Infinite Symmetry in Spacetime as a Fundamental Principle to Unite Modern Physics

Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
Some of this is certainly information of which many of you are aware, I tried to be concise and I promise it is all relevant to my central point.
105 years ago, Albert Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, one of the most beautiful artifacts in the history of human science. General Relativity has held up under spectacular strain, and made unfathomable predictions about the nature of reality. Quantum mechanics seemingly threw a wrench into that way of seeing things. "God does not play dice with the Universe", Einstein said. As it turns out, he was right. If he were alive today, capable of absorbing the extraordinary bevy of unfathomable information our world of physics continuously offers up to us, I sincerely believe he would already have figured out exactly what I am about to say.

Firstly by necessity any "theory of everything" must incorporate infinity as a basic concept. This is only logical. Secondly, space and time really are inseperable. They exist infinitely in perfect symmetry, contextualized in an infinity of finite states of observation as dictated by the underlying perpetuating force of infinity. Oxford American Dictionary of 1980 defines "infinite" as follows: adj. 1. having no limit, endless. 2. too great or too many to be measured or counted. "Infinity" is defined as follows: n. an infinite number or extent or time or space. To my mind, a question arises: just what happens when you have an infinity of time and space, together? That is what I aim to explore.

Allow me to explain.

To say there is no proof of infinity is just not accurate. The finite could not exist without the infinite, any more than the infinite could exist with nothing. People who are still looking for proof of infinity wouldn't find it even if they lived forever, because their existence would still be perpetually finite. We can use logic and established evidence to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, which is exactly what I endeavor to accomplish.

Let's start with General Relativity. General Relativity is essentially an understanding of the universe in which the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit (speed limit being a key characteristic of a finite existence), setting the parameters of our biological existence because our eyes work based on interactions of light with our environment in terms of its spectrum i.e. wave function, thereby anchoring our finite existence to an infinite reality. It is not a coincidence that all life in our human lineage had a biological mechanism for sensing light. Our experience of light is as a biological system that interprets information about interactions of light with our environment in terms of its spectrum. Light moves so fast we don't realize it, but light is a wave just like the waves in the ocean. When you see a red rose, that rose has absorbed all of the high energy light in the visible spectrum, and reflected the low-energy red light. Wavelength corresponds inversely to frequency. I.e. higher wavelength means lower energy, and higher frequency means more energy. My understanding is that wavelength refers to the length of each wave, whereas frequency refers of course to the frequency of repetitions. Our biology takes physical information about the intensity and spectrum of light and interprets it as an experience of color and brightness. Note that in the double slit experiment, human observation can not alter the quantum state of light by directly observing the light, but a sensor under controlled circumstances can. Human Visual System as a Double-Slit Single Photon Interference Sensor: A Comparison between Modellistic and Biophysical Tests

Rita Pizzi, Rui Wang, and Danilo Rossetti, ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4729532/ ) appears to demonstrate that human eyes do not alter the wave characteristics of light just by observing it. That is where we connect to quantum mechanics.

Arguably the most famous experiment in quantum physics is the aforementioned double slit experiment. If you are unfamiliar, essentially light is projected on a screen with two slits in it, with detectors behind the screen to determine the pattern formed by the light. The light initially forms an interference pattern, characteristic of a wave. However, when a sensor is placed by the slit to register which slit the light passes through, the light forms a cluster pattern. This is characteristic of a particle. This experiment was the first inkling of something we now know to be a fundamental principle of reality: wave-particle duality.

Every particle in the universe, it turns out, exists in the form of both a particle and a wave of probability simultaneously.

Wave-particle duality is not counterintuitive, it is a reflection of the perpetually symmetrical infinite state of every particle in fundamental spacetime. The double slit experiment forces light into two choices, therefore the experiment itself is a construct of our finite reality. The reason the light at first appears as a wave is that our biological experience of light is an experience of its spectrum, i.e. its wave function. The sensor observes a single slit and alters the quantum state of light, by deducing information directly about one of the two available paths. The double slit experiment works precisely because our eyes do not alter the wave function of light by directly observing the light itself in our normal biological existence. This is what reveals the true nature of observational effect, humans cannot force the light to "choose" under normal circumstances of observation, but the human made sensor under controlled circumstances can. This viewpoint is consistent with existing experimentation.

The key to understanding why we perceive light the way we do, is as follows: In terms of symmetry, any finite reality must contain some asymmetry in order to distinguish it from the infinite. The primary and primordial mechanism for our biological sense of reality is dependant upon observation of light in terms of its wave function at the observed speed limit of approximately 300,000 km/sec in a vacuum. I.e., we evolved through a lineage that all depend on biological observation of light through the medium of physical interactions with the spatial environment. So light is effectively observed in a finite state as a function of time, and contextualizes a finite state of space.

This is supported by the observation of black holes, as well as the observation that the universe "before" the Big Bang appears to be a singularity. I put "before" in quotes, which is necessary for an important reason: since space and time are inseperable, when they exist infinitely in perfect symmetry, descriptions of finite time (i.e. "before" and "after") no longer apply. There is no "before" the Big Bang, because space and time exist infinitely in perfect balance. We can not comprehend an endless existence, i.e. an infinite existence, because doing so would require the capacity to think forever. We can, however, contextualize it. When we observe a black hole, we are also observing a singularity.

When gravity creates a singularity, one way of looking at what has happened is to say that the escape velocity of the gravitational body has exceeded the speed of light (because of how gravity warps spacetime as described by the Scwarzchild Radius and the Kerr equations. Imagine visiting a star that just pushes the gravitational limit described by these equations without crossing it, i.e. a very large neutron star. . Our sense of time relative to the rest of the observable Universe would change, and everything outside of that solar system would appear to be happening much faster. This is because spacetime is more compact due to the huge force of gravity, but our observation of light is still maintained at 300,000 km/sec even in that "higher density" spacetime), hence the famously known fact that even light cannot escape the gravity of a black hole once it crosses the event horizon. Since the speed of light is the defining characteristic of our finite existence, true spacetime reveals itself in the form of an infinite symmetrical spacetime characterized by finite properties of observation. Note that any singularity that forms that we can observe in our universe, would inherently have less mass/energy than our universe relative to its own infinite state. The logical implication arising from this, is that the singularity we appear to observe "before" the Big Bang, exists relative to finite properties of observation in a higher dimension, which would inherently have more mass/energy relative to its infinite state. The total mass/energy of our universe would be a result of this finite property of observation in a higher dimension. So rather than asking what came "before" by my thinking it is more accurate to ask, what lies "beyond"? Logic dictates that there are infinite universes in an infinite number of configurations with infinite variations of complexity, with some unknowable "eternal force" in the background giving rise to all possible things. The physical implication of this would be space and time existing in an infinity of contextualized finite states, which each spawn an infinity of relative infinite states contextualized by finite properties of observation.

This is possible because no finite state is truly finite, it only appears to be because the observers have a finite existence. Our universe, for example, will expand forever, i.e. it is infinite even though from our perspective it appears to be finite. Which brings me around to two more important topics: dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is an observed gravitational effect in the Cosmos with heretofore no logical explanation in physics theory. I propose that gravitational orbits of massive objects in observed spactime on a cosmological scale, would be consistent with an affect of observed finite property of spin in the higher dimension which gives our universe its observational context. Dark energy is a mysterious force that causes acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This is observed through an effect called "redshifting", in which light loses energy and fades towards the "red" or low-energy end of the visible spectrum ( https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html p.s. redshift-blueshift sounds like a great name for a Dr. Seuss book on Vulcan am I right? 😂). If I am right, I believe the expansion of the universe would be accelerating exponentially relative to the observed finite radius of the singularity observed in the higher dimension (remember that any singularity in our universe has inherently less mass/energy than ours, and it follows logically that any "higher singularity" would contain more mass/energy), in accordance with our finite sense of time. Therefore we should be able to use the hubble constant to deduce information about the physical finite observation contextualizing our potentially infinite human experience. Our physics are not connected with this universe in a way we can easily grasp... what connects us, is the fundamental existence of infinite space and time in perfect symmetry that serves as the backdrop for all finite experience.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
The universe will expand forever because general relativity governs our finite observation of infinity. The expansion of spacetime accelerates relative to an externally observed property of radius.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞
Relative infinity described in terms of Schwarzchild's radius. I understand this is so simple it is hard to believe it has gone overlooked, but I am right.
6*∞=6,12,18,24...∞
6^∞=6,36,216,1296...∞
r=(2GM/c^2)*∞ therefore represents a static universe wherein all mass/energy is distributed equally relative to infinity, which is essentially meaningless to us.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞ represents a static universe that expands exponentially relative to initially observed properties.
So you see, the accelerating expansion of spacetime can be explained quite simply as a necessary physical property of our universe.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
The problem with superimposing Schrōdinger's cat in real life, is that the cat observes either an end or a continuation of its own experience, rendering external influence irrelevant. "Do you really believe the moon is not there when you aren't looking?"- Albert Einstein What Einstein failed to understand, is that if there were zero quantum collective systems in our universe observing within the parameters of general relativity, the moon would not be there. In order for Schrōdingers cat to be superimposed, it would have to be alone in the universe and incapable of observation, which is obviously an imossible contradiction. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/amp34413613/proving-schrodingers-cat-exists-in-real-life/
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
The human perception of light as a wave moving at a finite speed through space is fundamental to understanding our biological perspective. This is why the discrepancy seen in Human Visual System as a Double-Slit Single Photon Interference Sensor: A Comparison between Modellistic and Biophysical Tests
Will persist as the sensitivity of the experiment is increased. Observation relative to the finite speed of light sets the stage for our understanding of the universe via general relativity, without which no finite experience would be possible. Imagine a universe where light has no speed limit, and you are imagining an infinite universe unconstrained by a limited understanding of spacetime. Set limitations are obviously fundamental to our experience. The observed definite state of a particle in the macro world, is a reflection of choice constrained by precise rules of observation. The particle exists infinitely in a wave of probability perpetually that is contextualized at any given moment by precise rules of observation and the thermodynamic arrow of time. Every singularity is contextualized by finite parameters, i.e. definite mass/energy, spin, charge, and observable boundary (essentially a "starting point' for the observed vector of spacetime, which curves infinitely relative to observation of its properties of emergence). I.e. if the Earth implodes into a singularity, a universe where the mass of the Earth expands infinitely relative to Schwarzchild's radius or the more complex Kerr equations as appropriate is born, defined in complexity by a precise limitation on the speed of light. Ultimately all infinite vectors of spacetime branch off of the eternal line of spacetime, wherein space and time are each infinite and contextualized by their mutual infinity as opposed to any observed finite or definite characteristics. The emergence of singularities within every universe is infinite relative to the infinite progression of time, which is how infinity is eternally perpetuated- by a fundamental principle of reality that perpetuates an eternity of experiences constrained in every case by unique dimensions and unique properties of observation.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
"Penrose describes a universe devoid of black holes that will mirror the extreme compression of our universe when the Big Bang exploded. There are no such things as distance or time in that moment, but there is something even this violent outburst can’t obliterate.”
Respectfully, what Mr. Penrose fails to understand is that there is not "no" distance or time in that "moment" but rather infinite space and time in that "moment". That infinite space and time formulates the basis for the physics of quantum mechanics and general relativity as we know it, and can be described as I call it "Infinite Symmetry in Spacetime", or if you prefer "Infinite Relativity in Spacetime". I know for a lot of really intelligent folks out there, the instinct is to make this very complicated. But the truth is it simply isn't.
 
Aug 31, 2020
45
6
55
There is a lot in here that I don’t agree with: Firstly with regard to your statement that General Relativity is one of the most beautiful theories conceived by man. I have no quarrel with that statement. It might indeed be a beautiful theory with space and time blending together and giving shape to the Universe. BUT is it really practical and is it really true? If one looks at special relativity from a historical point of view it becomes apparent that at this point of time in the early twentieth century, physics was on the threshold of an amazing era of new discoveries and phenomena. YET, that does not excuse the acceptance by the world of physics of what was largely a philosophical rather than an empirical explanation of the manner in which light propagated. One of the biggest untruths propagated by modern day physics is that Maxwell’s equations proved the speed of light as ‘c’. What they inevitably fail to point out is that Maxwell had achieved this feat using a wave equation. Looked at from this point of view, Maxwell’s finding make perfect sense, because the speed at which a wave travels is independent of all other factors and is dependent only on the properties of the medium that it is travelling through. In other words, Maxwell’s equation on the speed of light proves that light is travelling through a medium. Further IF Einstein’s special relativity is true, it means that space and time is broken up into an impossible number of pieces. Read my article: Is the Aether Real? On medium magazine:

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/is-the-aether-real-by-dilip-d-james-m-sc-a-mus-t-c-l-lond-e23c4a9d597c

When the basic facts on which relativity (Special and General ) are wrong, what’s thepoitn in referring to them.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
There is a lot in here that I don’t agree with: Firstly with regard to your statement that General Relativity is one of the most beautiful theories conceived by man. I have no quarrel with that statement. It might indeed be a beautiful theory with space and time blending together and giving shape to the Universe. BUT is it really practical and is it really true? If one looks at special relativity from a historical point of view it becomes apparent that at this point of time in the early twentieth century, physics was on the threshold of an amazing era of new discoveries and phenomena. YET, that does not excuse the acceptance by the world of physics of what was largely a philosophical rather than an empirical explanation of the manner in which light propagated. One of the biggest untruths propagated by modern day physics is that Maxwell’s equations proved the speed of light as ‘c’. What they inevitably fail to point out is that Maxwell had achieved this feat using a wave equation. Looked at from this point of view, Maxwell’s finding make perfect sense, because the speed at which a wave travels is independent of all other factors and is dependent only on the properties of the medium that it is travelling through. In other words, Maxwell’s equation on the speed of light proves that light is travelling through a medium. Further IF Einstein’s special relativity is true, it means that space and time is broken up into an impossible number of pieces. Read my article: Is the Aether Real? On medium magazine:



https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/is-the-aether-real-by-dilip-d-james-m-sc-a-mus-t-c-l-lond-e23c4a9d597c



When the basic facts on which relativity (Special and General ) are wrong, what’s thepoitn in referring to them.
From the viewpoint of each of the spaceships:


t‘ = t x sqrt (1- v² /c²)


For (a) t = 20 years x sqrt 0.75 = 16.66 years


For (b) t = 16.66 years x sqrt 0.64 = 13.33 years


For ( d) t = 14.2 years x sqrt 0.51 = 10.14 years


For (e) t = 12.50 years x sqrt 0.6 = 7.50 years


For ( f) t = 11.11years x sqrt 0.43 = 4.8 years


Okay, so as I understand you, what you are referring to here is a journey between two fixed points in spacetime. It seems to me that one should start with the assumption that any given ship moving at a precise fraction of the speed of light, would arrive at its destination according to the speed at which it travels, and from there you deduce the relative time passed for an observer on Planet A or Planet B. For example:


Suppose the journey is undertaken at 0.9c:


10/0.9=11.1 repeating years (The infinite repetition of a decimal is a result of fundamentally flawed mathematics. For example, 1/3 in a base 9 system can be represented as a perfect decimal. Not necessarily relevant but I think it's fascinating 😀). If you are supposing that these ships embark on their journey at a precise speed, you are right to suggest it is ridiculous that they should experience a relative passage of time that is not in keeping with the relative speed they are traveling. However you seem to be making an assumption that Planet A and Planet B are motionless in space, i.e. what you are really referring to here can only be described as a series of journeys as relative to the speed of light in a vacuum. It seems you have not properly accounted for the relative motion of Planet A and Planet B through spacetime.


c = distance light travels/the given time interval


= 1m/the time taken for light to travel 1meter


= 1m/1m = 1


So if we consistently measure time in meters, then c is not merely 1, it is also dimensionless
!

Imagine I were to say, that the unit of time used to measure the speed of an automobile should be described in terms of the amount of time it takes the automobile to travel 1 mile as 1 mile. Let us add the assumption for the sake of consistency, that the automobile in this case is moving at a constant speed, let's say what we would typically call 60 "miles" per "hour" which are simply relative terms we use to describe units of space and time. No matter how you attempt to measure the speed of the automobile, your calculations will reveal that the automobile travels at the speed of 1 mile per mile. Shall we assume, then, that the automobile is dimensionless? What you are describing here is a phenomenon of syntax, one that demonstrates the fundamental importance of space contextualizing time and vice versa. If you try to use the same unit to describe each it loses context, which is a result of the fundamental necessity of asymmetry in making finite observation of reality. Has it never struck you as curious that there are three dimensions of space but only one of time?


The words of Carlos Castaneda (if they were truly his) come to mind:


A man staring at his equations


Said that the universe had a beginning


There had been an explosion, he said.

A bang of bangs, and the universe began.

He had even calculated the length of its life:


Ten billion revolutions of the Earth around the Sun.


The entire globe cheered;


They found his calculations to be science.


None thought that by proposing that the Universe began,


The man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;


A syntax which requires beginnings, like birth,


And developments, like maturation, and ends, like death, as statements of facts.


The universe began,


And it is getting old, the man assured us,


And it will die, like all things die,


Like he himself died after confirming mathematically the syntax of his mother tongue.


Did the universe really begin?


Is the theory of the Big Bang true?


These are not questions, though they seem like they are.


Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments, and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?


That's the real question.


There are other syntaxes.


There is one, for example, which demands that varieties of intensity be taken as facts.


In that syntax birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,


But a specific type of intensity,


And so is maturation,


And so is death.


A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that he has calculated enough varieties of intensity


To say with authority


That the universe never began


And will never end


But that it has gone, and is going now, and will go


Through endless fluctuations of intensity.


That man could very well conclude that the universe itself is the chariot of intensity


And that one can board it to journey through change without end.


He will conclude all that, and much more,


Perhaps without ever realizing


That he is merely confirming


The syntax of his mother tongue.


For me, scepticism and open-mindedness must go hand in hand, and as far as I can tell, at the moment I do not see your thoughts here holding up to basic scrutiny, though I certainly welcome clarification through the continuation of a dialogue. Thanks again for taking the time to respond, if you have links to any more articles you have written I can guarantee you I will take the time to read them (probably more than once) and do my best to keep an open mind. Again I am no expert so I welcome any clarification to aspects of this you feel I may not be understanding, or reference to any materials you feel might be relevant to improving my perspective 😀
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
There is a lot in here that I don’t agree with: Firstly with regard to your statement that General Relativity is one of the most beautiful theories conceived by man. I have no quarrel with that statement. It might indeed be a beautiful theory with space and time blending together and giving shape to the Universe. BUT is it really practical and is it really true? If one looks at special relativity from a historical point of view it becomes apparent that at this point of time in the early twentieth century, physics was on the threshold of an amazing era of new discoveries and phenomena. YET, that does not excuse the acceptance by the world of physics of what was largely a philosophical rather than an empirical explanation of the manner in which light propagated. One of the biggest untruths propagated by modern day physics is that Maxwell’s equations proved the speed of light as ‘c’. What they inevitably fail to point out is that Maxwell had achieved this feat using a wave equation. Looked at from this point of view, Maxwell’s finding make perfect sense, because the speed at which a wave travels is independent of all other factors and is dependent only on the properties of the medium that it is travelling through. In other words, Maxwell’s equation on the speed of light proves that light is travelling through a medium. Further IF Einstein’s special relativity is true, it means that space and time is broken up into an impossible number of pieces. Read my article: Is the Aether Real? On medium magazine:

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/is-the-aether-real-by-dilip-d-james-m-sc-a-mus-t-c-l-lond-e23c4a9d597c

When the basic facts on which relativity (Special and General ) are wrong, what’s thepoitn in referring to them.
Okay Jinn, now you earned this: your argument regarding light being dimensionless is outright idiotic, as I just demonstrated. I have demonstrated the format of argument you can use to point out any flaws in my theory. Until then apparently you are set to believe what you want and reject any argument that contradicts it without explaining why. Typical.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
There is a lot in here that I don’t agree with: Firstly with regard to your statement that General Relativity is one of the most beautiful theories conceived by man. I have no quarrel with that statement. It might indeed be a beautiful theory with space and time blending together and giving shape to the Universe. BUT is it really practical and is it really true? If one looks at special relativity from a historical point of view it becomes apparent that at this point of time in the early twentieth century, physics was on the threshold of an amazing era of new discoveries and phenomena. YET, that does not excuse the acceptance by the world of physics of what was largely a philosophical rather than an empirical explanation of the manner in which light propagated. One of the biggest untruths propagated by modern day physics is that Maxwell’s equations proved the speed of light as ‘c’. What they inevitably fail to point out is that Maxwell had achieved this feat using a wave equation. Looked at from this point of view, Maxwell’s finding make perfect sense, because the speed at which a wave travels is independent of all other factors and is dependent only on the properties of the medium that it is travelling through. In other words, Maxwell’s equation on the speed of light proves that light is travelling through a medium. Further IF Einstein’s special relativity is true, it means that space and time is broken up into an impossible number of pieces. Read my article: Is the Aether Real? On medium magazine:

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/is-the-aether-real-by-dilip-d-james-m-sc-a-mus-t-c-l-lond-e23c4a9d597c

When the basic facts on which relativity (Special and General ) are wrong, what’s thepoitn in referring to them.
Notice how I commented on specific aspects of your post and articles, while all you can say to me is "GR isn't real and quantum mechanics aren't real"? You are a complete phony. Don't pretend I am being insincere when you are so arrogant you can't even be challenged for two seconds without breaking down. You obviously can't challenge what I am saying IN ANY PRECISE WAY (which is ALL I AM ASKING FOR( and yet you call yourself a professional. Are you a professional jester? Because that's all I can figure.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
"The article considered a pair of distant particles in a special state now known as an “entangled” state. When the same property (say, position or velocity) is measured on both entangled particles, the result will be random – but there will be a correlation between the results from each particle.
For example, an observer measuring the position of the first particle could perfectly predict the result of measuring the position of the distant one, without even touching it. Or the observer could choose to predict the velocity instead. This had a natural explanation, they argued, if both properties existed before being measured, contrary to Bohr’s interpretation."
Both properties do not exist "before" being measured, they exist as a reflection of the existence of fundamental symmetry of all particles in infinite spacetime. Once again, "before" and "after" obviously do not apply to infinite spacetime, as they are terms derived from a finite existence. This is not complicated. Since observation of the particles in both cases are governed by the same rules of observation and probability, their current state in the finite observation of reality is always directly connected.
Essentially, Bohr was right, the properties of a particle do not "exist" until they are measured, at which point the particle is still infinite because infinity has no beginning or end and exists unceasingly, so what we describe as definite properties of an object is actually just a reflection of the rules governing finite observation at any given moment. Infinite reality perpetuates finite observation. Simple.
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55

A black hole did not give birth to our universe, it is our universe. Can a line segment exist if not for the line? You can't have infinity composed of nothing, can't have the finite unless it is part of the infinite. Every particle is infinite and subjected to finite parameters of observation in an infinity of self-perpetuating unique configurations which all exist relative to infinity, period. This is the only possibility, period. When a particle is infinite in space and time, it has no beginning and no end and exists perpetually, period. Finite observation is just that, finite observation. To make infinite observation would require a mind that is infinite in space and time, I.e. balanced or symmetrical infinity. This is the only logical or possible explanation. Nothing is finite, it only appears to be. No other explanation is possible. That does not make everything I say correct, and I do sometimes get a bit overzealous in speaking of particulars that may be a bit over my head. But, sincerely for the last time, infinite symmetry in spacetime is the fundamental principle of existence as we know it, and this is absolutely and unequivocally not speculation.

The universe expanding at an accelerating rate is more than enough to prove that the universe is infinite. This expansion will never slow down and will continue to accelerate forever, perpetuating an infinity of unique singularities as it goes. Appearances, finite. Reality, infinite. No better explanation is possible, period.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
Let's say you could transport instantaneously to the edge of the observable universe right now. You could look back towards Earth, but you would not see it. Where Earth is positioned in space, you would see the cosmic microwave background, the position you occupy being observed from Earth as the CMB. This is simply a limitation of finite observation. You could not see Earth in its present condition any more than somebody on Earth could see you in your present condition. However, let's say hypothetically that someone on Earth is granted the ability to see via a particle that moves 30,000,000,000 light-years a second (which in reality even if possible would require a much more powerful mind than a human beings, but work with me here). Suddenly, they would be able to observe far out into the universe relative to what we are capable of seeing, and could observe you in your present condition, while the CMB would be far off in the distance relative to where it is presently observed. Meanwhile you, looking back at Earth, would still see only the CMB. This is because the universe is infinite, but observation is finite. Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with the Universe and everything to do with our observation of it. If there were any FTL particles we would not see them because that is not what our eyes are designed for. For any life to evolve it has to begin with a constraint on infinity via its biological means of observation, in our case observation of light at its observed speed limit.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY