This is a video I just put together with an explanation of why I think Relativity and QM do not contradict each other; in fact they both follow from a principle that can be derived from Relativity.
youtube.com/watch?v=ttHsA5IV8jk
The Idea is that Einstein overlooked, or simply did not think to draw the philosophical/logical, or one may say metaphysical implications of what he concretely observed to be the case in terms of reference frames.
No?
Yes. I agree that relativity and QM do comes from the same thing.
Just wondering…
If we tried to measure a photon, wouldn’t it still have a relative speed, ergo the speed of light wouldn’t be an absolute, except when measured in more general [less accurate] terms?
It’s just that as all particles/events are tied in the quantum field or matrix - if you like, like as if knots in a net. So any considerations we have concerning relativistic and probabilistic particles individually, would be universally applicable. If we had enough particles of any kind we would find a universal constant?
i.e. can there be actual universal constants ~ absolutes et al?
_
Only, as you suggest, statistical ones.
What Relativity, or the principle that is implied by the theory, illustrates is that there is no objective reference frame, that thus the universe in as far as it is known, is a matter of processing informations against each other and synthesizing supra-local truths, but never of attaining a comprehensive model of a whole. It is logical that we want to attain such a model, but not logical that we think that we can. As far as I can tell the universe is boundless as well as one among very many realms of being, between which there might be communication, interaction or not; light represents to us the fact of interaction; this fact has a certain mass, it ‘exists’, but it exists only as condition to the two things between which it acts; light is literally the inter-action, the action between various forms of being; and so is gravity, as is electricity; it is always a constant, and yet as soon as it is set as a standard, all the rest, which is not constant, bends ‘to its will’. Gravity and light and electricity are the manifest form in which we understand the concept of separation, difference, by their virtue things differ from each other; they differ in as far as they relate.
I suppose this does not really address your query… I do think that there are universal constants, but that these are in numbers; the ‘forces’ behind the periodic table; geometry, basically. The type of necessity that recreates itself in patterns of substances rather than as a background field.
fc
Interesting and considered, and i agree.
That’s the most interesting aspect for me, that fundamental to the nature of reality as it presents itself to us, is a ‘desire’ to be free from bondage. The whole thing cannot be encapsulated, and cannot be robot-like metaphysically speaking.
Bit off topic perhaps; This can marry at another level where we consider the plasticity of the brain. I am convinced that the secret to consciousness lies within that freedom principle - let us say. This is the very thing that makes us into something more than everything we can describe concerning the physics. The will? &/or at least the driving power? …in us and existence too.
Yes, and more specifically; that the universal constants are >represented< in numbers. I could visualise the whole thing as vague geometric shapes/objects equally representative, such that there is primarily only a fundamentally formless ‘force’. This gradually attains aggregate ~ greater form and distinctiveness.
What i have yet to work out is what gives the force greater shape and distinction?
…something called information I do believe. yet everything I know about that concerns the upper layers of distinct shape and form, language and geometry etc.
_
Not off topic but much akin to the instincts that finally brought me my answer; not a substantial drive but rather a tendency to condition rather than be conditioned that, logically, ends up conditioning all conditions.
‘free from bondage’'; could this mean: determined only by ones own natural valuing, one-minded choices, inclinations, tendencies, natures…? This nature initially includes growth; simply because that which includes growth will usurp that which doesn’t. But beyond the greatest ‘‘geometrical compounds’’ of the periodic table there are different laws; conservative behaviors rule the wholes of which they are the parts becaue of stability. I believe somewhere within the periodic table there is a life-giving cleavage; that alchemy and witchcraft is kindled by this friction. The desire to conserve ones freedom as it were; this seems to me the root of the principle of sacrifce.
Could you concur that this shaper of shape, sower and sustainer of growh, is what we, humans, innocently know as valuing?
Valuing is outward, yet it is always a means to enhance how well one experiences oneself; and ‘‘how well’’ is really, if we ar enot being metaphysical but flesh and blood, real, ‘‘to what extent’’ we are alive. To what extent we are; all quantity ultimately regulates the far more crucial quality of exitence; and valuing is a direct reflection of the degree of quality-beig that existence demands, before it would emerge out of the void…
so to speak.
FC
Makes sense. The primary drive is probably not substantial like forces as we know them.
Many interesting points. In druidism sacrifice is done to produce something or to make changes, it requires the whole world and one must ‘harvest’ that and the ‘Prometheus effect’ even to the point of ones own death [if needs be]. In fact the death aspect seams to be the thing which cements ones goals into the ground and plants its seed. Sometimes it is possible to make direct changes to the world.
When i look at the periodic table it seems wrong, as if it doesn’t have the right geometry and patterns generally such to manifest the universe, I think it’s because scientists are looking at the material properties. It is looking at things in a retrospective manner ~ as they are once formed, rather than what would have been prior to universe as we see it now.
Equally a complete picture [periodic table +] would include all the subatomic patterns and all the forces at every scale. I think that originally there would be a very simple pattern which would build into the periodic table +.
Ah i see what you mean more now [by ‘valuing’]. I think so yes, i just wouldn’t have called it values, but i think i see how you are using that as your instrument and tool-set. I previously thought of it as qualities and informations, but it’s the same thing with different reference.
That’s deep! So our degree of awareness and aliveness is akin to ‘how well [or how much] one experiences oneself’.
Are you also saying that to force life from the void the valuing must attain a given degree of quality ~ enough to warrant life?
I had previously considered the whole thing from an impersonal stance. Much food for thought there, and i shall have to give this aspect more consideration. How i feel right now is such that i wouldn’t have pushed myself forwards for this, but i would have for when i was younger. I assume most people have times in their lives what they ‘live for’ and that is their value-to-quality-being?
_
When light travels through glass it slows down and then speeds up again when it leaves. One must, then assume, that the medium is the driver of the speed of light and that the light itself is inert. Thus, the medium or the aether carrier is a conveyor belt which propels the light forwards at the speed of light. Thus, quantum mechanics or relativity are not required in order to explain such phenomenon.
momentum ~ is why that occurs.
equally there are plenty of experiments and technology which already use quantum effects, plants even use it in photosynthesis.
Momentum can only lose energy, it can never gain energy.
Plants use spin energy which is transferred via horizontal and spiral waves. Quantum effects are the a result of the pixelated nature of sub-atomic particles which are either left spinning or right spinning. It is a binary system which can either be black/white or on/off system. The universe uses six basic computer like functions - Left spin, right spin, no spin, enter, shift, space. With these basic commands you should be able to create a whole universe.
True but its a balance of that and other forces [like braking doesn’t slow momentum [the lack of drive does]]. The light has a uniform and universal speed, so when not being slowed it returns to that.
You need something to build such a device first! This is where the quantum effects come into place, and equally that improbability isn’t binary nor pixelated. Ontologically; There MUST be something prior to the more complex system.
I was informed that plants do a quantum flip making particles appear on the inside of the leaf/cells?
“braking doesn’t slow momentum”? “The lack of drive does”? Is the glass halve empty or half full? 
The universe makes itself. It doesn’t need any person or thing to make it. Everything happens as a logical consequence of physics. Do you have a reference for the quantum plant flip?
I believe Einstein is gay. I also believe Relativity,… is gay.