The Classical and Quantum Physics Group

eMX1aIAp9Nw-unsplash.jpg

Frames of Reference

Researchers use measurement quantization to approach physical description by recognizing that there is a third frame of reference above and beyond that of the observer and the target being observed. That frame is often referred to as the spacetime environment or stage in which particle interactions take place. The third frame may be represented with the inclusion of the speed of light as part of or as assumed in a physical description.2(Eq. 102) This may appear in the construct of the description as a count of fundamental units of length with respect to a count of fundamental units of time describing light. Whether such terms are incorporated directly or assumed within the relations used, count bounds1(Eqs. 27-29) are instramental in anchoring the description of a phenomenon with respect to the spacetime frame of reference (i.e. the universe). One example where this is essential is inflationary theory.1(Sec. 3.13)

Research in measurement quantization reveals that there is no particular property that distinguishes the length-to-time boundary relation as better or more advantageous over the remaining relations: the mass-to-time bound or the mass-to-length bound.1(Eqs. 27-29 & Ob. 5) Moreover, it is significantly disadvantageous to describe discrete behavior when the third frame is disguised with abstract mathematical approachs such as field theory. To resolve both issues, each frame – the observer, the observed and the stage – is approached with a discrete nomenclature when considering what approach is best suited to describe an event.1(Fig. 1)

Researchers involved in the investigation of frames of reference focus on reevaluating existing models of understanding, with the goal of translating existing descriptions into terms of the three fundamental measures1(Sec. 3.2) with equal weighting to each of the three frames of reference. Describing events as such has been successful in providing a deeper understanding of phenomena such as inflation1(Sec. 3.13), dark matter(4,Eq. 66, Fig. 5), dark energy3 and universal expansion.1(Sec. 3.11)

Excluding descriptions which are not written in terms of the fundamental measures,1(Sec. 3.2) one initiative of the CQP Group is to better understand what conditions lead to a universe that consists of only bounds and relations.2(Sec. 3.9) Is observation always subject to the self-referencing system of measure1(Sec. 3.8) we know or are there exceptions and/or logical voids in the available information that contribute to phenomenon we have yet to understand? Mapping out this hierarchy of rules for all relations, the exceptions, scope and structure is an essential stepping stone to answer ever bigger questions.

New to modern theory and also under scope of the CQP Group is the concept of self-defining frames of reference,2(Sec. 3.4) that is, phenomena that are best described as a function of and in reference to the universe as a system. (i.e. Hubble's constant)1(Sec. 3.7) You might say, for instance, that time is conserved or more accurately that elapsed time is consistent for all observers in the entire universe.1(Eq. 47) Yet, for any observer relative to any other observer elapsed time follows slightly different rules. And as such, we find time consistent with respect to the self-defining frame, but inconsistent with respect to the self-referencing frame.1(Sec. 3.8)

A final objective of the CQP Group regards a reexamination of spacetime. While it may be argued that there is no spacetime at all, we may all still agree that our perception of a spacetime does have physically significant qualities and a set of properties that are still not well resolved. Notably, how can we bridge the behavior of matter at the quantum and classical realms? Was there a difference in spacetime during the earliest epoch of the universe1(Sec. 3.13) and if so how does a self-defining1(Sec. 3.8) system change its self-referencing1(Sec. 3.8) properties (if this is at all possible). In consideration of many long-running successes in modern theory, these are still important questions that have not been well-defined. Conversely, MQ has been sucessful in resolving far more detail and provides new tools for new discovery.

Objectives

  • Investigations that distinguish universal expansion1(Sec. 3.7) from other forces that have introduced motion to galaxies since the earliest epoch. Research in this field provides additional physical support that the motion of the galaxies coincides with the universal frame,1(Sec. 3.7) which expands precisely at a rate of 2θsi relative to that frame.
  • Physical demonstration of upper and lower bounds1(Eqs. 27-29) to the measure of mass with respect to time and of mass with respect to length3(Fig. 5) are needed to firmly establish the physical parameters that characterize the observer, the target and the universal frame.
  • New experiments are needed to better understand the nature of spacetime during the earliest epoch.1(Sec. 3.13) Has spacetime changed and if so, what physical evidence can be provided to make such a conclusion?

Inquiry

  • Do all physical expressions incorporate or assume a universal frame of reference1(Sec. 3.8) above and beyond that of the observer and the target being observed?
  • A more precise understanding of the applicable units of measure for θsi1(Appx. E) are sought with respect to the three frames of reference.2(Sec. 3.4) Are phenomena disposed to specific dimensional characteristics entirely as a function of the observer's frame of reference?

Supporting Research


Published Research