Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?

[Jim Davis]

But the two stars are actually 5ly apart.

Norm, I think statements like these are where you're going wrong. There are no "actual" lengths in relativity. There are only lengths measured in various reference frames. The same with time intervals.

The ship would know that from its charts.

No, the ship would only know that in another frame of reference the two stars are 5 ly apart. There is nothing special about the terrestrial frame of reference.

Similarly, there is no "actual" order of events. There are only order of events observed form various reference frames which, as others are telling you, do not necessarily agree. As long as signal speeds are restricted to light speed and lower this doesn't create any causality problems. But if we postulate faster than light signal speeds causality violations occur.

[WarpTech]

But the two stars are actually 5ly apart.

Norm, I think statements like these are where you're going wrong. There are no "actual" lengths in relativity. There are only lengths measured in various reference frames. The same with time intervals.

The ship would know that from its charts.

No, the ship would only know that in another frame of reference the two stars are 5 ly apart. There is nothing special about the terrestrial frame of reference.

Similarly, there is no "actual" order of events. There are only order of events observed form various reference frames which, as others are telling you, do not necessarily agree. As long as signal speeds are restricted to light speed and lower this doesn't create any causality problems. But if we postulate faster than light signal speeds causality violations occur.

The "proper length" or distance is the distance between the two stars in the frame in which the observer is at rest relative to those stars. This distance is 5ly. All other frames moving relative to this frame will show a shorter distance between them. It is special because it is the "only" frame in which the stars have 5ly between them. The ship is not at rest relative to these stars, and the pilot should be smart enough to know that what he measures as the distance between those two stars is not the "proper distance".

[meberbs]

The "proper length" or distance is the distance between the two stars in the frame in which the observer is at rest relative to those stars. This distance is 5ly. All other frames moving relative to this frame will show a shorter distance between them. It is special because it is the "only" frame in which the stars have 5ly between them. The ship is not at rest relative to these stars, and the pilot should be smart enough to know that what he measures as the distance between those two stars is not the "proper distance".

Proper length is a concept that has limited utility. For example you can't define the current "proper distance" between the ship and one of the stars.

What you say does not change the facts of the distances measured in the ship frame.

In your previous post you said;

"The very foundation of relativity is that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. "

but the first postulate of relativity actually says;

"The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference."

These two statements are NOT the same thing.

The second statement is slightly more formal, but they do not mean anything different.

Your statement is an "assumption" of what you think it means, but I gave examples on page 6 of this thread, showing that we CAN have different inertial reference frames with different scaling parameters and still, "The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.", regardless of how that frame is scaled.

If you are saying that there is a magic absolute "scale value" that is different in different inertial reference frames, you are breaking the first postulate. (Remember we are talking about flat spacetime where K is a constant.)

So you see, there is a hidden assumption that if the laws of physics are the same, then the inertial reference frames are "equal", but my example proves that this is not necessarily true. We can have inertial reference frames that are not equal and have different scaling and still the laws of physics do not change.

That is not a hidden assumption, but the explicit statement.

You did not prove what you said because either:
- K is the same in all inertial reference frames in flat spacetime (the "different scaling" is not true)
- K differs between inertial reference frames, which is a change in the laws of physics. (Besides the fact that you only showed that the value for force is unchanged, plenty of other values would be changed such as velocity and acceleration.)

[WarpTech]

In your previous post you said;

"The very foundation of relativity is that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. "

but the first postulate of relativity actually says;

"The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference."

These two statements are NOT the same thing.

The second statement is slightly more formal, but they do not mean anything different.

I'm sorry, but this is where you are wrong. If K is constant and K =/= 1, there are no experiments you can do within that inertial frame that would demonstrate any violation of the laws of physics. Therefore the two statements do not mean the same thing at all. Two inertial frames that are not equivalent, does not violate any of the laws of physics in either frame. All experiments within an inertial frame will give identical results. I guarantee it, regardless of the relative value of K.

Your statement is an "assumption" of what you think it means, but I gave examples on page 6 of this thread, showing that we CAN have different inertial reference frames with different scaling parameters and still, "The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.", regardless of how that frame is scaled.

If you are saying that there is a magic absolute "scale value" that is different in different inertial reference frames, you are breaking the first postulate. (Remember we are talking about flat spacetime where K is a constant.)

Nope. See above and while your at it, why don't you actually go back and read the posts I made on page 6 of this Thread, and review the references I posted on page 7 too. You need to learn something new and understand the math before you can prove me wrong, and obviously you haven't because you still think it's wrong.

So you see, there is a hidden assumption that if the laws of physics are the same, then the inertial reference frames are "equal", but my example proves that this is not necessarily true. We can have inertial reference frames that are not equal and have different scaling and still the laws of physics do not change.

That is not a hidden assumption, but the explicit statement.

You did not prove what you said because either:
- K is the same in all inertial reference frames in flat spacetime (the "different scaling" is not true)
- K differs between inertial reference frames, which is a change in the laws of physics. (Besides the fact that you only showed that the value for force is unchanged, plenty of other values would be changed such as velocity and acceleration.)

Case 3: K differs between inertial reference frames and it does NOT change the laws of physics by any experiment that can be done within said frame. The effect of different values of K is equivalent go a gauge transformation of the EM field. We all know, gauge transformations do not change the laws of physics. We also know that K is a variable in a gravitational field and EM fields are invariant in gravitational fields.

The relative value of K can ONLY be measured by a distant observer, comparing two different regions of space-time.

The EM ZPF is such that motion relative to the ZPF cannot be detected by any means. The vacuum does not exert forces on matter in motion. However, gravitational fields fill all space-time within our galaxy and motion relative to a gravitational field can be detected. I've said before and I'll say it again, our "local baseline" is the gravitational field of the Earth/Sun solar system. For any object that starts at rest on Earth, any motion relative to this frame will be physically length contracted and time dilated "relative to Earth". The reciprocal is due to the  instruments in motion having been altered during acceleration to that speed, by the work done to them. There was no work done to the Earth that would cause this effect. Any such object can never go back in time relative to Earth-time, regardless of how fast it goes.

[meberbs]

However, gravitational fields fill all space-time within our galaxy and motion relative to a gravitational field can be detected. I've said before and I'll say it again, our "local baseline" is the gravitational field of the Earth/Sun solar system.

This highlights the main problem in this discussion, you simply insist on talking about curved spacetime,  when the discussion is about essentially flat spacetime. We are not talking about local reference frames in general relativity where there is a measurable difference in gravitational potential between the 2 locations.

I did read your previous post (relevant part quoted below).

You showed that force would be unchanged, but ignored that velocity and acceleration would clearly be changed, therefore your logic is simply wrong.

Regarding the 1st postulate; using the dimensional conversions,

Mass M = M₀*K^3/2
Length L = L₀/√K
Time T = T₀*√K

Calculate how Forces depend on K. Simple;

Force = (Mass)*(Length)/(Time)² = (M₀*K^3/2)*(L₀/√K)/(T₀*√K)²

So => M*L/T² = M₀*L₀/T₀²

In other words, the forces we measure in experiments are completely independent of the local value of K. So all inertial reference frames will experience the same forces and have the same results to ALL experiments that verify SR and GR.

The relative value of K can ONLY be measured by a distant observer, comparing two different regions of space-time.

I think you are confused here, relative values don't need to be measured by a distant observer, as a practical example, we can measure the difference between the "Earth Ground" frame and the "GPS satellite" frame using the change in clock speed. The "distant observer" is used as a way to define an absolute scale.

[WarpTech]

However, gravitational fields fill all space-time within our galaxy and motion relative to a gravitational field can be detected. I've said before and I'll say it again, our "local baseline" is the gravitational field of the Earth/Sun solar system.

This highlights the main problem in this discussion, you simply insist on talking about curved spacetime,  when the discussion is about essentially flat spacetime. We are not talking about local reference frames in general relativity where there is a measurable difference in gravitational potential between the 2 locations.

I did read your previous post (relevant part quoted below).

You showed that force would be unchanged, but ignored that velocity and acceleration would clearly be changed, therefore your logic is simply wrong.

Regarding the 1st postulate; using the dimensional conversions,

Mass M = M₀*K^3/2
Length L = L₀/√K
Time T = T₀*√K

Calculate how Forces depend on K. Simple;

Force = (Mass)*(Length)/(Time)² = (M₀*K^3/2)*(L₀/√K)/(T₀*√K)²

So => M*L/T² = M₀*L₀/T₀²

In other words, the forces we measure in experiments are completely independent of the local value of K. So all inertial reference frames will experience the same forces and have the same results to ALL experiments that verify SR and GR.

The relative value of K can ONLY be measured by a distant observer, comparing two different regions of space-time.

I think you are confused here, relative values don't need to be measured by a distant observer, as a practical example, we can measure the difference between the "Earth Ground" frame and the "GPS satellite" frame using the change in clock speed. The "distant observer" is used as a way to define an absolute scale.

It's not wrong. The rulers and clocks in the "local" frame are scaled according to the value of "K" such that all observers in the inertial frame measure "c" for the speed of light, not c/K. To measure c/K it has to be done from a distant frame with a different value of K, using rulers and clocks that have not been normalized to the value of K to be measured.

True, the "distant observer" sets a baseline where there are no gravitational fields, where the gravitational  potential is "0" and as such, the frame where gravitational potential is null is a preferred frame in this model. That in itself does not violate any laws of physics as you keep trying to claim. The laws of physics are still the same in all inertial frames, as can be shown by any experiment done in a local inertial frame. There is no way to measure the value of K locally.

c/K is the coordinate speed of light. That is all it represents. To have K=1 as an absolute value, we need coordinates that are far from gravitational fields. For any other value of K, "flat space-time", is simply where the derivatives of K vanish, just as the derivatives of the metric vanish. This does not require K=1, it could be K=1.5 or any other "constant" where the derivatives vanish.

Please read some of the reference I posted, such as Hal Puthoff's papers. This model has been around since 1957 or so and has been advanced mostly by Hal and myself, independently.

In this model, the fact that the speed of light is a constant to all inertial observers is a "result" of the fact that rulers and clocks are renormalized when the value of K in the local environment changes. If it were not for this quantum mechanical process, the value of c would not be constant to all local observers.

Please don't give me the old Usenet argument that "c" is constant because "it just is", and physicists do not ask "why?". I asked why, and I'm trying to convey what I learned. "c" is a constant because rulers and clocks are variables in space-time where matter is present.

[RonM]

Time dilation is not an illusion, that is the only thing that is real.  The gamma factor of relativistic travel is real and that is what separates the reference frames from each other. The Solar system and surrounding stars are moving at about 0.00075c.  That is what separates our reference frame from that of a 0.6c ship.

Moving at 0.00075c or 0.6c relative to what? You seem to be assuming that there is some special reference frame, which is in contradiction with relativity.

Something that I've been wondering about is CMBR dipole anisotropy. Our galaxy is moving at about 622 km/s compared to the CMB. Since the CMB can be measured anywhere in the universe, doesn't that create a prefered frame?

[meberbs]

Nearly your entire post appears irrelevant. I think you missed the first thing I said in the last post.

This highlights the main problem in this discussion, you simply insist on talking about curved spacetime,  when the discussion is about essentially flat spacetime. We are not talking about local reference frames in general relativity where there is a measurable difference in gravitational potential between the 2 locations.

I'll answer some of it just because some of it was already off topic in my previous post, and answering might help us get on the same page.

True, the "distant observer" sets a baseline where there are no gravitational fields, where the gravitational  potential is "0" and as such, the frame where gravitational potential is null is a preferred frame in this model.

That seems to me an obvious part of GR, similar to EM where you have to put your potential reference somewhere and everything is easier if you do it for 0 potential at infinity. You seem to be missing something when you call this "the preferred frame." Maybe it was just a slip in language, but there are still an infinite number of these frames all with different relative velocities, and there is no way to define one as preferred over any other.

There is no way to measure the value of K locally.

You left off the word "relative" this time, so I think we can agree. (Tentative on me doing more research, but this is unimportant anyway, because we are only talking about flat spacetime.)

Now try answering this question:
In flat spacetime, there are 2 objects with a velocity relative to each other of 0.6c. Is K the same for the rest frame of each of these objects?

If not, how would the distant observer (who can basically be right next to the objects because flat space time) tell what the difference is?

[WarpTech]

Time dilation is not an illusion, that is the only thing that is real.  The gamma factor of relativistic travel is real and that is what separates the reference frames from each other. The Solar system and surrounding stars are moving at about 0.00075c.  That is what separates our reference frame from that of a 0.6c ship.

Moving at 0.00075c or 0.6c relative to what? You seem to be assuming that there is some special reference frame, which is in contradiction with relativity.

Something that I've been wondering about is CMBR dipole anisotropy. Our galaxy is moving at about 622 km/s compared to the CMB. Since the CMB can be measured anywhere in the universe, doesn't that create a prefered frame?

Yes.

[KelvinZero]

Something that I've been wondering about is CMBR dipole anisotropy. Our galaxy is moving at about 622 km/s compared to the CMB. Since the CMB can be measured anywhere in the universe, doesn't that create a prefered frame?

I want to talk about this too. I'm a bit afraid that in doing so it will get tangled in debates on basic relativity. Im not using "basic relativity" in a derogatory sense because I know I haven't personally mastered it. I would prefer to stick to the textbook pronouncements and not try to convince anyone who disputes them. There will always be someone in the conversation better qualified to do that.

This "CMB rest frame as special" is IMO the best solution so far. I have pasted it into the OP so that it doesn't get drowned in the basic relativity discussion.

I also made a point that I think this is equivalent to defining "simultaneous" as an isosurface though space-time where the CMB is a specific temperature. (you can also find this pasted into the OP).

The thing I wanted to add was, the CMB rest frame choice isn't merely nice. I think it is special because I think it almost rules out any other choice.. if you are going to chose some frame and label it special it pretty much has to be this one.

Why? because you are either choosing the ONLY definition of "instantaneous" where you are travelling between points of the universe that have the same temperature and entropy, and look pretty similar, or you are choosing ANY OTHER one where travel in one specific arbitrary direction takes you to a younger, hotter universe, and the other direction takes you to a colder one, even though the universe does not look hotter or colder in either of those directions. Only one choice of reference frame is nice, all the others are "yuck". Apart from being "yuck", there are probably horrible exploits you could implement if you could slide freely between entire observable universes at different states of entropy. IMO that makes one choice head and shoulders above an other possible one.

Bear in mind this does not override any laws of relativity. Like entropy itself, it is not really required by any of the other laws, which are all reversible. Yet we still live in a universe where change in entropy is perhaps the most important feature.

[missinglink]

The way you describe it, it seems like an obvious hypothesis. At least to a layman such as myself, assigning the cosmic microwave background this function has appeal as something akin to a "god's-eye view" of the universe that takes in everything at once. Most likely it is still wrong since I don't know of any scientists who espouse the hypothesis. But that doesn't matter as long as it serves as a good backstop for sci-fi that makes a good-faith effort to incorporate known natural law as well as logic.

Have any of the well-known authors of hard sci-fi (like, say, Greg Egan) built worlds based on the hypothesis yet?

[WarpTech]

...

There is no way to measure the value of K locally.

You left off the word "relative" this time, so I think we can agree. (Tentative on me doing more research, but this is unimportant anyway, because we are only talking about flat spacetime.)

Now try answering this question:
In flat spacetime, there are 2 objects with a velocity relative to each other of 0.6c. Is K the same for the rest frame of each of these objects?

If not, how would the distant observer (who can basically be right next to the objects because flat space time) tell what the difference is?

In both cases, it would be impossible to tell from just the objects. In order to do anything, each object would need to be radiating a known frequency and wavelength, such as the Hydrogen absorption spectrum, or other known spectral sources. As well has having a well defined intensity amplitude, (a standard candle) so that they can be compared with enough detail to determine what red/blue shift is due to K and what red/blue shift is due to relative motion.

The terms, (v/c)² and K are not simply interchangeable. The derivation of Gamma as a function of K yields;

γ(v,K) = 1/√((1/K) - K*(v/c)²)

Also, what you refer to as flat space-time and what I refer to as flat space-time are not the same. To have length contraction and time dilation requires more than just a vacuum. It requires quantum vacuum fluctuations and power dissipation. Neither GR or SR require this, although it is there if you formulate the correct problem and know where to look. That is why these are classical theories, where mine is a quantum theory.

In Relativity, all vacuum is the same. In QED, all vacuums are not the same.

Flat space-time:
Start with the massless particles, (Bosons), EM field photons, Strong field gluons and fill the entire universe with their minimum energy state, the Zero-point fields (ZPF)'s.
Add to this massive particles, (Fermions) the Dirac field, the electron family, the quark family, etc.. and their ZPF's.
Add to this EM, weak and strong forces acting on the particles and particles acting on the fields.
Add to this the CMB radiation field and all the long range fields that span the universe.
Add to this the interaction between the Bosons and the Fermions, such as; spontaneous absorption, spontaneous emission and stimulated emission rates; EM momentum, angular momentum, etc.. until all fields establish a steady state equilibrium "state" that we define as |vac>.

Up to this point, space-time is still "flat". We haven't even added atoms, solids, liquids or gases yet. This is just the Minimum Energy state of the vacuum. If we do not take these things into consideration, then we are not talking about a realistic situation and the idea of Time Travel is pure speculation.

Fact: we cannot measure velocity relative to a ZPF (or multiples there-of). However, we can measure our velocity relative to the other stuff that is superimposed upon it, such as the CMBR. As of yet, there is no evidence that motion relative to the CMBR has any effect at all. However, I don't think it's been tested yet either.

[Norm38]

Now try answering this question:
In flat spacetime, there are 2 objects with a velocity relative to each other of 0.6c. Is K the same for the rest frame of each of these objects?

If not, how would the distant observer (who can basically be right next to the objects because flat space time) tell what the difference is?

 There's time's arrow, and then there's mass. Which object accelerated, which one didn't?  Which is more massive? If a tiny ship and an entire galaxy are both observed, it's pretty easy to tell which one is moving. Especially if the galaxy isn't moving at sublight relative to neighboring galaxies.
Reference frames can appear exactly the same at steady state, but they have histories and memories and are not the same. One is real, one is transitory.

[dustinthewind]

Something that I've been wondering about is CMBR dipole anisotropy. Our galaxy is moving at about 622 km/s compared to the CMB. Since the CMB can be measured anywhere in the universe, doesn't that create a prefered frame?

I want to talk about this too. I'm a bit afraid that in doing so it will get tangled in debates on basic relativity. Im not using "basic relativity" in a derogatory sense because I know I haven't personally mastered it. I would prefer to stick to the textbook pronouncements and not try to convince anyone who disputes them. There will always be someone in the conversation better qualified to do that.

This "CMB rest frame as special" is IMO the best solution so far. I have pasted it into the OP so that it doesn't get drowned in the basic relativity discussion.

I also made a point that I think this is equivalent to defining "simultaneous" as an isosurface though space-time where the CMB is a specific temperature. (you can also find this pasted into the OP).

The thing I wanted to add was, the CMB rest frame choice isn't merely nice. I think it is special because I think it almost rules out any other choice.. if you are going to chose some frame and label it special it pretty much has to be this one.

Why? because you are either choosing the ONLY definition of "instantaneous" where you are travelling between points of the universe that have the same temperature and entropy, and look pretty similar, or you are choosing ANY OTHER one where travel in one specific arbitrary direction takes you to a younger, hotter universe, and the other direction takes you to a colder one, even though the universe does not look hotter or colder in either of those directions. Only one choice of reference frame is nice, all the others are "yuck". Apart from being "yuck", there are probably horrible exploits you could implement if you could slide freely between entire observable universes at different states of entropy. IMO that makes one choice head and shoulders above an other possible one.

Bear in mind this does not override any laws of relativity. Like entropy itself, it is not really required by any of the other laws, which are all reversible. Yet we still live in a universe where change in entropy is perhaps the most important feature.

...
As of yet, there is no evidence that motion relative to the CMBR has any effect at all. However, I don't think it's been tested yet either.

Source:

In reality, however, not all directions in the sky appear to have the same CMB brightness.  The earth is moving with respect to the matter that last emitted the CMB, and therefore the CMB spectrum looks bluest (and, by Wien's law, therefore hottest) in that direction and reddest (and coolest) opposite to that direction.

...

If the dipole contribution due to Earth's motion is now subtracted out, the sky looks like the figure at the left.

Indicates motion relative to the CMB.  They subtract out the effect of that motion to observe the CMB. 

In regards to the bold text, I named off one exploit earlier which is a conservation of energy violation if one retains momentum while transporting back in time.  Repetedly teleport your self away from a gravitational well over and over again and you have a paradox. 

[KelvinZero]

Most likely it is still wrong since I don't know of any scientists who espouse the hypothesis. But that doesn't matter as long as it serves as a good backstop for sci-fi that makes a good-faith effort to incorporate known natural law as well as logic.

Can't really hope for more 

Have any of the well-known authors of hard sci-fi (like, say, Greg Egan) built worlds based on the hypothesis yet?

I haven't encountered it. At least not the temperature-based resolution. Nothing actually points to it being real. That would be outside the scope of this thread anyway.

It could start an interesting conversation about what is the difference between a fundamental rule of physics and what is just situation. Ants might think the ground plane of the earth is a fundamental reference frame of the universe that everything can be measured against. The big bang, and every principle resulting from entropy such as the arrow of time, might be just a situation. Maybe every fundamental rule becomes just a situation from some higher vantage point. (edit: In fact if this isn't the case explaining the universe becomes a lot more tricky. Several constants are fine tuned for life and the easiest explanation is that they take on a range of values across some infinite set of universes and we only see the one of the few permutations where life is possible)

[meberbs]

Now try answering this question:
In flat spacetime, there are 2 objects with a velocity relative to each other of 0.6c. Is K the same for the rest frame of each of these objects?

If not, how would the distant observer (who can basically be right next to the objects because flat space time) tell what the difference is?

 There's time's arrow, and then there's mass. Which object accelerated, which one didn't?  Which is more massive? If a tiny ship and an entire galaxy are both observed, it's pretty easy to tell which one is moving. Especially if the galaxy isn't moving at sublight relative to neighboring galaxies.
Reference frames can appear exactly the same at steady state, but they have histories and memories and are not the same. One is real, one is transitory.

What magic keeps track of the "history" of any given object? What is the measurable effect that this has?

"if the galaxy isn't moving at sublight" You apparently have not understood a single word of anything you have read about relativity if you think an entire galaxy moving at FTL makes any sense.

I could be misreading something here, but it seems to me like you have newly come to the subject of relativity, and found that it doesn't fit with your intuition. Rather than recognize that your intuition might be wrong (basically everyone's is at first), you are now making up nonsensical rules without even considering their inconsistency with experimental results or themselves.

[meberbs]

In both cases, it would be impossible to tell from just the objects. In order to do anything, each object would need to be radiating a known frequency and wavelength, such as the Hydrogen absorption spectrum, or other known spectral sources. As well has having a well defined intensity amplitude, (a standard candle) so that they can be compared with enough detail to determine what red/blue shift is due to K and what red/blue shift is due to relative motion.

Sure, attach whatever specialized light bulb/ related equipment you need, assume both ships have advanced on board labs with lasers or any other measuring equipment you want. If you are really concerned with calibration, have an ultra high acceleration shuttle pass between them when they get near each other.

In this model, the fact that the speed of light is a constant to all inertial observers is a "result" of the fact that rulers and clocks are renormalized when the value of K in the local environment changes. If it were not for this quantum mechanical process, the value of c would not be constant to all local observers.

To have length contraction and time dilation requires more than just a vacuum. It requires quantum vacuum fluctuations and power dissipation. Neither GR or SR require this, although it is there if you formulate the correct problem and know where to look. That is why these are classical theories, where mine is a quantum theory.

In Relativity, all vacuum is the same. In QED, all vacuums are not the same.

In QED, guess what: all vacuums are the same. One reason this can be said is simply that QED by definition includes special relativity, and the same rules carry over. This is needed at this level of merging theories because the full form of electrodynamics has special relativity built in from before Einstein even came up with special relativity.

Flat space-time:
Start with the massless particles, (Bosons), EM field photons, Strong field gluons and fill the entire universe with their minimum energy state, the Zero-point fields (ZPF)'s.
Add to this massive particles, (Fermions) the Dirac field, the electron family, the quark family, etc.. and their ZPF's.
Add to this EM, weak and strong forces acting on the particles and particles acting on the fields.
Add to this the CMB radiation field and all the long range fields that span the universe.

And hold it right there. CMB is already covered by "EM fields" and it also consists of you adding energy to these fields above the vacuum state. Also some of what you said sounded like adding the particles themselves, and not just the corresponding ZPFs. You also seemed to have listed "bosons" as massless, even though bosons are not generally massless (even if you only count the fundamental ones).

As of yet, there is no evidence that motion relative to the CMBR has any effect at all. However, I don't think it's been tested yet either.

It is the kind of thing that would be noticed in things like the Michelson-Morley experiment, various replications and similar experiments, or just plain anomalies in things like particle accelerators.

Just to share with you my current perspective:
- From discussing the "twin paradox" (which I will always put in quotes because it isn't a paradox) I was able to point out where your explanation of what happens became contradictory.  This really isn't a complicated part of special relativity, and your initial lack of understanding shows that you had been thinking about relativity incorrectly.
-This does not seem to have prompted you to reconsider the rest of your theory.
-You now are starting to touch on quantum mechanics, the most complicated, confusing and frequently misunderstood part of modern physics.
-You made some apparently unfounded statements related to quantum including one that flat out contradicts what we consider to be true about the quantum vacuum.
-You made clear mistakes in what should have been a simple list of elementary particles.

You are on the way to convincing me that despite some appearances to the contrary you might not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Take a few steps back, and rather than trying to discuss the theory of everything that Einstein and basically every physicist since has been in search of, start with simple cases, and add complications from there. So back to those 2 object moving relative to each other in flat spacetime: Explain exactly how their K values, relative or absolute, could be measured.

[Norm38]

What magic keeps track of the "history" of any given object? What is the measurable effect that this has?

"if the galaxy isn't moving at sublight" You apparently have not understood a single word of anything you have read about relativity if you think an entire galaxy moving at FTL makes any sense.

First, "sublight" isn't FTL. I meant moving at a large fraction of c, like 0.6c. Sorry to confuse.

You asked how a distant observer could tell two reference frames apart. A history of observation is one way. I said two reference frames at steady state could be mathematically equivalent. But a ship that just accelerated and a galaxy that didn't are different. They can be distinguished.

Next is mass (or energy state). An observer sees a small ship and an entire galaxy. Yes it is nonsensical for the ship to be stationary and the entire galaxy to be moving at 0.6c. (Especially when the galaxy isn't moving at that speed relative to other galaxies). The object with the largest mass and lowest energy state is the rest frame. The ship moves through the galaxy, not the other way around. Proper length between stars is defined by that frame.

In completely flat empty nothing then yes an observer can't tell if it's the ship or the galaxy moving. But our universe is not flat and empty. It has structure. Structure on massive scales.

[meberbs]

You asked how a distant observer could tell two reference frames apart. A history of observation is one way. I said two reference frames at steady state could be mathematically equivalent. But a ship that just accelerated and a galaxy that didn't are different. They can be distinguished.

History of observation is irrelevant, unless there is something physically measurably different about them now, history doesn't matter.

Your apparent claim that matter that accelerated and matter that didn't are distinguishable is nonsensical and contrary to everything we know about the universe. Every single piece of matter has been demonstrated to have the exact same physical properties regardless of their history. Every "difference" in results of an experiment in moving matter (like Doppler shift of an emission line) is symmetric where stationary matter and moving equipment would get the exact same result.

Next is mass (or energy state). An observer sees a small ship and an entire galaxy. Yes it is nonsensical for the ship to be stationary and the entire galaxy to be moving at 0.6c. (Especially when the galaxy isn't moving at that speed relative to other galaxies). The object with the largest mass and lowest energy state is the rest frame.

Why? This might be a convenient frame to use, but it is NOT special. You insisting it must be indicates you have not actually allowed yourself to understand even the most basic concept in relativity.

In completely flat empty nothing then yes an observer can't tell if it's the ship or the galaxy moving. But our universe is not flat and empty. It has structure. Structure on massive scales.

The whole point of relativity is that if you consider all of that "structure" to be moving and a tiny ship to be sitting still, physics doesn't change.

[Norm38]

Maybe we're using a different definition of "distinguish"? You asked how a distant observer can tell the difference between two reference frames.  Well, they have different mass, don't they? That is a difference that can be "distinguished".

I didn't say the laws of physics are different between two reference frames. I accept that all the math is exactly the same for the ship and the galaxy. And that when the ship accelerates, it may actually be slowing down to a dead stop (relative to what though?) while the rest of the universe flies by.  But acceleration acts on one reference frame and not another.  I don't get to Centauri by sitting still and demanding the universe accelerate towards me.

Our galaxy is moving towards the Large Attractor at about 0.0033c which is not relativistic.  That whole structure defines a single reference frame.  And yes it is "special" as it's incredibly massive and there isn't another one anywhere else in this corner of the universe. Not special in terms of physics. Special in terms of mass and being the one common frame of reference.

So now, according to our big massive common reference frame, our two stars are 5ly apart and everyone agrees on that. Our ship accelerates to 0.6c and the two stars are observed to be 4ly apart.  All the math works (because ship clock is running slow).  But the stars did not move 1ly closer together in the big massive common reference frame. They did not move relative to the reference frame, the ship did.

An observer's state of motion cannot affect an observed object, but it can affect the observer's observations of the object.

The big massive frame of reference defines our reality. The stars are 5ly apart in our reality. A relativistic ship doesn't change that, and doesn't move the nova event 7.5 years into the future.  That is only what the ship observes. As real as it is mathematically, it is not real in our physical reality where we are bound to this reference frame.