cannot equal C.

therefore A cannot equal C/s^2.

Therefore it is not possible for "F" to equal "MC/s^2".

I don't know why I've never noticed this, but it REALLY is a mathematical, algebraic error.

Again, if Relativity is correct, you cannot put C/s^2 for acceleration, (alleged event horizon,) because it is outside the range of the lorentz transformation, which makes it nonsense.

This makes the entire science of black holes nonsense.

True black holes actually cannot exist mathematically, because V = C, and A = C/s^2 cannot exist.

## Quantum_Conundrum

Why I haven't noticed this before I got no clue, but I always catch stuff like this in other maths, butnot here.

I'm not hoaxing. I'm exactly right this time. It's been overlooked somehow.

## Quantum_Conundrum

A = m/s^2, or "rate of change in V".

v = at

So V cannot equal C.

c cannot equal at.

C/s^2 cannot equal a.

The value "V = C" is not in the range for lorentz transform, and so consequently all the other follows because of this.

All I know how to say is write out all of the relativistic formulas and write law of gravity out.

then recall that the range of C in the real world must be the same for any equation trying to explain the real world. Then you will see what is been overlook.

"A = C" or "A = speed of light per second" is nonsense since V cannot equal C.

You cannot make a black hole in a collider, even if you could get infinite energy, which you can't.

They aren't even CLOSE to making a black hole.

If V cant equal C, then "True" black holes do not even exist in nature. What you are seeing in center of galaxy is "close but no cigar." Ultra-heavy red shift, but no "True" event horizon.

## DamienS

Ha, ha, ha.

## Mercury_01

## Quantum_Conundrum

Don't give a damn.

1/sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2))

is UNDEFINED if v = c.

Therefore v cannot equals c in any other hypothetical or model you run, as that would be a contradiction of special relativity.

If we assume relativity is correct, then at NO TIME can you EVER assume v = c for ANY massive object under any circumstances, because lorentz equation is undefined for v = c.

Nor can you ever assume "acceleration = speed of light per second."

You can laugh at me all you want.

Take Algebra 1 or a Calculus class and see what happens.

It is a fallacy.

By definition of Special Relativity, V cannot equal C.

Therefore you cannot set V = C, ever, in any equation, and then solve for something else. It violates a specific rule in algebra and calculus, but I can't remember the exact name off hand. Would require division by zero in lorentz transform, which is undefined.

## DamienS

## Quantum_Conundrum

check it.

It's very simple. So easy a caveman can do it. Well, that's why it was overlooked. It's so bad...

I would discuss this on the main forum, but I'm on suspension.

I'm definitely right, shockingly right, shocking that nobody has ever noticed this before, because it's an 8th or 9th grade level algebra mistake, but it's hard to notice because of the nature of the situation.

It's a violation of basic rules of mathematics.

If you do not believe me write down all the formulas and just stare at that shit.

then like anywhere you would normally plug in a value for "v," such as in the "F" or the "A" on the left side of Newton's law when it regards a black hole, depending on how you framed it, instead plug in the expression "v = c," then stare at Lorentz transformation. v = c is undefined. c not in range of v

## Quantum_Conundrum

It is not "number salad".

This is a matter of violation of a mathematical proof.

By defintion of Special Relativity, C is not in the range of V.

Therefore "C" is not a legal input for "V" in any formula that uses "V". Nor can any formula that uses "V" equate to a value that would require "V" to be equal to "C".

This really is correct.

I'm absolutely positive and shocked at realizing it, but it's definitely correct.

It's been a long time since I took a formal math class, so I don't remember the exact names of the rules involved, but I know I'm right.

It's kind of like how you don't forget how to differentiate a polynomial, even if you forget the proof itself.

## DamienS

Spoken like a true crank.

## lexington

Uh, no, you can't replace F with c because F has to be a measure of *force* and c is only a measure of speed. This is toddler level logic, apples are not oranges.

## Quantum_Conundrum

here it is for you in a more organized format.

gamma = 1/(sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2))), v not equal c.

Even if Einstein's Theory didn't directly say V can't equal c, the equation would still forbid V = C.

However, he both said V can't equal C, and the equation mathematically forbids V = C.

Gravitation:

F = g mM/(r^2),

From above, V can never equal C.

Gravitational Acceleration:

A = gM/(r^2)

From above, V can never equal C.

F = MA

V = At, because V cannot equal C, then "At" cannot equal C.

In order to have an event horizon, i.e. a "true" black hole, you must have a situation where "At = V >= C," but this directly violates the second postulate of relativity, because once again, V cannot equal C, by definition of Special relativity.

It also directly violates the Lorentz Transformation, regardless of relativity.

At = V >= C violates the laws of physics.

By definition, this CANNOT be obtained by any massive particle.

## Quantum_Conundrum

pay attention, it's very convoluted, but also ridiculously simple at the same time.

Force is required to have acceleration.

F = ma

At = acceleration times time = velocity

Velocity cannot equal c.

Therefore:

"At = V >= C" violates the second postulate.

Since this is a violation, you cannot get an event horizon through gravitational acceleration, because no matter how long you accelerate, V cannot and will not equal C. Even if you had an infinite mass object you could not have an event horizon, because V CANNOT equal C.

It's that simple.

## Quantum_Conundrum

Once again, it is a violation of relativity.

Division by Zero is undefined, and V = C would require division by zero.

AND it violates at least one other axiom or postulate, etc, in mathematics, but I can't remember the name of it.

## lexington

Like for example F=ma is incomplete in relativity so you shouldn't be using it when you talk about black holes.

## Quantum_Conundrum

It is always said that something couldn't escape an alleged "black hole" because the instantaneous accleration at the event horizon is would allegedly require a V of greater than C to escape. This is false.

If Relativity forbids things to be accelerated to v = c, then black holes cannot exist, because relativity also forbids things accelerated by black holes to be accelerated to v = c.

Lorentz Transform require infinite force to approach C, regardless of where that "force" comes from, and you stil cannot actually reach C.

## Quantum_Conundrum

The formula I used is not surface gravity. It's the gravitational formula for all distances from center of mass. There has never been a "theory of surface gravity".

In order for an object, an alleged black hole, to bend light back upon itself and trap it, as they say, "From which not even light can escape, bum, bum, bum," It would need to be accelerating photon.

Moreover, any massive particle at the exact same distance as photon would be equally accelerated.

So let's consider a "black hole candidate" and an atom in space, both initially at rest with respect to one another.

If left alone, in pre-einstein classical physics atom woudl simply accelerate inverse proportional to distance, non-stop till it hit object.

In relativity, atom will accelerate arbitrarily close to c, but never equal c.

## theon

## ubavontuba

I'm just sad that so many have been blind to his obvious omission, for so long.

## ubavontuba

## Ethelred

You are Cranking. And by Main Forum I am guessing you mean Physicsforums.com separate place. This IS the main forum here.

Ethelred

## ubavontuba

See:

http://en.wikiped...lativity

## ubavontuba

http://en.wikiped...echanics

and:

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

## Ethelred

Ethelred

## ubavontuba

## PhysicsVanAwesome

I don't know where you get off making bold claims about subject matter that is clearly tenuously within your grasp. Hawking not taking conservation into account...absurd...the man is brilliant. If there were something, anything, not taken into consideration, I assure you, it wasn't on Hawking's end. It is better to be silent and thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Once again, Ethelred ftw.

## ubavontuba

## ubavontuba

What makes you think Hawking is so infallible? Is he not a man, not unlike any other?

If you understood that of which you speak, you would know that I do not claim that Hawking didn't consider conservation in his hypothesis, but rather he missed something which destroys his conservation considerations.

## PhysicsVanAwesome

## PhysicsVanAwesome

## ubavontuba

## Ethelred

Ethelred

## Shootist

More left-wing nonsense.

We'd all still be sitting in drafty caves if left to your devices.

## Shootist

Tell it to Feynman.

http://www.scribd...vitation

## ubavontuba

Also, your lower gravity inside thing is invalid. Strictly speaking, time dilation is relative to the center of mass/gravity, not the strength of gravity in a particular place within the gravity well. For instance, time moves slower at the center of the earth (where there's no apparent gravity) than it does at the surface (where the gravitational acceleration is most strongly "felt"). Or, gravitational time dilation is related to the gravitational potential. The deeper you go into the field, the slower time goes. When you move into the center of the earth, you're moving deeper into the gravity field, hence time is slower.

## Ethelred

In a neutron star space is flatter towards the center of the star. The zone of maximum warping of space-time is at the surface of the neutron star. It is the same distribution when the star has accreted enough mass to collapse.

More

## Ethelred

Not just felt. It is where space-time is most strongly warped. This where gravity comes from. Warped space-time. The warping of space-time is where time dilation due to gravity comes from. More strongly warped the slower time passes in that area. The flatter space is the less time slows. Nope. There is no deepening after the surface. The warping of space-time begins to decrease.

You need to start thinking of it as a curved field in space-time. Not a gravity well.

Ethelred

## Skeptic_Heretic

Most certainly educated by Google and not intellectually curious enough to expose himself to criticism.

This is further evidenced on this thread.

http://www.physor...ses.html

## Mr_Man

You are entitled to your opinion.

Do you pay for cable TV? Movies? etc?

There are MANY MANY ways people spend money frivolously that doesn't contribute to solving the world's problems. The LHC is providing useful information. The more we learn about our universe the further we can push technology. We may even learn how to successfully run a fusion reactor and have clean, near limitless fuel, or utilize quantum entanglement for uncrackable codes.

To say this is all just a waste is really just sad on so many levels

## fmfbrestel

## Modernmystic

## Gawad

Hi Eth, this is very similar to a discussion I had a while back on PO, and MaxwellsDeamon was kind enough to point me to the correct formula for calculating the correct time dilation, not just on the surface of a spherical mass, but anywhere with in. The correct formula can be found here:

http://hyperphysi....html#c4

One can see from the relationship between radius and mass that both ST curvature and position in the gravity well impact a would-be traveler trying to blast his way out of a dense mass. The center of the gravity well is where time is most dilated, the surface of the mass is where they will feel gravity most.

One thing to note, though, there is no mass shell at an event horizon, only red shifted light.

## Skeptic_Heretic

## Gawad

As M_D pointed out, in a beautiful example of symmetry between GR and SR, the GR time dilation at any point in the gravity well of an extended mass is exactly the same as the SR time dilation that would be experienced at escape velocity at the same point. Within the BH Event Horizon time dilation is such that space becomes time-like (flowing towards the singularity) but anything going down the gravity sink still feels perfectly "normal", at least until spaghettification. Whether it's the original mass or a space probe. At the singularity both GR and SR time dilation are infinite.

## fmfbrestel

Despite the fact that relativity predicts them, it is still unable to deal with the actual singularity.

## fmfbrestel

## Gawad

## Gawad

## Skeptic_Heretic

## lexington

It shows that relativity is an incomplete description of the universe but thanks to QM we've known that for almost as long as we've had relativity.

## Modernmystic

IOW our math breaks down no matter if it's a 10 solar mass black hole or a billion.

What I find even more interesting is that million solar mass black holes are VERY different from 10 solar mass ones. Why should they be? If all the matter is shrunk down to a point shouldn't they be the same "size" on the outside too?

Well we know they aren't.

I dunno, just rambling "aloud"...

## Skeptic_Heretic

## Modernmystic

Are they? I've heard the smaller ones are about the size of the Earth, and some of the super-massive ones are about the size of the solar system. Size here being the circumference of the event horizon.

That aside for a moment, why should the mass matter? If gravity has "won" and taken the matter to it's "ultimate density" why should there be such wide variations in the size of the respective event horizons?

I always understood gravity to be very "distance dependent". I understand it's "mass dependent" too, but the actual size of the singularity is (and correct me if I'm wrong here) thought to be the same irrespective of mass.

Maybe that's telling us that the singularities in question aren't in fact points, but have some "size" to them after all?

## Skeptic_Heretic

Mass is the content of that volume.

You can have a higher mass without a corresponding volume change.

## ubavontuba

However, the event horizon isn't really a thing. It's a non-physical, unidirectional barrier which is really just an effect of spacetime curvature at a specified distance from the center of mass. More succinctly, it's not really a "size," per se. It's a distance.

## Gawad

## Aristoteles

gravity is a quantuym-process not "field-interacting"

and also, that there isnt any taste of "antigravitation" ( hey Sabine from Tucson-Arizona uniwersity !...). [ Sabine invent "anticovariant derivative" and "antigeodescic equations"...] .

## TabulaMentis

## fmfbrestel

## Mr_Man

that is excellent! the site was probably put up by a physicist.

## fmfbrestel

infinite density, + any amount of mass = 0 volume point

adding mass increases the size of the event horizon but aught to do nothing to the infinitely dense point at the center.

past the even horizon no amount of energy can resist the gravitational pull of the singularity. (so can things still orbit the singularity once inside the event horizon?)

## fmfbrestel

## fmfbrestel

## fmfbrestel

## Modernmystic

Yes gravity is heavily distance dependent, but again also mass dependent. Therefore the event horizon is larger because the mass is larger irrespective of distance from the singularity.

IOW it's not the size (as in volume) of the singularity which makes for big event horizons, but the mass.

## mojination

And if they had invented vaccines they might be here today to help back your claim.

## Terrible_Bohr

## ubavontuba

It's the fancy-pants pocket-protector wielding guys, with their insistence that there must be a solution to everything, that make a mess of it for everyone. ;D

Reference:

http://en.wikiped..._by_zero

## ubavontuba

Naw. Here's a Space Daily article which explains it pretty well:

http://www.spaced...999.html

## ubavontuba

There are two answers. In a Schwarzschild (point singularity) black hole: No, as all paths point to the singularity.

However, in a Kerr (rotating) black hole, or a Reissner-Nordstrom (charged) black hole, the paths are smeared and all kinds of crazy things might happen.

See:

http://en.wikiped...gularity

## Skeptic_Heretic

## ubavontuba

## Rohitasch

## Rohitasch

They haven't reached anywhere near the Planck mass yet! Absence of BH decay in the infra-Planck mass spectrum shouldn't be a suprise.

## savroD

## suntraider

Then there exists a platform where the American Revolution, French Revolution, and Russian Revolution started from.

Now if the students for some reason saw the function of integrative university research to city process control technologies. Then that is natural to the flow of things mind then matter.

But if the students saw the direction as differentiated and loss of education but regardless research for urbanization must be scaled back to the social sciences and nessessary control.

Could this mechanism be a black hole? European colleges held in suspension while the US has rescaled the military and colleges open to the DREAM ACT. The british students creating defense to parliament that relates to schools. Rather than democracy creating defense relative to the american revolution. Then russia had some kind of issue relating to Vladamir Putin and France as well

## Skeptic_Heretic

suntraider appears to be a Turing test.

## suntraider

Then there exists a platform where the American Revolution, French Revolution, and Russian Revolution started from.

Now if the students for some reason saw the function of integrative university research to city process control technologies. Then that is natural to the flow of things mind then matter.

But if the students saw the direction as differentiated and loss of education but regardless research for urbanization must be scaled back to the social sciences and nessessary control.

Could this mechanism be a black hole? European colleges held in suspension while the US has rescaled the military and colleges open to the DREAM ACT. The british students creating defense to parliament that relates to schools. Rather than democracy creating defense relative to the american revolution. Then russia had some kind of issue relating to Vladamir Putin and France as well

## yoron

And that's also the idea of 'information' communicating through the Event horizon as pair production implies an entanglement which the make the 'negative' particle communicate its state to the positive as it annihilates inside the EV.

You can see this two ways. Either an Entanglement has no limitations as we are discussing 'singularities'. And there you can as easily consider worm holes. Or the information is not 'meaningful' other than as 'energy quanta'.

## yoron

Anyone that have a opinion on that one?

## yoron

And yes, that would bring us to 'chaos theory'.

## fmfbrestel

Anyway after doing some reading (thanks guys) ring singularities seem to be possible, but only if the ring has it's mass perfectly evenly distributed, which is why they are unstable. Because if any mass disturbed the ring, the gravitational equilibrium would collapse, and so would the ring.

Is that about right?

## yoron

What a exiting Xistmas :)

Naaah.

Joking, and a merry Xmas to ye all.

## Skeptic_Heretic

Been working on this one for a while, not ready for publication yet.

## yoron

I don't like people engaging in superfluous learning. Makes for a hard stomach, and, a probably not thought through proposition, well as I see it :)

But you're on it then?

Cool.

## yoron

No, it's not water, although it takes part :)

## yoron

To me gravity is no energy. On the other hand you can release more energy than you otherwise would have, through it. But that energy is 'positive energy', not negative.

So you will have to be very clear to make me understand how you think there.

## Husky

## Husky

## Husky

## Husky

## Skeptic_Heretic

Going purely by the equations established by QM and Relativity, Gravity is always seen as a negative energy in the balance of the equations for spacial geometry. Since we're zeroing in on a value of Omega=1, gravity is required to be negative under the Lamba CDM model of cosmology.

## yoron

As for a center, that a definition we use inside an 'arrow of time'. without it, or even if only 'reversed' it becomes meaningless, I think?

Awh :)

## theknifeman

## theknifeman

## Skeptic_Heretic

## ubavontuba

Anyway,how does the resultant energy escape the ev? Why would it have to favor spacetime, and not the black hole?

## yoron

Makes me head spin that one does:)

Because if it's true then I can't see any problem sending energy between 'parallel universe'. We already know that plants do it, by entanglement and somewhere I saw a proposition for testing sending energy through entanglements.

## yoron

And that's another reason for why we might need to split the concept of 'information' and 'meaningful information' just as we assumed that entanglements couldn't carry 'information' before.

It's interesting.

Maybe it can carry 'information' if it can carry 'energy'? But maybe not making it 'meaningful', depending on how we want to define that?

Still?

Isn't energy 'meaningful'??

Ask a plant :)

## Skeptic_Heretic

## dtxx

Oh you mean like the christian god?

## ubavontuba

Anyway, as dark energy (DE) has an anti-gravity effect, wouldn't DE therfore have to be a form of negative mass then? How does all that fit in? Why would particle pair splitting favor antiparticles falling in, and particles escaping? Just because the energy is negative (from a distant observer's point of view), doesn't mean only antiparticles are falling in. And you still haven't explained how the particles escape (unless they're massless).

## Skeptic_Heretic

## ubavontuba

See: http://en.wikiped...k_energy

As you described the process, it seems dependent on it. It looks like you're simply trying to reinvent the wheel (so to speak). How is this fundamentally different than Hawking radiation? So are you advocating a form of quantum tunneling then?

And, are you suggesting that simply being outside the event horizon, is a guarantee of escape?

## Skeptic_Heretic

## yoron

So, Maybe not?

But if we then found a source of positive energy constantly expiring? Sounds very alike 'quantum fluctuations' if so :)

Wild wild speculations, a speciality of mine :)

## ubavontuba

## Skeptic_Heretic

I'm telling you that you're wrong. I'm not confused by your statement.

Negative energy exerting negative pressure upon baryonic matter is positive energy output. You're going to need to understand what these terms mean, and yes it gets confusing if you don't look at the equations.

Secondly, when it comes to conceptual physics, wikipedia gets it wrong more often than right.

## Daan

that is the first thing that came to mind here. Any more info on the lack of energy conservation in jet quenching? it reminds me of the discovery of neutrinos... the things that dont quite add up are the research fields of tomorrow.

## ubavontuba

The "quintessence" model I touched on previously (my "negative matter" reference) doesn't really make any more sense, I suppose. However, at least it isn't based on a gross miscalculation! I disagree, as it's been independently rated as being quite accurate in regards to its science articles, but we'll move on...

If you're going QM, perhaps spacetime itself is gravitationally attractive - via VP's spitting out gravitons?

## Egleton

## Skeptic_Heretic

You're making the same mistake that many physicists in the past have made by not reading forward on the issue.

Read: Weinberg, S (1987). Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (22):2607-610. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607. PMID 10035596. http://prl.aps.or.../p2607_1

for starters.

## ubavontuba

Or, maybe it's magic!

## ubavontuba

1. The cosmological constant, isn't constant.

2. The universe is made up mostly of stuff we can't see, which passes light unperturbed.

3. Something is critically wrong with our theories, or interpretations therof.

Personally, I vote for number three. Particularly, the latter part.

## Skeptic_Heretic

Same, and we know number 3 will come to pass, because it always does in physics.

## ubavontuba

I still like my semi-gravitationally attractive vacuum. What do you think?

## Skeptic_Heretic

## ubavontuba

Anyway, if it's semi-attractive (by this I mean it attracts mass, but mass can't attract it), it would have the effect of appearing to be repulsive on large scales (by dragging galaxies apart as the galaxies ever attempt to fill larger voids). It would also account for the accelerating expansion.

It's originally based on QM (supposing gravitons, like photons, are their own antiparticle).

It works in GR too, by supposing each VP pair creates a tiny gravity wavelet.

It's certainly highly speculative, but fun.

## Skeptic_Heretic

## Solkar

ubavontuba wrote

?

"semi-gravitational" ???

What does that mean?

@Quantum_Conundrum

- It is quite clear that just taking constness of c and Newton's law into account will not yield a GR-black hole. GR is formulated in terms of curvature of spacetime-manifolds, whereas classical mechanics is not.

- Even your classical eq of motion are flawed

v = at is true if and only if a is const, but a isn't const on trajectories in the vicinity of massive body but ∝ to 1/r^2.

- What you apparently wanted to show is that for energy preservation on inbound trajectories E_kin at the EH would be or exceed 1/2mc^2, thus v >= c. But your approach is wrong:

Aside of the fact that your approach even disgards SR it suffers from a misinterpretation of Schwarzschild coordinates, namely "r"

@ubavontuba:

Your proposal about potential effects *inside* massive bodies is wrong because it violates Gauss's div. theorem

## ubavontuba

Perhaps you're referring to my use of the term, "large scales?" If so, then you have woefully misinterpreted what I was writing about.

I was using "large scales" in relation to astronomical voids.

## ubavontuba

## Skeptic_Heretic

"DE is not well fleshed out."

## Solkar

No, what I'm missing is consistency in your proposals.

And I'm also missing precision in the formulation of your "theory".

- Which "effect"?

- How large is it?

- "flux" through which surface or volume?

And last not least what are the observables, what is the prediction and what are falsification criteria?

So you cannot get the connection between your own hypotheses in this thread and Gauss's div. theorem yourself?

Very well; that explains a lot, esp. why you did not understand Ethelreds remarks.

## ubavontuba

## ubavontuba

You don't even understand my speculation, so how can you even assert it's a relevant factor? He was wrong! Another poster (Gawad - Dec 20, 2010) even provided to him the correct formula!

## ubavontuba

But if it's true, the prediction is mass will tend to accelerate toward voids.

In relation to Gauss's theorem, I haven't really worked that out. I'm speculating that where gravity abounds (in high mass densities) it simply lends its support (so to speak) and acts toward the center of mass, and in very low densities, it acts toward the center of voids (essentially, the void becomes a very low density mass). So, the demarcation would have to have something to do with the volume of the voids versus the size/density of the mass.

The effect would be vanishingly weak locally, and only be apparent on extremely large scales (like astronomical voids).

I don't think it'd be detectable in a lab. Therefore, I can only think of observation as a means to falsify it.

continued...

## Skeptic_Heretic

## ubavontuba

Anyway, don't get too excited by it. It's only a speculation, a conjecture, a supposition, a musing, a contemplation, a tentative insight...

## ubavontuba

## Skeptic_Heretic

## ubavontuba

## Skeptic_Heretic

editted for undue flippancy.

## yoron

But, being 'negative', the reason two plates join I do not see as 'space' having a pressure. Space have a 'zero' pressure. I see the real effect as disallowing certain 'virtual wave lengths' by having the plates extremely close, creating an local 'unbalance' that SpaceTime rectify by forcing the plates together.

Anyone want to define how the expansion come to be, creating 3-D space?

## Skeptic_Heretic

What?

Energy density of a "vacuum" is negative because there is mass present in the form of virtual particles, which would mean there's a small gravitational attraction to "nothing". This is why dark energy is positive.

As for the plate statement, are you referring to the Casimir effect?

## yoron

I see it as a result from our 'arrow of time'. A 'unfettered space' have all those wavelengths outside Plank time as I see it. When we introduce the plates we disallow some of them, creating a effect inside our arrow of time, as SpaceTime equilibrium is disturbed. So yes, to me the Casimir effect has to do with time. And so has Rindler observers and Unruh radiation.

As for the first of my statements you can look at *** books.google.com/books?id=5dryXCWR7EIC&pg=PA187&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

The virtual particles we talk about is 'energy carriers', existing inside us, as well as all around us. Without them we have no idea for how 'energy' gets transformed and distributed. My view isn't that strange I think :)

## ubavontuba

It's probably an implausible and perhaps inconsistent idea, as it implies the universe's expansion (from the big bang and onward) is the result of a (higher dimensional?) void pulling it apart (it works best with the concept of "bubble universes").

Anyway, like I said before: It's highly speculative, but fun. I'm not claiming anything more.

## ubavontuba

http//math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

## yoron

## ubavontuba

Dec 29, 2010## yoron

General relativity: an introduction for physicists by Michael Paul Hobson, George Efstathiou, Anthony N. Lasenby

http//books.google.com/books?id=5dryXCWR7EIC&pg=PA187&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

## yoron

Density is a concept we use, remember that this is my view now:), inside SpaceTime. Outside an arrow of time it becomes different. That's why Space is nulled, becoming classically 'zero' as I see it.

You can discuss 'negative pressure' as a concept but to me it's more of a 'time reversal' well maybe not reversal, more like opening a 'rift' in SpaceTime. If we look at a Black Hole it seems as SpaceTime have one answer to singularities, close it.

So when those plates are brought together, disallowing the wavelengths, we create a disturbance and SpaceTime 'closes it'.

## yoron

What we see is to me a self regulatory expression of a state of SpaceTimes equilibrium, and if you like 'entropy'. It's like a game, if you stop looking at motion and distance, it has some very peculiar rules that will make things happen inside our arrow, where the idea of entanglements for making a SpaceTime work seems really important to me.

## yoron

But we haven't realized that particular concept until recently. And now we are trying to make sense of it, and it may make sense if linearity is one of the peculiarities you get with an arrow.

## yoron

I've used 'frames of reference' before, the problem being that it is a very neutral definition, you can talk about your own, then about someone else's in the same breath fooling yourself to see both as being of the same 'value'.

They're not, no matter what you do, how fast you travel, if you're at a neutron star, you have the same expiration date. But all other frames you ever will notice, or as I call it 'room time geometries' are relative you open for 'change', and by the same 'experiences' that you will find 'not' changing your duration. If you see how I think.

## yoron

There is a subtle difference in it to me :)

Helping me to see what I think is important. People seem to think that this universe is a seamless 'whole', and I agree in one way, but if you look at it as 'room time geometries' they seem to come in all 'sizes' from a pebble on the beach to a electrons 'orbital' to, whatever I can think up i guess :) And they all have to be slightly different I think, presenting a different SpaceTime, but still giving us all this feeling of 'sharing' the exact same universe.

And how they do that is radiation. There are three things SpaceTime is to me.

A topology defined by your 'room time geometry' (gravity/space)

Radiation.

Matter.

For the moment that is, I'm open for change :)

## yoron

Speed is a distance measured in time. So speed is relative your 'room time geometry.'

With one exception.

Light.

## yoron

If it can change with 'potential gravity' or 'stress'.

And does light really move?

Think of it. I know, it sounds like a rather weird question, doesn't it :)

## yoron

Then light will have the same 'speed' in all 'frames of reference', be that your own, or any other 'frame' you measure (like that attacking space fleet coming at Earth, and no, they're not, just an example:)

And light only exist in its interactions.

Weak observations will still build on 'interacting' even if removed from what you observe. To prove that wrong you need to observe without observing at all.

(It makes most sense if you remember that I see SpaceTime as a 'game', the rules doesn't necessarily have to make any 'sense' to me if I compare it to mine 'immediate reality' writing here)

## yoron

Your light will then represent a 'oscillating motion' having a velocity in that mass of springs where the light-corn/wave :) is represented by the oscillation 'propagating' in the medium. The density of the medium it travels through may be thought of as the rigidity of those springs, or their 'inertia'.

Or as a single extremely long spring being 'SpaceTime'. And doing so the oscillation/light still can be seen to travel through that spring, but the 'spring' never moves.

## yoron

It's all a question about what 'times arrow' really is.

## yoron

And that light will in and from all those 'room time geometries' only present us with that same one speed?

Why?

And how?

In 'frames of reference' I find a difference between what I see as my 'time' relative all other frames, just as you can do comparing your to all others. I don't see how I can do the same with the speed of light?

Can you see a way?

To me it seems as if this 'light' always is 'the same' no matter how I choose to look at it?

And why do we only observe its 'interactions'?

And 'virtual light' is real 'light' for a Rindler observer and as Unruh radiation.

And, how did it become 'real'?

## yoron

There are two ways I know of.

Invariant proper mass (restmass)

Motion.

## yoron

Let light exist in 'propagation'

Mark out where those light-corns will be on your frame.

Now compress the frame speeding away.

What happened with your coordinate system?

What coordinate system will your neighbor see from home?

## yoron

And to see its inherent weirdness: Remember that your neighbor never lost touch with you 'speeding away' looking in his telescope.

And, what the he* happened with our 'propagating light'?

Is it in two places?

## yoron

Lets back up a little. Entanglements?

What about 'ordinary light'.

Can that be entangled too?

I don't know, do you?

If it was, would that make a difference?

To me, a entanglement makes a difference, by just existing. We just need to know that the concept exist.

And light, how can it 'communicate' in 'no time', over singularities, and as far as I understand, having no limit to their distance as they do so.

'Communicate' here, I see as setting a opposite spin for its other half, by you interacting with one of them.

## yoron

It feels like I'm hijacking the thread :)

But those are the things I wonder about. And now you do it too :) Heh.

And 'room time Dimensions/topology' includes string and loop quantum theory too. Although I look at dimensions as 'properties', not singular 'thingies', but I might be wrong in it all :)

Life huh :)

## DamienS

## Solkar

There are some really interesting concepts in your posts, so I dont think anyone will mind the clustering of your posts! ;)

Some remarks of mine:

You wrote:

That's not as strange as it looks on a first glance; vectors of QM-Hilbert-space can be represented in a multitude of bases, the space-representation just being one possibility amongst others; another one e.g being the spin-up/spin-down basis. Thus the concept of space being a "property" amongst others is quite plausible.

You wrote

Riemannian Geometry is indeed an *intristic* formulation of geometry thus "size" may solemnly depend on the unit of the metric compared to other quantities existing "in" that very spacetime.

## Solkar

There is also a very good video lecture on GR including Powerpoint-docs available from Uni Tuebingen:

www dot tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de slash ~kokkotas slash Teaching slash GTR dot html

It's a German site, but the docs and vids are English.

## ubavontuba

However, I feel there is always an intrinsic frame of rest which is always the first person, observer's "room."

And, I've always had difficulties with time, myself. I tend to think of time as a dimension (not unlike any other) and time dilation is a result of perspective within that dimension, relative to your "room."

Solkar:

Here's a copy and paste version of your excellent reference:

## yoron

## yoron

I agree :) it's hard to 'divide' what we call 'SpaceTime' We need to see the rules making it a 'whole' like the Feigenbaum constant and the Bekenstein bound. I'm not saying that they are absolutes, but I think we will find more constants if we just start to look, and we need to too :)

So maybe this universe of ours is even weirder than we thought huh :)

## yoron

Don't know how easy they will be to understand but I will at least try to. And then those excellent links too :)

After fire and the wheel I believe Internet to be the most important 'invention' ever made. We may go towards a 'poorer Earth' but we have a unique way of communicating now. And to me it seems that is what we really like, most of us at least :)

As long as it is kept free that is.

## yoron

Then, on the other hand, we have the concept of a 'whole' 'SpaceTime'. Looking at it that way your 'arrow' becomes a property of the whole 'shebang' impossible to free from the idea of a 'SpaceTime'.

There is a way to solve this though, at least as I see it, and that is to look at the way our 'universe' changes appearance through what chaos math calls 'emergences'. Water becoming ice, gaining totally new properties (ever tried to skate on water?:)

## yoron

The difference being that the 'universe' was first doing it :) It's either that or walking a lonely path to smaller and smaller 'thingies' and then walking back trying to see how they build this 'SpaceTime' and the 'states' we associate with different 'sizes'. Macroscopically, QM, Plank Size and under. Because we see that the 'universe' behave differently, don't we?

## yoron

## yoron

(Like Emmy Noether did)

## ubavontuba

It looks like we're on the same page. I view time in lots of ways, depending on the application.

Like how spatial dimensions hold mass/energy distributions, time holds event distributions.

Time is also the river which passses through the spatial dimensions and changes the spatial mass/energy distributions.

By doing so, time effectively shatters the Bekenstein bound - by allowing the defined space to hold more things, but over time.

So time can be viewed as both a dimension, and an effect.

It's also part of the very topology of space.

And, "the arrow of time" has many definitions, as seen here:

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows

How marvelous is time, that it's so difficult to describe, yet so seemingly ordinary!

## yoron

## yoron

We only need to accept one of them to see that your unique 'room time geometry' isn't 'entropic'. To be so it should be possible for your arrow to stop in your own 'frame of reference'. And that one I've never heard about? I would like too though, especially when meeting those lovely ladies :)

## ubavontuba

I wouldn't suggest that life is a reversed entropy, as the energy of the entire system which supports life certainly is dissipating. Rather life is the result of the useful energy which remains in the system.

It's been suggested there may be a sort of entropic "reset" mechanism, which would be the cyclic universe model, but it seems unlikely. However, these musings boil down to philosophy, as we simply don't know from whence the energy of the universe originates.

Perhaps universes spring into being as a regular occurrence. Perhaps there's only the one universe, dying a slow death. Perhaps new energy is being introduced into our universe from sources we simply haven't yet observed. Perhaps...

You see? Nothing but speculation and philosophy.

So what we know is entropy is real locally, and locally is all we really have.

As for staying young, I think that's a matter for the microbiologists and geneticists to sort out.

## yoron

That is if one assume that ones personal arrow constantly tick with the same rate measured inside. And I can't find any way to disprove that notion? And no, to me that one isn't philosophy, rather an unavoidable fact of relativity.

Maybe someone already have an answer to that question?

## yoron

That makes them interesting as an equivalence. You could also argue that radiation is the best 'clocks' existing. Getting closer to 'times arrow' than using radiation I don't think is possible? And it works when measuring other 'frames of reference' from your own too. When you do you use the 'arrow of time' you have locally, aka 'room time geometry'.

So, maybe it's right? I don't really know, but maybe?

To define radiation as our arrow of time?

## yoron

But maybe both ideas works together? It's just us not seeing it? In defense of my notion I will spell out two 'magic words'..

Lorentz contraction

Time dilation.

And one more.

Constants.

## yoron

To explain how 'photons' can be of different strengths I've seen some suggest that they come in 'higher concentrations' per time unit. That as they are thought of as invariant light-quanta. Not waves now, 'photons'.

Think of the sun as a sun-hose streaming out 'photons' at a black hole. Put a solar panel between the black hole and the sun. What do you expect to happen as we move that detector closer to the black holes EV (Event horizon)?

Will the photons deliver more energy?

Why?

## yoron

Nope. If we assume gravity to 'accelerate' them they should be spaced out:) Not 'bunched together' as they close in. So that one didn't hold water, did it?

## yoron

And what do we say they do instead of accelerating?

## yoron

But they're timeless? And only defined in their 'interactions'? Where do you expect them to do this amazing feat?

And if they did?

Why isn't that an 'interaction'?

## yoron

And it's a very good argument of it not existing until in its 'interaction' to me:) As we otherwise would have to find an explanation to why it 'loses energy' when it's expected to be of a defined 'light quanta'. To see what I mean there you have to remember that light is 'time less' intrinsically, and only 'existing' in its interaction.

If you want to define it as it changes 'energy' as it climbs you will have defined an 'interaction'. That's not possible, if so, all light would annihilate as soon as it meet another gravitational potential, and it doesn't.

That's where its 'timelessness' comes in too as that is what we assume to make it possible to 'propagate' vast 'distances' without losing 'energy', as I understands it.

## yoron

## ubavontuba

As the time is slower closer to the black hole (relative to the sunward position), the solar panel will indeed perceive the photons as having higher energy. Do you see? The photons aren't changing, it's that the clocks of the observers are different.

More succinctly: The energy perceived is relative to the clock.

## yoron

If I was the solar panel, my time would be 'as always' as per my definition of every objects unique and, in some truly weird way, equivalent 'room time geometry'. As in that one your time always will 'tick as usual' according to your wristwatch.

So why would I define the photon as being 'stronger' due to that when I according to my wristwatch don't have any 'time dilation' to notice?

The only way to define a time dilation that I can see is when I return to my 'origin'. You can as you know of it theoretically define it mathematically due to velocity, or potential gravity. but that's a theoretic exercise.

That's how I look at it for the moment, I differ between what I call 'room time geometries' having an 'equivalent time' as seen from their own frames against what I might call 'second hand observations' like someone telling me their 'clock' at some other 'frame of reference'. I will think about it though:) And see what more arguments I can muster.

## yoron

Does that mean that when you turn of your engine the infalling photons measured will fall back to some 'original energy level' as before that acceleration?

I don't think so myself, and if they don't you now are in a uniformly moving frame, equivalent to all other uniformly moving frames, like earth. You can pick any other frame to define your velocity from now, without finding the infalling photons energy to change.

## yoron

==

It's a really good argument though, let me sleep on it and I we discuss it tomorrow, or today as it is :)

After I've woken up and got me some coffee..

Sweet thinking nevertheless ubavontuba, I need to get my ideas straight to make them make sense :)

## ubavontuba

Your clock rate/relative energy level was initially set by the position you held in the gravity well. Going into free fall from that point will cause you to accelerate toward the black hole. The acceleration will reduce the relative photon energy, but this is countered by the depth you fall into the gravity well, which slows your clock and increases the relative energy.

Or more succinctly: You free-fall in with the relative energy perception you started with.

## yoron

I'm of two minds there, nothing unusual with that:) one shouting. "Huh, what acceleration?:)" The other not as sure.

What are the definitions of a free fall?

And are all 'free falls', aka following a geodesic, 'equivalent'?

I hope I'm looking at it from the perspective of relativity now. You can look at it as 'forces' too, but then you will use the Newtonian definitions, well, as I see it. Sometimes I find it quite hard to differ them, as I'm so used to the idea of 'forces' defining my world.

And I'm still not fully awake here.

Hope I will be later :)

## yoron

In a uniform motion two observers in relative motion will see different frequencies for the same source, but they can not change the sign if you go by Lorentz transformations. That is not true in a acceleration though there, if i got it right, the sign can be interchangeable and you will see what the rocket 'coasting' won't, and nothing to do with what velocity/speed you have.

And that's the Unruh radiation. I've seen it explained as your engine becoming your 'detector', but I have difficulties turning my head around this 'sign switch' possible here?

To me that seems like a reversal of 'flow'?

Time?

Anyone that can define how it's possible?

## yoron

And that's how things arrange them selves from orderly to disorderly. You can have a orderly system containing several object, neatly laid out, but it will change into a disorderly system as 'time' goes on.

But it's also true that there are so many more ways of leaving them disorderly than orderly. So why do we see a system consistently working from order to a greater disorder? What made the state of order the one we started from?

## yoron

I'm not talking about 'remembering how it used to be' and then 'compare the difference' here. I'm talking about taking out my clock and yard stick and then start to measure.

And that must mean that it all 'changes together' as a 'whole experience' for me and my 'SpaceTime'. So what do I have if looked at like that, one object or several? I would say one, but my arrow still exist inside it?

## yoron

But what I'm wondering of here is not that. As far as I understand the 'sign switch' is expected to be 'real' and a part of the explanation to why we see a Unruh radiation. so how is it possible? What would we see.

==

Or is it the same?

I've seen some putting Hawking radiation and Unruh radiation as one and the same? And then, if so, I will ignore the statement of reversing signs as that seems to be a mathematical joke with no relation to the factual effect.

==

And then we should have an extreme pair production in a Unruh radiation which if the idea was right should cancel itself out as the particles and 'anti particles' react with each other.

## yoron

But there are some weird effects to it.

1. We shouldn't see it. Not if it cancels itself out, if it doesn't though you can expect radiation to escape, hitting your retina.

2. it will leave a positive 'rest product' whatever that is thought to be. And so, once more, we meet that scarlet pimpernel 'Energy'.

Hmm?

To see the inherent weirdness of 2. You need to remember that Unruh radiation doesn't exist for our uniformly moving observer. So he won't observe any such 'effect'. But what about that 'positive rest product' then?

## yoron

In a Hawking radiation you will have the so called 'negative' particle-half inside a event horizon negating the 'positive' particles, and even if leaving a positive rest product not being inside our SpaceTime. That will also slow down the Black hole relative our universe and so have an uneven equivalence.

I forgot to mention that here you will see a radiative effect, with all right too as we will have a surplus. But in a Unruh radiation I do not expect you too, that is, if it's expected to be the same?

In a Unruh radiation it all happens in 'SpaceTime'. and if you want to assume that we all share the same, then the rest product should 'exist' for us all.

Even though the radiation didn't :)

## yoron

Don't know how though :)

## ubavontuba

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Open_universe

Correct. Local time is always perceived as a steady "flow," but it isn't necessarily so.

## yoron

Can you give me a example on how you think there?

## ubavontuba

You can only experience time in situ. So, if it stops and starts, you stop and start - at the same rate. You won't notice the stopping and starting, because you're part of it. To you, time will always feel smooth and steady.

## yoron

But entropy and the arrow of time seems different to me. Which shouldn't be seen as they do not co-exist, as they go into each other. But the arrow is like radiation, steady and unchanging in duration for you, inside your own frame of reference.

## yoron

Conceptually I can define a blue-shift both as a time dilation, and a Lorentz contraction, or either of them. But observationally I will only use one 'clock'. The one inside my own 'frame of reference', aka 'room time geometry'.

To use any other frames time measuring becomes a academic exercise, and you can see how wrong that one 'ticks' any time you compare it against your own frames 'clock'.

## ubavontuba

It's only natural to relate everything to yourself, as you need a rest frame from which to make comparisons Your "room" is as good as any, and the most convenient.

## yoron

Because what I notice is that my 'room time geometry' also will be yours, seen from your eyes that is, or as we 'share' it.

But I don't need to 'share' to see the equivalence.

In all frames imaginable I know that light will have the same 'speed' and that my clock will 'tick' at the same duration as compared to my heartbeats.