10 2021.05.01 2024.07.02 2024.07.05 article Mario Ljubičić (Amenoum)108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatiamljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com Implications of CR on physics. physics complete relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, astronomy, zoo, quasars Complete Relativity https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4959132 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits 1 Implications of CR on physics Abstract Implications of Complete Relativity on physics are discussed. Intro Complete Relativity (CR) reveals that everything must be relatively alive. This has big implications on particle physics. Analysis of the Solar System in the context of CR shows that planetary systems are large scale quantum systems, this has big implications on astronomy. Particle physics Zoo of particles = zoo of life Numerous times, particle physicists have announced possible discoveries of new particles. Many of these discoveries were later refuted, as signals disappeared. However, if particles are alive, zoo of particles is a zoo of living and evolving beings, even if evolution in some may generally be oscillation between progression and regression over such long periods of time that a limited observer may consider them stable and invariant. As witnessed on Earth, species of animals and forces can become extinct, it is thus not surprising for species of particles to come and go. Thus, even signals for claimed discoveries may disappear over time. It does not make sense then to build larger and larger particle colliders if one wants to understand fundamentals of nature. Sure, one will discover new particles, but what is the purpose? One cannot discover them all. Who ordered humanity? We don't even know all the species of animals on the surface of Earth, and these are much easier to find and count. In fact, we have identified only a fraction (≈1/5). But do we really need to find all of these animals, including billions of particles and forces, to understand nature? Aren't one or two forces enough? Those that do not contain constant properties, but variable characteristics, so they can evolve? I find it much more valuable to try to understand at least some species one has discovered, rather than insist on finding new resources to exploit. One simply cannot exploit the whole universe. In fact, one can exploit only a tiny fraction of it before one realizes how suicidal that is. I am not against exploring and finding new species, I love it, but at some point, this becomes simply data collection, having nothing to do about understanding nature, so let's not pretend it does. Astronomy General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics? The theory of General Relativity (GR) predicts various phenomena on large scales. While I do not question the existence of such phenomena, some observed phenomena claimed to be confirmations of GR may not be evidence for GR, rather evidence for large scale quantum mechanics (or CR). Consider the gravitational lensing. The effect is considered confirmed when changes in objects observed around a strong gravitational source are correlated, especially if propagation of information between them would have to be faster than light to maintain correlation. In that case objects are not real objects but images (bent light) of one and the same object located somewhere behind the source of gravity. However, CR postulates that entanglement (correlation) is physical at some scale but entangled objects may be of any scale. Thus, the observed effect may not be the entanglement of standard photons, rather entanglement of large scale particles (eg. stars) in which case objects are different objects [of the same or anti-aligned species], not images of one object. There is no absolute limit to speed of [entanglement] carrier particles between entangled quanta - speed increases with distance due to stretching of space [of the channel, or filament, of entanglement].
Many high redshift quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) or quasars have been observed correlated with close bright galaxies. Not only that, some of these pairs are connected by luminous bridges (filaments). This cannot be explained with GR (eg. gravitational lensing) and subluminal interaction, but it is a strong evidence of large scale entanglement predicted by CR.
Proper interpretation of halos around galaxies is most likely to be gravitational lensing (Einstein rings), however, if halo is absent, proper interpretation may be entanglement of large scale phenomena, most certainly if there is a difference in redshift.