How would our world be perceived by observers moving faster than light in a vacuum? According to theorists from Warsaw and Oxford universities, such a view would differ from what we encounter daily, with the presence of not only spontaneous phenomena but also particles traveling multiple paths simultaneously.

Futhermore, the very concept of time would be completely transformed — a superluminal world would have to be characterized with three time dimensions and one spatial dimension and it would have to be described in the familiar language of field theory. It turns out that the presence of such superluminal observers does not lead to anything logically inconsistent, moreover, it is quite possible that superluminal objects really exist.

“In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein completely redefined the way we perceive time and space. Three-dimensional space gained a fourth dimension – time, and the concepts of time and space, so far separate, began to be treated as a whole. In the special theory of relativity formulated in 1905 by Albert Einstein, time and space differ only in the sign in some of the equations” explains Professor Andrzej Dragan, a physicist from the Faculty of Physics of the University of Warsaw and Center for Quantum Technologies of the National University of Singapore.

Einstein based his special theory of relativity on two assumptions – Galileo’s principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. As Andrzej Dragan argues, the first principle is crucial, which assumes that in every inertial system, the laws of physics are the same, and all inertial observers are equal.

Typically, this principle applies to observers who are moving relative to each other at speeds less than the speed of light (c). However, there is no fundamental reason why observers moving in relation to the described physical systems with speeds greater than the speed of light should not be subject to it, argues Dragan.

What happens when we assume – at least theoretically – that the world could be observable from superluminal frames of reference? There is a chance that this would allow the incorporation of the basic principles of quantum mechanics into the special theory of relativity. This revolutionary hypothesis by Professor Andrzej Dragan and Professor Artur Ekert from the University of Oxford was presented for the first time in the article “Quantum principle of relativity” published two years ago in the *New Journal of Physics*.

There they considered the simplified case of both families of observers in a space-time consisting of two dimensions: one spatial and one time dimension. In their latest publication “Relativity of superluminal observers in 1 + 3 spacetime,” a group of 5 physicists goes a step further – presenting conclusions about the full four-dimensional spacetime. The authors start from the concept of space-time corresponding to our physical reality: with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension.

However, from the point of view of the superluminal observer, only one dimension of this world retains a spatial character, the one along which the particles can move.

“The other three dimensions are time dimensions,” explains Professor Andrzej Dragan.

“From the point of view of such an observer, the particle “ages” independently in each of the three times. But from our perspective – illuminated bread eaters – it looks like a simultaneous movement in all directions of space, i.e. the propagation of a quantum-mechanical spherical wave associated with a particle,” comments Professor Krzysztof Turzyński, co-author of the paper.

It is, as explained by Professor Andrzej Dragan, in accordance with Huygens’ principle formulated already in the 18th century, according to which every point reached by a wave becomes the source of a new spherical wave. This principle initially applied only to the light wave, but quantum mechanics extended this principle to all other forms of matter.

As the authors of the publication prove, the inclusion of superluminal observers in the description requires the creation of a new definition of velocity and kinematics. – This new definition preserves Einstein’s postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum even for superluminal observers – prove the authors of the paper. “Therefore, our extended special relativity does not seem like a particularly extravagant idea” adds Dragan.

How does the description of the world to which we introduce superluminal observers change? After taking into account superluminal solutions, the world becomes nondeterministic, particles – instead of one at a time – begin to move along many trajectories at once, in accordance with the quantum principle of superposition.

“For a superluminal observer, the classical Newtonian point particle ceases to make sense, and the field becomes the only quantity that can be used to describe the physical world,” notes Andrzej Dragan.

“Until recently it was generally believed that postulates underlying quantum theory are fundamental and cannot be derived from anything more basic. In this work, we showed that the justification of quantum theory using extended relativity, can be naturally generalized to 1 + 3 spacetime and such an extension leads to conclusions postulated by quantum field theory” – write the authors of the publication.

All particles, therefore, seem to have extraordinary – quantum! – properties in the extended special relativity. Does it work the other way around? Can we detect particles that are normal for superluminal observers, i.e. particles moving relative to us at superluminal speeds?

“It’s not that simple,” says Professor Krzysztof Turzyński.

“The mere experimental discovery of a new fundamental particle is a feat worthy of the Nobel Prize and feasible in a large research team using the latest experimental techniques. However, we hope to apply our results to a better understanding of the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking associated with the mass of the Higgs particle and other particles in the Standard Model, especially in the early universe.”

Andrzej Dragan adds that the crucial ingredient of any spontaneous symmetry-breaking mechanism is a tachyonic field. It seems that superluminal phenomena may play a key role in the Higgs mechanism.

Reference: “Relativity of superluminal observers in 1 + 3 spacetime” by Andrzej Dragan, Kacper Dębski, Szymon Charzyński, Krzysztof Turzyński and Artur Ekert, 30 December 2022, *Classical and Quantum Gravity*.

DOI: 10.1088/1361-6382/acad60

This theory feels like a true breakthrough that could lead to interesting new predictions. I’m looking forward to the YouTube videos that will give me a way to visualize the theory and help us regular folk to play along. Thanks SciTechDaily!

“The researchers hope that their findings will contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking associated with the mass of the Higgs particle and other particles in the Standard Model, particularly in the early universe.” According to the topological vortex gravitational field theory, the correct term should be symmetry changing associated with the mass, not symmetry breaking associated with the mass.

Hello

What is topological vortex gravitational field theory?

If you are interested, you can browse https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/c_1278787135349633024. Enjoy your every day and colorful life!

Many physical phenomena observed in scientific experiments are often not the whole picture, let alone the essence. Scientific research is inseparable from seeking truth from facts. We should see the essence through the phenomenon and act according to the laws of nature, rather than distorting the facts and making arbitrary inference.

Hidden variables that cannot be observed in scientific research are closely related to symmetry. Symmetries are power. For centuries, symmetries have allowed physicists to find underlying connections and fundamental relationships throughout the universe.

Infinity is not a ‘wrong result’ in maths, it is a basis for everything. Look at it from another angle.

This reminds me of the concepts in Flatland; describing a two-dimensional observer’s perspective of an intersecting three-dimensional object.

Could the blinking in and out of quantum particles be associated with our three-dimensional observations of intersections with a different dimension?

Is there a dimension where my boss is not an idiot?

Observation/measurement is the assymmetricizing of the symmetric 2:2 dimensions of space and time into 3:1 or 1:3. The former representing the macrocosm that we call space/time and the latter representing the reciprocal of three time dimensions and one space—which presents the quantum field attributes of charge and spin direction correlations of space and time within the ‘microcosm’.

Similar to ‘whirlpools’, the dimensional exchange of linear to rotational is further tiered by the rotation of its axis through the other two perpendicular dimensions of rotation.

This is why, in the double slit experiment, when one slit is closed, the interference wave pattern goes from lateral (spatial) to a longitudinal (time) wave interference pattern, which can only be recognized by a constant rotating screen which shows the pattern does not ‘collapse’ but rather changes its dimension. So the dimensions of measurement/observation determine the dimensions of ‘known’ and the dimensions of ‘unknown’. In this way, the system state of measures and measured relation remains a physical constant/conservation, which has only assymetricized (exchanged its dimensions of ‘collapsed’ and ‘uncollapsed’).

It turns out from gravity that space has 9 isotropic dimensions while time has 4 isotropic dimensions.

It follows from the lower approximation of GR and the FRW universe model that the rotational velocity and the cosmic time is 2/3 the Newtonian velocity and the Hubble velocity respectively.

However, the acceleration obtained from the lower approximation of GR is equal to the Newtonian acceleration.

One needs to introduce an additional potential and higher dimensional space and time to account for the rotation of planets in the solar system region.

It is found following this approach that space has 9 isotropic dimensions and time has 4 isotropic dimensions.

This seems in agreement with our daily experiences that space and time are isotropic.

It follows from the lower approximation of GR and the FRW universe model that the rotational velocity and the cosmic time is 2/3 the Newtonian velocity and the Hubble time respectively.

However, the acceleration obtained from the lower approximation of GR is equal to the Newtonian acceleration.

One needs to introduce an additional potential and higher dimensional space and time to account for the rotation of planets in the solar system region.

It is found following this approach that space has 9 isotropic dimensions and time has 4 isotropic dimensions.

This seems in agreement with our daily experiences that space and time are isotropic.

Close, it’s actually two 1+1 (1 spacial + 1 time) dimensions that overlap. The universe is a Clifford torus. Each dimension completes a thermodynamic action, Mass coalesces, energy separates that mass, then there is a rest period (gravity) which causes the mass to recoalesce and repeat the pattern. Black holes are areas where the dimensions LEAST overlap (hence the high gravity).

just a hypothetical, but what if quantum principles like entanglement and uncertainty also occur through different areas of time?

Every married man knows this. There’s the time it takes her to get ready, the time i start complaining about the time it takes her to get ready and the time to get to where we’re going, depending on who drives.

We’re both in the same space, so it makes perfect sense.

T

Is this tina

Title: Blackholes do not exist.One page of logic demonstration with Weinberg Steven book chapter 8.2

Abstract

LOGICAL MATHEMATICAL DEMONSTRATION THAT BLACK HOLES DO NOT EXIST USING WEINBERG STEVEN BOOK. (for who knows physics).

1) Black holes do not exist?

2) Yes. Black holes do not exist.

1) Why? Show the demonstration. 2)This is the demonstration.

2) Get the book of author Steven Weinberg, “Gravitation and Cosmology” 1972, at chapter 8.2 and follow the wrong logic of Schwarzschild.

So it says at chapter 8.2 page 179, that “the field equations for empty space are”

Rμν=0.

But if it’s an empty space it means that the mass of any astrophysical object is zero, (for example stars which mass is zero M=0); so even the gravitational potential φ=-GM/r = 0, (see (3.4.4), Weinberg book, where r is the radius of the star); and so even the energy-momentum tensor is zero, Tij=0(see chapter 2.8 and 5.3 and formula (5.3.4), Weinberg book).

So when in the book of Weinberg says on page 180 writing about the formula: rB(r)=r+constant1 (8.2.9) where B(r) = gij is the metric tensor: “To fix the constant1 of integration we recall that at great distances, r=”long distance”, from a central mass M…” that for hypothesis of “empty space” (that has an infinite extension without boundaries), the mass is zero M=0, the gravitational potential of that distant star is zero, φ=-GM/r = 0 implies B=1 and so constant1=0 (and not constant1=2GM). That means curvature with flat space when Rμν=0. So the formula of Schwarzschild is wrong: B(R)=[1-2MG/r] (see wrong logic and formula (8.2.10), Weinberg book). And this means, even that it’s failed the use of Schwarzwild radius R that satisfies a singularity as 2MG/c^2=R. So black holes horizon doesn’t exist. Further considerations in future papers will be made introducing the “fifth force” of GibbonsG.W.-Fischbach.E 1986, in the theory of general relativity together with the energy-momentum tensor Tij.

So if we found that the metric tensor B=1 in empty space, that means that black holes do not exist for radius r going to 0, r–>0.

So stars do not become black holes. And black holes do not exist in the universe.

Title: Blackholes do not exist.One page of logic demonstration with Weinberg Steven book chapter 8.2

LOGICAL MATHEMATICAL DEMONSTRATION THAT BLACK HOLES DO NOT EXIST USING WEINBERG STEVEN BOOK. (for who knows physics).

1) Black holes do not exist?

2) Yes. Black holes do not exist.

1) Why? Show the demonstration. 2)This is the demonstration.

2) Get the book of author Steven Weinberg, “Gravitation and Cosmology” 1972, at chapter 8.2 and follow the wrong logic of Schwarzschild.

So it says at chapter 8.2 page 179, that “the field equations for empty space are”

Rμν=0.

But if it’s an empty space for its infinite extension, means that the mass of any astrophysical object is zero, (for example stars which mass is zero M=0); so even the gravitational potential φ=-GM/r = 0, (see (3.4.4), Weinberg book, where r is the radius of the star); and so even the energy-momentum tensor is zero, Tij=0 (see chapter 2.8 and 5.3 and formula (5.3.4), Weinberg book).

So when in the book of Weinberg says on page 180 writing about the formula: rB(r)=r+constant1 (8.2.9) where the time metric tensor gtt = -B(r) is found in the following way: “To fix the constant1 of integration we recall that at great distances, r=”long distance”, from a central mass M…(in empty space): where -B(r)=-1-2f, where f is the Newtonian potential -MG/r*c^2. (see section3.4. Wrinberg S. book).” But using correct logics for hypothesis of “empty space” (that has an infinite extension without boundaries), the mass is zero M=0, the gravitational potential of that distant star is zero, f=-GM/r = 0 implies B(r)=1, for any distance r, and so constant1=0 (and not constant1=2*G*M/(c^2): it’s a wrong deduction and result of Scwarzschild). That means curvature with flat space when Rμν=0. So the formula of Schwarzschild is wrong: B(R)=[1-2*M*G/(r*c^2)] (see wrong logic and formula (8.2.10), Weinberg book). And this means, even that it’s failed the use of Schwarzwild radius R that satisfies a singularity as 2MG/(c^2)=R. So black holes horizon doesn’t exist. Further considerations in future papers will be made introducing the “fifth force” of GibbonsG.W.-Fischbach.E 1986, in the theory of general relativity together with the energy-momentum tensor Tij.

So if we found that the metric tensor B=1 in empty space, that means that black holes do not exist for radius r going to 0, r–>0.

So stars do not become black holes. And black holes do not exist in the universe.