[yor_on]

Let's look at 'bosons' a little. We have one boson that we all know and love, the 'photon'. That one has a source, and a sink. If you think of it as in motion it also has a propagation. Then there is the other side of it, waves, and fields. We live inside a electromagnetic field produced by Earth. Our bodies also produce a electro magnetic field.

So what is a 'gluon'? And a W and Z particle? Are they 'bosons' too? And a Higgs particle? Also a boson?

The bosons we can see, don't decay, not according to Einstein at least. But they do annihilate. So that mysterious Higgs boson, does it interact? If it do, does it annihilate in that interaction? The electromagnetic forces are mediated by exchange of photons, whereas the weak force is mediated by exchange of W or Z bosons. Then we have the strong force that is mediated by gluon's inside those 'atoms', and lastly the Higgs bosons that somehow defines all mass of all particles.

One of the most mysterious things we have is what we call 'uniform motion'. It's a state without 'resistance', only 'accelerations' produce that inertial effect inseparable from 'gravity'. So how is the Higgs thought to be coupled to that?

Then there is the definition of it as being 'massive'? If you define something as being massive, then that seems to me to be the same as stating it to contain 'gravity' intrinsically? And if you do that you have already introduced a 'Gravitational state', before what you aim to explain by introducing Higgs Particles.

What makes a Higgs particle 'massive', if now those are are thought to be what creates 'gravity' and 'inertia'? The only definition I know of being 'massive', is the definition coupled to gravity. So we have something 'gravitational' intrinsically that then creates more 'gravity' by interacting with all other particles. But as it is a boson, does it annihilate? And if it does, doesn't it then have to be 'created' too? From 'where' exactly?

What field can interact, without exchanging useful 'energy' for 'non useful'? Assuming that we have a 'closed SpaceTime', in where nothing gets 'lost', just change 'state'. It seems to be needed for the The Standard Model of particle physics to make sense, and is so created. But it is not self consistent to me. And the Higgs field excitations seems to be what is assumed to give 'birth' to those 'Higgs bosons'.

[yor_on]

Okay, one definition that makes sense is to think of 'gravity' as always seeking a balance, a center, a little like a hollow sphere can be thought of as all mass being centered inside the exact middle of that hollow sphere, in some thought up 'point'.

You can see that with two objects rotating around each other in space. The don't 'fall' together, as much as they, from our point of view, rotate around some 'balance point' outside their masses. We can argue about this definition, but let's use it for now.

Using that we can ask ourselves what defines inertia with the Higgs field. If we assume that all particles have a 'balance point' like the ones we see with binary stars, then the idea is that when that balance gets 'displaced' by motion the Higgs field/particles will create a resistance to it, inseparable from inertia and gravity. And as the 'Higgs field' then exists as cumulative process, coming from all directions, acting on that particle we will find 'gravity' acting on us. But a planet moves in a uniform motion. So this mechanism is only good for accelerations.

In Einsteins world you have a 'gravitational motion' too. That 'motion' is defined by gravity and mass, as with Earth. There is a equivalence to a mass, and a acceleration. And it works very well in Einsteins definitions, but, does it work with Higgs field/boson?

[yor_on]

A flickering universe, where every flicker is defined by your observation, all observations of distance and other frames 'time' different, and with all observations being as true. A universe where the macroscopic 'clock' is defined from lights speed in a vacuum.

A universe defined through scales. Where indeterminacy is what defines it Quantum mechanically, and not even the arrow a certainty. If we would 'split c' in its composites we reach that QM scale where 'times arrow' becomes questionable and HUP seem to rule. Can you use HUP for time too?

[yor_on]

Another weird thing.

Space can't 'move' as I see it. But it can 'compress' alternatively 'stretch out' always relative the observer. And it does it from a local, static 'background' of sorts, defined by 'c'. Which then becomes our invariant clock, that never varies.
==

And that one is really weird. Because it would mean a 'background' defined by the arrow of time. And as we go down in scale, possibly broken up into indeterminacy? The last one I'm not sure of at all actually. It has to do with assuming that we have a local clock defined by 'c'. But if there is possible to measure 'c' then 'one measurement/chunk/bit' solely, becoming 'static' in our arrow, would mean what?
==

Space is a construct, existing macroscopically, defined (?) by gravity and the invariance of 'c'. And all reality that you can know is defined locally, through 'c'. And, here is the real trick, all of it becoming your reality too, as soon as you join whatever frame of reference you've earlier measured as being different relative yours.

I think HUP has a lot to do with 'time', time isn't a arrow at all. It's more of a cone coming from QM, where we see a arrow in that cones 'plane' as we live on the surface of the cone, if this now makes any sense.
==

So if 'space' isn't there?
What exactly is 'space'?
And 'distance'?

Where is your 'frame of reference' situated here?

What is 'motion' if my description of you moving away is that your 'clock' goes slower?
And how can 'gravity' do the exact same?
=

A higher acceleration contracts distances, and speeds up the universe's time, relative the observer moving.

A higher gravity expands distances and speeds up the universe's time, relative the observer being there.

So they are not the exact same.

A uniform motion will also produce a time dilation and a length contraction, but any uniform motion must contain a acceleration somewhere in its description. So forget uniform motion (for now).

[yor_on]

It all seems to point to accelerations, doesn't it? And 'c', and 'gravity'.

Uniform motion is what you get when you stop expending energy. And then you are in a equilibrium relative SpaceTime. SpaceTime is graded in scales, the 'equilibriums' you can find are all the same, but SpaceTime will redefine itself relative your equilibrium.

So 'energy expended'. And mass is also energy, 'compressed' into matter.

But then we have that drum turning rotating uniformly in space, with you inside it. Why would you find a gravity there? Because you're at a angle to your 'preferred direction'? Can there be a preferred direction for you if the drum is in a geodesic, rotating uniformly? Why does all directions, at a right angle out from that drum, become 'preferred' by its rotation?

That drum does not expend any energy. So here we have something creating a 'gravity' without energy expenditure.

Or I'm thinking wrong here?
This one is weird too
==

You might be able to define it as you breaking the geodesic? You and the drum both I mean. because that drum will always 'accelerate' from a thought up 'point' directed in the overall motion of your drum. And maybe it is possible to define the drums overall 'direction and motion', that you perceive relative distant stars, as no motion at all? Defining you as being 'still', but with the drums rotation breaking the geometry in where you both exist?

Why I discuss it is because all uniform motion, to me, seems to be the exact same. You will not be able to differ them, ignoring tidal forces now. This is a 'black room scenario' naturally.

Maybe we should consider this from geometry solely? But what is mass if we do so? How does it relate to the gravity we perceive?

(And yes, what about the Higgs particle here? No accelerations, only two 'uniform motions' described? you can also consider a plank rotating with you being at one of its ends, in space. Would that create a gravity for you?)

[yor_on]

So I said that all uniform motions must contain a acceleration. there is a big problem with this idea. The problem is that we don't have any definition of being 'still' relative the universe. That's one big reason why I refer to all uniform motions as being equally 'still'. I don't relate being 'still' relative distant stars. I relate it relative expending energy.

If we had a Big Bang then there would be the first 'acceleration' defining all uniform motions we see. But at that first instant, can we define the 'place' where this happens as being 'still'? Maybe, if we agree on that all uniform motions is equally still, then the BB origin should have been 'still' too.
==

And yes, it's definitely about geometry, gravity.

[yor_on]

Okay, this one is more assumptions. And I put it together from thoughts I've been writing elsewhere.

In a uniform motion there is no way for you to define if you move or is 'at rest'. and it doesn't matter if you accelerate and then measure in a black box scenario. It is therefore allowed to define any one of two uniformly moving objects as being at rest.

Does that mean that you can't have different energies relative different uniform motions? Nope.. You definitely will have a different energy relative a different relative motion, aka you accelerating to then move uniformly again.

So, how do you define a time dilation?

I use the geometry. Relativistic aberration is about how 'things' move, relative motion. The faster you go, the more acute angle of rain. If you bounce a ball on the floor inside a very fast moving railway car (made of glass) it will to you go straight down and up, but according to your friend on the railway-bank describe a 'V' formed motion as it bounce.

So it is observer dependent, and a function of relative motion, meaning that you can use the same logic for that railway car as we use for a 'light clock', namely that the railway car must present your friend with a 'slower time', relative his clock. According to your friend the ball had 'two directions', not only down but also moving in the direction of the train, and so it also had to take a longer 'time' for it to cover that distance, relative his observation/clock. And you can use a 'light clock' standing vertically to find the same thing happening, the difference being that the light clock uses a 'invariant' bounce, whereas the balls bounce varies with its momentum.

The strongest objection to this way of looking at it comes from the fact that all uniform motion can be defined as being 'at rest', but the geometry I describe must be true for an accelerated motion too, so to refer it solely to acceleration is not correct, as I see it. To me it is a question of 'energy', and if the universe has a way of defining different energies to different relative motions. And as far as I can see the universe have a definition of that, even though it won't be measurable in a 'black box scenario'.

So how do you measure it?

If SpaceTime was a Jello able to compress and stretch. What would the space do in front of the direction of your relative motion, and what would it do aft of your direction? Think of that space as 'marked out' by photons, all keeping a equal distance between them, relative their own frame of reference, 'c'. And assume a even 'gravity' for this. What would happen to the 'markers' behind your relative motion, and what would happen to the markers in front of you.
==

And it is here you need to consider it from two different 'frames of reference'.

One is 'uniform motion', the other is a acceleration. And the real question is one about 'energy' there. In a uniform motion, we have no measurable expression of any new energy inside that black box scenario. If you imagine yourself in a room with a light bulb at its 'front', in the direction of relative motion. Then the light hitting you at aft will be of the same 'energy' in all 'uniform motions', no matter their velocity.

In a acceleration you will find the light 'blue shift', as it will experience a gravitational 'acceleration' (not 'accelerate', but it simplifies it thinking of it this way) And if you change position, light bulb/ detector, the light will be seen to redshift, and so be losing energy. But, it will in both cases be a measurable change, due to your acceleration, as well as the gravity you will experience. Or constant 'inertia' if you like.

But not in a uniform motion. Where and how do the energy your motion represent get 'stored'. In 'space', that same space that compress and stretch, relative the 'photon markers'?

[yor_on]

So, do a accelerated motion 'spend energy'?

Well, you have to, to accelerate, but this phenomena with red and blue shift then? Do that spend extra energy? I don't think so, as a presumption that is. The red shift takes out the blue shift, and the Lorentz contraction and time dilation is no different from a uniform motion. So if we ignore the 'energy spent' locally to accelerate, then they should be the same in form of 'energy spent'.

But then we have the constant inertia, aka gravity? And there you have the same mysterious fact as with 'uniform motion'. Where is the 'potential energy' that is assumed for a 'gravity' stored?
==

The next question seems sort of obvious, if 'gravity' is what defines a acceleration, what differs 'gravity's energy' from a 'uniform motions' energy? We have, I hope (?) agreed on that all 'motion' somehow 'store energy'. And as I think of it neither one should, as another presumption, do it differently, from its own (the universe's) frame of reference (soo loosely speaking here:) Never the less, I don't expect the universe to use two different types of 'storage' for its energy, depending on if it is a 'acceleration' or a 'uniform motion'. But we see a 'gravity' in a acceleration, and 'nothing' in a uniform motion, don't we

And yes, it's all about 'black box scenarios'. I assume that to be the best way to differ and define different assumptions. Define light speed as a 'clock beat', and accept the idea of a invariant 'c', although not measurable in a acceleration as you will find different 'clock beats' relative the position inside that accelerating frame.

Those 'clock beats' is not relative a motion in general, well, in a way they are. But you might consider them as expressions from 'displacements', possibly? As if a acceleration breaks down that ship in a myriad of different 'frames of reference' constantly getting 'displaced' relative your own 'invariant clock'. That clock that never will offer you any more heartbeats relative your wristwatch (loosely speaking again) no matter what speed or acceleration/gravity you find. And this is another presumption of mine naturally. But, it follows from us defining a 'constant'.

As long as we define 'c' as a constant you cant expect it to 'break down' due to a acceleration. What we do when we measure a 'speed' is that we use a 'distance' over a 'time' to define it. The problem there is that I can see no way to measure it 'locally' for a acceleration, except in its (the radiations) annihilation on your detector (eye), and from that we can't find that 'speed'. It's a leap, but not that big, to assume that 'c' always must be locally 'c', even though our measurements 'fail' due to the way 'gravity' will interfere with our traditional way of defining a 'speed'.

- Distance, over time /clocks -.

That gravity dilate a clock is already proved on clocks on Earth, (NIST and GRAVITY.) with great success. And if you accept that a acceleration is inseparable from a 'gravity', then you have the explanation why 'c' seems to 'break down' in that acceleration. It's not 'c' that fails there, it's the way we measure.

[yor_on]

So, with the risk of becoming even more pretentious that I already seem

This is where the 'stress energy tensor' must come in. But it's also about 'space' and 'gravity' to me. So let's start with 'space' and 'gravity. I expect 'gravity' to define 'space'. I also expect that if you could remove 'gravity', whatever there is 'left', should become unmeasurable. Now, that may sound quite stupid, but let's turn it around. Assume that we could 'take away gravity', scope it up and hide it from some defined positional system. What would you be left with? A aether? Well, it would be 'something', as you still should be able to assign values to different 'positions' inside that 'gravity less space'. Would those 'values' then change with different motions and mass 'measuring' them? They shouldn't, should they? Which to me seems to implicate that you now also have defined a 'absolute space', the exact same from any point, rotation whatever, viewed.

(That one is more tricky than I first thought though, but to me there should be a difference between a 'positional system' existing without a gravity, and one having it. I will have to think more about that one, but I let it stand for now. Actually the last argument is new to me too, but, I think it is correct:)
 

So, no 'aether', as I see it. Take away gravity, and your positional system should break down. So, can we define 'gravity' as some sort of 'aether' then? Well, maybe? I don't know really. It would be a very strange type of 'aether' if so, observer dependent as I think of it. To see that one think about what a uniform motion does to a 'gravity', as defined by you, relative defined by someone far away. Never mind what we call it, to me 'gravity' is what defines a 'space'.

[yor_on]

So, is a 'free fall' (gravitational acceleration) and a uniform motion the same?

In a free fall you're weightless, in a uniform motion you're also weightless. Would you be able to make a experiment proving that it was due to gravity, if inside that black box, ignoring tidal forces?

Take a universe with one planet, lets make it two dimensional. A paper with a ring symbolizing that planet. Then start 'falling', which way will you go? How would you prove that you were accelerating? Let us assume that you're very far from that planet, you can't see it, make it a 'Black Hole'.

Where is your 'acceleration'?

So a free fall is not 'gravity', but it is 'gravity' acting on you.

Gravity is coupled to mass, as in invariant mass, and accelerations. And it makes 'holes' in SpaceTime. Here you are 'moving' relative that BH, but without knowing its position you won't be able to differ it from being still.

So why does Einstein say that gravity and accelerations are the same? Well, as I think he does not say that a gravitational acceleration is 'gravity', only 'local' accelerations. By 'local' you need it to satisfy some prerogatives. As I see it, it should either expend a energy locally, or any circular motion will do, accelerating or not. And yes, there need to be a inertia acting on you, aka 'gravity'.

But how about this uniform motion in circle then? That one doesn't expend any energy? Yeah I know, that one introduce a new 'angle' Not only does it seem connected to what type of motion you have, but also on what your motions geometry is. You might want to define it as all geodesics (uniform motion/'free falls/gravitational accelerations') are without local 'gravity', and as all geodesics are 'straight lines', any motion not following this must be a 'disturbed motion'. And whenever you 'disturb' a motion you are either accelerating, or decelerating, it. So is decelerating also a gravity? As far as I can see it is.

=
You should really think about this one, neither uniform motion in a geodesic, nor that uniform motion for our rotating drum expend any energy. Yet they will differ, one being 'weightless', the other having a 'gravity', relative you.

Where is the 'energy'?

==

This way of looking at it makes gravity very similar to some 'field' doesn't it? And makes the idea of Higgs particles (bosons)/fields more understandable too. But gravity as a geometry doesn't define it to particles, it's quantum mechanics and the standard model that seems to need that definition. Einstein considered 'gravity' a fictitious force created due to SpaceTimes geometry relative the observer/experiment.

And I think of 'gravity' as being the SpaceTimes 'geometry' too, with the addendum that if it isn't there, then I suspect that SpaceTime disappear too. But I think my view isn't that far from Einsteins, he also regarded gravity as the metric of SpaceTime. And what it all boils down too is how that 'geometry' can exist at all. It would have been simpler if 'space' was something resembling air, having a friction/resistance, but then we also would have had a 'absolute frame of reference', and so also invalidated the theory of relativity. Some like to think of the cosmic background radiation as something close to a 'absolute frame of reference', but it is not. Not in Einsteins universe.

The closest you can come to a 'absolute frame', seems to be this idea of energy, and the way we expect the conservation laws to keep whatever 'energy' there is, only transforming it from 'new energy' to 'used energy', according to 'entropy'.

[yor_on]

And here is the headache. If a uniformly moving object accelerate to then move uniformly again, would you expect this object to represent a higher kinetic energy in itself? Or only relative whatever it collides with.

The question may be stated as, how relative is relative motion? Does there exist a 'independent' measure of the energy gained or lost in SpaceTime, or not?
==

Turn it around.

When you are in a free fall, a 'gravitational acceleration' on Earth. Where is the 'extra energy' situated? In you falling, or only in the combination of you meeting the ground?

=

When using a window you can decide your 'energy' relative the lights blue shift, but in a 'black box' there are no windows. And there it doesn't matter what uniform motion you have relative some point of reference. All experiments you do will come out the exact same, as if the universe ignored what 'relative speed/velocity' you use.

Think about it.
=


This one is very tricky to me.

One way I might make sense of it would be to assume that it's not 'my energy' that change. It's the the 'frame of reference' SpaceTime is, relative me, that change. That is, if we go out from 'locality' there is only two frames. You, relative what you 'measure', and the later is 'SpaceTime'. Even though you might argue that you only measure one aspect of it, it still hinges on your definitions of time, distance, relative motion etc. So whatever you measure I will be correct here.

So when I fall I redefine SpaceTime, and the spaceships 'motion' displaces/redefines SpaceTimes relation relative me too. And that makes more sense to me, as it makes everything into 'observers', all defined relative their own unique SpaceTime. If you like you can take this idea a step further.

Assume me inside that spaceship, then what I see and measure is my reality, and in a black box the only thing I can measure, and the only 'reality' I find, is relative something being 'at rest' with me. That the spaceship also is 'at rest' relative SpaceTime is of no importance to the 'black box' I can test. And that is one weird thought

You could argue that if the ship now constantly accelerated I would find a difference, and that is true, it also depends on how it accelerate, constantly or not. But that one is actually no different from the equivalence to 'gravity'.

Any way, defining it that way will make the 'energy' created a relation, not anything consistent to one object, well, as I see it.

[yor_on]

That one is easier to see perhaps if you imagine it as some still numberspace. Not numbers per se, think of it as symbols, composites representing some 'state' relative you. You will then be what redefines those symbols, and you have few ways to do that. Uniform motion will not redefine them, accelerations will. Mass is also accelerations, and by placing you near a mass you automatically (soo loosely speaking, again, as every point is unique in SpaceTime) will join its 'frame of reference' displacing the 'frame of reference' all other 'frames of reference' becomes in SpaceTime.

And that takes care of 'energy', because a uniform motion do not 'expend energy', neither does 'invariant mass', although that mass redefine SpaceTime, uniform motion refuse (black box all of it, no windows:)  Can you see how I think there?

What does it make 'energy expended', as in a local acceleration?

I better point out that I'm not discussing 'motion' as in getting from A to B in some positional system above, instead I'm discussing 'energy' relative 'motion'.
==

But I agree, motion (A-B) need to be placed into a perspective too.

[yor_on]

To discus the normal type of 'motion' we find, using a distance and a clock we need to agree on what 'space' is And time, and distance. If I use my definitions of locality for that then my clock is radiation, and that is always 'c'. From that, mass, relative motion, and space I get my definition of a 'distance'. And it is always observer dependent.

So how can it be so? I find it quite easy to accept the idea of 'space' being something plastic, and 'time' too. But a Lorentz contraction of matter?

Tell me how our 'expansion' really works, in every point of 'space' everywhere? With gravity creating some sort of buoys keeping matter at a same 'distance' relative each other? Or?

[yor_on]

I wrote "And that takes care of 'energy', because a uniform motion do not 'expend energy', neither does 'invariant mass', although that mass redefine SpaceTime, uniform motion refuse (black box all of it, no windows:)"

That's not the whole truth. We had that drum rotating 'uniformly' too. And there we found the gravity to be a result of its geometry. but it is still true that a uniform motion doesn't expend energy in 'space'.

So what is 'energy'?
And how can pure geometry create a 'gravity', no 'energy' involved?

We like to assume that all is 'energy', I do it too. But if it is so, and we can create a 'gravity' without expending 'energy'? Now you might point out that there at some stage should have been a 'energy' involved in accelerating to that uniform motion, and that is what I think too, but, I will not swear to it
=

That one is very tricky to me. But it should have to do with how to define it. I'm pretty sure Einstein, as well as those others helping, had a pretty good notion of what 'energy' was, so it must have to do with the way I describe it, rather than with the equations. And it should have to do with motion, and the way it is 'confined' here. And that is a geometry. Velocity is a vector with a magnitude. It has a direction and a speed.

And SpaceTime defines that direction as? A geodesic? Nope, a uniform motion is a geodesic, but a acceleration don't need to follow any geodesic. What matters there is energy expended, the direction of it is up to you. So the first question here might be if the drums spin is a velocity or a speed?

A speed, don't you agree?

It doesn't matter in a acceleration, if it is a speed (no direction) or a velocity, but here it matters. So is that drum in a geodesic? Yep, but that spin isn't a geodesic. So, no energy expended, not in a geodesic, and creating a 'gravity'. Is it in a 'equilibrium' spinning then? I think it is. All geodesics are defined by your acceleration, different motions will present you different geodesics, but all will be the same in a black box, so they are all about finding that equilibrium relative SpaceTime.

So, no energy expended, not in a geodesic, in a equilibrium, creating a gravity.
=

Or am I thinking wrong there? Can that spin be in a equilibrium, relative the gravity acting on it? I don't think it can actually, if it isn't a geodesic then it should lose 'energy'. Am I thinking right there? Yep, I'm pretty sure it will be this way, just think of the force you need to apply to get free from Earth. That rotation must lose 'energy' to SpaceTime.

So, not in a equilibrium then.

Maybe that is a better definition?

[yor_on]

So, although the drums spin in space might not need any energy to produce that gravity, it should lose energy to SpaceTime as it spins. What does that state?

That SpaceTime is a equilibrium, and that you break it accelerating, decelerating.
That makes a lot of sense, to me that is:)
=

But with a twist, because that drum is not really decelerating, is it?
It's only finding a equilibrium for its spin, the geodesic it is in, will continue until it hits something. There is a difference between that, and me putting on the breaks.

So SpaceTime is about a balance, and breaking it will create a gravity?
==

This solves another question I think too. If it is so that it bleeds 'energy', then there had to be a acceleration at some prior point to get that spin. SpaceTime is about a equilibrium. And if you find something not 'balanced' relative SpaceTime, then there should be a 'displacement' relative SpaceTimes frame of reference involved. But it seems also so that this equilibrium is connected to 'uniform motion', not to 'speeds/velocities' in themselves. SpaceTime has its own definitions it seems, and they are different.

But if we assume a equilibrium, don't we also assume that there is more than one direction for it? So, can there be a negative equilibrium, and how would one define that?

[yor_on]

Maybe one could look at it as if SpaceTime has a 'energy balance'? And the energy balance defines the 'gravity'? and that 'energy' is about densities? with anything of a higher density than 'space' you then could assume the concept of 'usable energy'? So is it then 'energy' that defines a distance, or is it 'gravity', or are they the same? That you can see two ways, either as if gravity is a 'transformation' of energy or as if they indeed are the same. If you choose the later then geometry seems extremely important.

[yor_on]

Yeah, this is me arguing with myself Some things I think is true, others I just don't know, doesn't stop me from arguing though. Light as a 'beat', keeping 'local time' I think of as true, and that the geometry and 'time' gets 'distorted' is a direct result of lights speed in a vacuum, as I see it.

When it comes to a Lorenz contraction though, it gets more tricky. I believe it to be correct, there is too much indirect evidence for it to ignore, but I still wonder how it works. It seems directly coupled to motion, and mass though.

But if we treat life as you defining your 'universe', meaning your 'frame of reference' defining all other 'frames of reference' then the question might be why it is that way? We have thought of the universe for the longest time as one whole scenery in where we all are together, 'simultaneously'. But the atomic clocks I linked don't seem to agree, do they?
 
And if 'frames of reference' exist on all levels, down to that 'scale' or 'size' where HUP is, which is another of those things I think of as being true. Even though I'm not sure where the arrow become indefinite the Planck scale makes a lot of sense to me, as that is where we can start to describe it as a 'single light beat', all as I see it.

so maybe we should look on what 'join us'?

And that's radiation. Radiation is the information defining our lives, and it has that invariant 'beat', doesn't matter how fast you go or where you are, it only has one 'beat', 'c'.

[yor_on]

So what about HUP, and 'virtual particles'? They exist in a 'indefinite arrow' where there is no arrow to speak of. You might want to define them inside HUP or outside, but notice one thing there. The 'energy' becomes 'indefinite' too.

Think of that inflation. At the beginning of our macroscopic arrow, a 'infinite', or at least, 'indefinite energy', right? And a 'indefinite scale' too? What does that remind you off?

HUP?

Can you 'chop up' radiation? Yep, that's what we do with 'scales', and as we go down we find Quantum mechanics. And beyond that, theoretically, string theory in all their definitions.

Now, what is it 'putting' each of those bits of light into a coherent picture?

The arrow of time.

That's our macroscopic reality, not Quantum mechanics. Reread what I wrote above this and you will see how I wonder.

[yor_on]

Now it seems I talk in circles, don't it. I define the arrow from 'c', and then ask what makes the 'light bits' into a arrow, defining the reason of that happening to the 'arrow of time'

Yeah. I do, but I also define 'lights speed in a vacuum' as a 'clock'. The device that keeps count on what we are relative everything else. So is it the 'arrow of time' then? To us it is, but the principle for how it comes to be? That has to do with 'scales' as I suspect, and the way the 'room time' can exist and 'expand'.

To me it seems as if this 'arrow' is a direct result of the room we live in. Think of all light 'propagating'. Now see it as a 'curtain of light', then compress it. You can super impose all light there is, but as you do you will also 'scale it down' relative the 'room' we perceive.

So, what happens with it when you reach Planck size?

[yor_on]

Ok, let's discuss the arrow of time.

I will give you two scenarios.

1. There is a 'arrow'. It is what organize all we see into a 'whole universe' to us.

2. There is only individual processes, they together becomes our 'arrow of time'.

1 or 2?

Or both?