If we look at the 'forces' creating a SpaceTime, as 'gravity', radiation etc they all seem to meet at 'c' to me. When and if dimensionless point(s) exist, and they must do if you at all believe in 'bosons' ability to be superimposed upon each other, and you are close enough to a Black holes. Then, at that 'point'

physics breaks down, our ordered universe and mathematics have no description of that state.

If you think of it as a 'geometry' SpaceTime comes out from such a point as 'c', where all 'forces' sort of stretch out at angles to each other, creating the four dimensional room time we see. And that original 'point' is described by 'c'. Temperatures for example can only exist in 'interactions'. So radiation alone, is that a temperature? No, it can't be, 'space' isolates, it does not 'heat up' as radiation 'propagates' in it.

To get to a temperature you need a phase transition, what I think of as an 'emergence' from bosons to something interacting. That is unless you assume that 'photons' do interact, but if they did and we assume 'space' to constantly contain those, why doesn't 'space' heat up? Then we have indeterminacy and 'virtual photons'. Indeterminacy is a better description to me than the idea of 'virtual photons' As soon as you assume 'virtual photons' you gift that description with 'properties'. First of all, it must have a 'arrow of time', at least as observed from our perspective. It also assumes 'propagation' which I find doubtful.

Indeterminacy do not need a 'propagation', and whatever 'arrow' it will present you with will only exist as a outcome. And thinking of photons 'propagating' it becomes just a description of the rules we have inside SpaceTime. We find a constant we have defined using a ruler and a 'clock', that gives it a constant 'speed' in a vacuum. So we assume that this is true, and it is, well, for us it is

But to me that is a result of constants, defining rules for how this SpaceTime works. We see matter 'move' and we 'move' ourselves so to assume motion to exist for everything we know of, including 'bosons', becomes a very reasonable proposition. And as we can 'measure' both distances and time it all made sense, until Einsteins Relativity.

Because there 'motion' can only be defined two ways. Relative something else, as Earth. Or strictly 'locally' as a 'gravity' defining your 'absolute motion' in a acceleration. And both types of 'motion' warps and distorts the SpaceTime you will observe. And the distortion, according to some 'inertial' observer, is not a 'distortion' for you locally in that acceleration, or 'relative motion'. It's a very real thing for you, describing SpaceTime exactly as it is, for you.

We can gloss over this and assume a lot of things, or we can accept it. If you accept it 'distance' will have a 'plasticity' as you can prove by measuring a distance, then go extremely fast, to find that 'distance' shrunk (Lorentz FitzGerald contracted).

But is the same true for the arrow you are in? Not as I can see, the arrow you use to measure that 'distance' is locally the exact same for you and that arrow is a 'constant' in my eyes. Directly coupled to 'c', which also becomes my ultimate 'clock' of choice. So the arrow is locally always the same, but the distances you measure locally will differ. And a acceleration is a 'gravity' and 'gravity' will dilate the time which explains why you measuring in a two way experiment will get different answers to lights speed in a vacuum. I saw a quite ingenious idea in where you by splitting a photon and giving it two paths possibly could do a 'one way' measurement of 'c'. But it would only be viable under Special relativity, which ignores accelerations and 'gravity'.

In the SpaceTime we exist in, you can't ignore 'gravity'.

So think of SpaceTime as a dimension less 'point' from where there stretch out, at some sort of angles from each other, limitations becoming a four dimensional SpaceTime in where we live. And remember that this 'dimension less point' is not localized at any position, or rather that it is 'located everywhere'. And that fits 'indeterminacy' to me.

Because indeterminacy are 'fluctuations' that only exist in becoming a outcome, or if you like and now we try to exclude a arrow, described as a probability where it only begets a arrow in 'outcomes' as 'interactions'.

=

My spelling, and punctuation marks, sux