Would a subatomic particle with no frame of reference have motion?

[John FX]

Let me start this by saying I am not a trained physicist so there may be obvious errors here. This is just a thought experiment.

So it seems there is a limit on how far apart things can get before a thing here cannot interact with a thing there and for the purposes of physics becomes isolated from it. Assuming we are in the far future and universal expansion has reached a point where a single subatomic particle is all there is in the observable universe, is it moving if it has no frame of reference?

My thought is that it is not and (please correct me if I am wrong) so it would not experience time, which (AFAIK) is a function of movement through space. If everything completely stopped moving there would be no time.

Would the quantum foam provide a frame of reference?

If it stops experiencing time that would be interesting. It would have some of the properties of a singularity...

This may not make sense or it may be very profound, I`m still having my morning coffee.

[trekkie_]

Time does not exist either way. Time is simply a human idea for measurement of changes within/between matter and energy.

A day is 24 hours because that is approximately how long it takes for the earth to spin once. Even the ultra accurate atomic clocks are just based on the amount of vibrations in atoms that happen in a given second, and even the given second is just an arbitrary number invented by mans mind.

The accuracy of those atomic clocks are based entirely on the amount of expected vibrations a second. The more vibrations, the more reference points, the more accuracy. Therefore, time is derived entirely from the observation of changes within/between matter and energy.

But in reality, time does not exist.

Matter and energy do not need time to do things, but other things (like the gravity of a black hole) can affect how matter and energy interacts relative to matter and energy not being affected by a black hole. That however, does not prove any existence of time. That is just matter and energy effecting other matter and energy.

Edited December 11, 2014 by trekkie_

[theend3r]

So it seems there is a limit on how far apart things can get before a thing here cannot interact with a thing there and for the purposes of physics becomes isolated from it.

AFAIK there isn't.

[trekkie_]

AFAIK there isn't.

Yeah, technically, the entire universe is affecting the rest of the universe, although there is a delay (the speed of light). It's just at a certain distance those effects become soo small that they're either inconsequential or indeterminable. To be able to understand the true effects, we'd have to account for all matter in the universe, all their locations, states, distances, directions, velocities, etc....which is impossible.

Gravity from the edge of the observable universe is affecting us, just in ways too small or too impossible to understand. Then there's interference patterns with things like gravity too, which 'cancel' each other out or alter each other slightly. Like ripples in a pond. It's like if you have something suspended between two magnets. All the matter surrounding us in the universe is pulling on our planet, and themselves, and every other celestial body.

Furthermore, even without a frame of reference, a particle would still have motion. Think of it like this....you're on a train, you look at the floor.....it's completely still from your frame of reference. But.....does that mean the train isn't in motion? Of course it is in motion. Even sitting in your chair, you are moving at high velocities through the universe.

Unless you were moving the same speed/direction as the only particle in an observable universe, you would become the only point of reference.

Technically, we don't even know our true velocity in the universe. Our biggest reference point is the speed galaxies are moving to/from each other. But imagine you're on a train once more, stirring a glass of water with beads in it, the beads representing galaxies. Sure, you can probably tell how fast they're moving in relation to each other in the cup, but if you don't know the speed of the train, you can't exactly know their true speed now can you. So all the galaxies could be spinning around a giant black hole in the true center of the universe, and we simply don't have any frame of reference to determine how fast we're actually orbiting that black hole.....and that's assuming that universal black hole isn't in motion either.

But based on the reference points we have access to, i.e. our velocity of the suns orbit, the velocity of our solar system, the velocity of our galaxy, etc......you are at our best estimates, moving through the universe at over 2 million miles per hour at any given moment......and if the galaxies are orbiting something, and that something is also moving at X velocity, we could be traveling much faster through space.

There could be soo many more levels to the universe than we can ever determine. Galaxies are essentially like planets orbiting a sun, but instead orbiting something much much larger, and even a universal black hole could be just one of many, orbiting something even more massive, like a fractal. This could possibly go on infinitely.

People talk about multiple universes, but technically, even if universes were like planets orbiting something much larger, it would all still technically be one universe.

Edited December 11, 2014 by trekkie_

[John FX]

My point was that if there is a delay caused by the speed of light, eventually stuff moves so far apart that even the speed of light is not enough to allow an effect to transfer due to universal expansion, it`s why we will just see a dark sky with no stars eventually from this point in space.

It`s at that point when *all* other matter is too far away to affect the subatomic particle, even if the force travels at the speed of light, that is the point I am talking about.

Also, when stuff moves fast, time goes faster meaning if you go at the speed of light then you would instantly find yourself at the end of time because of time dilation. This implies that if you can COMPLETELY stop, you would experience no time. Subatomic particles move relative to each other and so give an internal frame of reference for macro objects. If you remove that, what could they use as a frame of reference?

When all matter is so far away that it does not affect the particle, what gives it a frame of reference?

[trekkie_]

The point is, even if there isn't a frame of reference, the particles themselves still have properties like velocity. It's just the frame of reference covers soo much space that it can't be measured. But, you as the observer of the particle, would then become the immediate frame of reference now wouldn't you.

As for the delay, it doesn't matter....the effect will happen at the speed of light, and once it does, the effect will happen continuously from that point, even if it is initially delayed by billions of years.

as for universal expansion, I'm not sure if that has even been proven yet.

Edited December 11, 2014 by trekkie_

[John FX]

No you would not be the reference as you are only hypothetical, you are the hypothetical observer that does not affect the universe just like every other thought experiment...

and you seem to fail to understand expansion which will be faster than the speed of light at some point which means light or effects that travel at that speed will NEVER affect the particle. Not a delay, no effect EVER.

Velocity also needs a frame of reference. It is how fast you are moving relative to something else. Without one, you cannot determine of you are moving at all.

[trekkie_]

We don't know if there is a limit to the expansion of space. It could for example, stop before the speed of light. It could even possibly reverse once it reaches at or near the speed of light. What you are essentially describing, is the proposed cold death theory of the universe.

As for velocity, even if you cannot determine if you are moving, velocity is still present, even without a frame of reference....let's say your lone particle all of a sudden had a piece of material placed in its path, the velocity would still act on it, either going through it or bouncing off of it.

logically, if space expands faster than light, sure....then particles would never be able to act upon each other.

Edited December 11, 2014 by trekkie_

[Mr Shifty]

as for universal expansion, I'm not sure if that has even been proven yet.

It's certainly valid for all of the universe that we can see. Distant galaxies are all red-shifted, with farther ones red-shifted more. Also, observations have shown that the cosmic microwave background radiation has cooled uniformly since the Big Bang, which suggests an expanding universe. The evidence is pretty overwhelming; there aren't really any other extant models of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang that are supported by observations. And the expanding universe model fits the data perfectly.

[trekkie_]

It's certainly valid for all of the universe that we can see. Distant galaxies are all red-shifted, with farther ones red-shifted more. Also, observations have shown that the cosmic microwave background radiation has cooled uniformly since the Big Bang, which suggests an expanding universe. The evidence is pretty overwhelming; there aren't really any other extant models of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang that are supported by observations. And the expanding universe model fits the data perfectly.

Well, they're still all theories, and there's still arguments on both sides.

The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding

Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

here's another theory about red shift cause.

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/is-the-universe-expanding-or-just-getting-heavier-130822.htm

Edited December 11, 2014 by trekkie_

[Camacha]

Well, they're still all theories

I assume you are using the term theory in the laymen sense of the word and not the scientific? Since a hypothesis and theory are rather different things.

[Mr Shifty]

Well, they're still all theories, and there's still arguments on both sides.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

here's another theory about red shift cause.

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/is-the-universe-expanding-or-just-getting-heavier-130822.htm

This is electric universe, plasma cosmology stuff, about as far outside the mainstream as cold fusion.

[John FX]

All of which is very interesting but not really the point. In a thought experiment that proposes a single subatomic particle in empty space you can`t just go "Well what if there was something there?" because there is not.

It is a subatomic particle which is not interacting with other matter due to inflation.

No you can`t go "Well what if inflation is wrong?" because the thought experiment is set up to test certain edge scenarios in a universe undergoing inflation. See point one.

[trekkie_]

here's a nice little non laymen presentation video. about 40 minutes long.

http://vimeo.com/97608525

[trekkie_]

All of which is very interesting but not really the point. In a thought experiment that proposes a single subatomic particle in empty space you can`t just go "Well what if there was something there?" because there is not.

It is a subatomic particle which is not interacting with other matter due to inflation.

No you can`t go "Well what if inflation is wrong?" because the thought experiment is set up to test certain edge scenarios in a universe undergoing inflation. See point one.

You must of missed it when I said...

logically, if space expands faster than light, sure....then particles would never be able to act upon each other.

[Camacha]

Well, in that case the answer is short and clear-cut: without a frame of reference nothing moves. End of story Though you specified a bit more than just empty space and that makes that the folks here do have a point: the fact that things are very, very far away does not change the fact that they are there. Therefore, there is a frame of reference. Observable or not.

here's a nice little non laymen presentation video. about 40 minutes long.

http://vimeo.com/97608525

The internet does not work that way - throwing in information like that. Please specify what parts are of interest to you, why, and where we can find them. If, by remote chance, all of it is of utmost importance, at least a summary and what you make of it is in order.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Camacha

[trekkie_]

even without a frame of reference, stuff still moves. just like light doesn't cease to exist just because you close your eyes.

and I would deem the entire video to be relevant to anyone interested in why the universe may not be expanding at all.

Edited December 11, 2014 by trekkie_

[Camacha]

even without a frame of reference, stuff still moves. just like light doesn't cease to exist just because you close your eyes.

That comparison does not make a lot of sense. Speed can only exist when one thing is measured against another. If there is nothing to be measured against, there is no speed. So if a single object exists without any frame of reference, it cannot have any speed. You might even say it cannot even move, since there is nothing to move relative to (though things like perceived acceleration might make that discussion a little more complicated).

Speed is always a relative concept - it is always the relation (of the motion) of one thing against that of another. The speed of the car relative to the road, the speed of an aircraft relative to the air it flies through, the speed of a spacecraft relative to the object it orbits. If something is in a universe where nothing else exists, it can never have any speed.

and I would deem the entire video to be relevant to anyone interested in why the universe may not be expanding at all.

It is just that information like this is highly unlikely to be absorbed by anyone. If you feel something is relevant and interesting it is typically a small effort to summarize why. Not only does this allow people to judge whether they want to spend the time watching this, it also contributes to the conversation. Even scientific material often has an abstract

[John FX]

When there is nothing in the universe that can be interacted with, how can it have a frame of reference?

Even at the speed of light it would never interact.

Gravity, light or other electromagnetic forces that propagate at c would not affect it.

No interaction, no reference.

EDIT : what sort of frame of reference could you have if all the other matter is moving away faster than light anyway?

Implied in relativity is that if you go faster, time slows so if you are going at close to the speed of light, time (in the rest of the universe) would appear to go very fast indeed so you would age very slowly.

Therefore an object with no frame of reference would experience time at an infinite rate.

If that is the case then it seems very significant.

I`m trying to google any other physicists that have considered this but I may be the first...

[Kryten]

When there is nothing in the universe that can be interacted with, how can it have a frame of reference?

Why is interaction required for something to be a frame of reference?

[J.Random]

I am also not a scientist, so, as layman to layman: if there is no reference frame then you don't know what's happening to this subatomic particle. You can't say if it's moving (because, relative to what?) and you can't say it's still (because again, relative to what?). I would say its position, speed and direction of its motion are undefined. Frame of reference exists for observer. No frame of reference = no observer (even imaginary one) = no measurements.

It seems to be nothing more than a "does a falling tree make a sound when noone is there to hear it" question, only with the word "subatomic" in it.

[Guest]

Yes, frame of reference is purely imaginary thing.

[John FX]

Why is interaction required for something to be a frame of reference?

Very good question. A little background may help.

I`m wondering about a section of space containing whatever the smallest stable subatomic particle is where inflation is moving all other matter away at a speed where it cannot ever interact.

All space that can interact with that particle has no electromagnetic waves of any kind, no gravity waves, nothing. No matter, light, heat or energy of any kind except the energy potential of the quantum foam.

Some people say that`s quite a lot of energy.

Ok, just did a google search. I think I`m talking about the big rip. I hadn`t thought it through.

If inflation has occurred to the point that even subatomic particles could not see each other then that would mean the size of the observable universe was smaller than an atom.

OK. after reading more I think I am in favour of a bubble nucleation universe with a false vacuum.

It fits with what I was trying to think of when I came up with the thought experiment although the size of a quark is still about 20 times larger than the size of the universe at the start of inflation...

False vacuums sound nasty though.

Oh, and when a tree falls in the wood and nobody is around to hear, all the other trees laugh.

[Mr Shifty]

Implied in relativity is that if you go faster, time slows so if you are going at close to the speed of light, time (in the rest of the universe) would appear to go very fast indeed so you would age very slowly.

Actually, clock ticks in your subjective frame always go faster than clock ticks in the relatively moving frame. In other words, if I'm on a spacecraft moving at 0.99c relative to Earth, then to observers on Earth, my clock will tick slower than Earth clocks. But it's perfectly valid, from my perspective, to consider that I'm stationary and that it's Earth moving at 0.99c, and I would observe clocks on Earth ticking slower than my clocks. In other words both observers see the other observers' clocks tick more slowly. It's only when you match reference frames that you can sync clocks and measure the duration that's passed. If the spaceship decelerates and lands on Earth, less time will have passed for its passengers than for the Earthlings. On the other hand, if vessel B were to depart Earth and catch up to the original spaceship (vessel A), then the passengers on B will have experienced less time passing then those on vessel A.

[Camacha]

Oh, and when a tree falls in the wood and nobody is around to hear, all the other trees laugh.

Trees are bastards!