Problem with Special Relativity.

talanum1

talanum1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2025
Messages
230
Reaction score
52
It is generally known that particles can be "observers". Since there is 10^80 particles in the Universe, in order to compute length and time (using Special Relativity) the Universe has to compute a number: 2 combination 10^80, which is a huge number. That number is much too large to compute in a fraction of a second.
 
That's why the Matrix only loads textures and environment variables when observed.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild uses a seamless streaming system to load environments on the Nintendo Switch, dynamically loading game assets like terrain, textures, and other details as the player moves through the world to maintain a continuous, unbroken experience with minimal black screens or jarring pauses. This technique involves a sophisticated optimization process, managing levels of detail (LODs) and efficiently loading assets to keep performance high and the transition between areas smooth.

Same same, but different, but still same.

So when you look at the stars tonight, you might see 80 dots, it is only when you get nearer to the object that the Matrix loads more assets.

But the Matrix does not allow travel to these objects.
 
talanum1 said:
It is generally known that particles can be "observers". Since there is 10^80 particles in the Universe, in order to compute length and time (using Special Relativity) the Universe has to compute a number: 2 combination 10^80, which is a huge number. That number is much too large to compute in a fraction of a second.
Click to expand...
The statement appears to mix concepts from quantum mechanics (like "observers" collapsing wave functions) with special relativity (SR) and computational complexity in a way that's not aligned with mainstream physics. It implies that the universe must perform an infeasibly large pairwise calculation.
 
talanum1 said:
It is generally known that particles can be "observers". Since there is 10^80 particles in the Universe, in order to compute length and time (using Special Relativity) the Universe has to compute a number: 2 combination 10^80, which is a huge number. That number is much too large to compute in a fraction of a second.
Click to expand...
Whatever is not being observed is not being processed, sneaky universe.
 
talanum1 said:
It is generally known that particles can be "observers". Since there is 10^80 particles in the Universe, in order to compute length and time (using Special Relativity) the Universe has to compute a number: 2 combination 10^80, which is a huge number. That number is much too large to compute in a fraction of a second.
Click to expand...
That’s a misunderstanding of special relativity. Particles aren’t “observers” — an observer just means a reference frame. The universe doesn’t calculate 10^160 possibilities every second; we only ever compare two frames at a time, using a simple Lorentz transformation. Nature doesn’t crunch numbers — it just is.
 
I know the OP is on his own mission, but ChatGPT actually breaks down what he is saying and what is missing from his reasoning very well and I found it an interesting read worth a share:



That forum post is not accurate — it mixes real physics terms with misunderstandings. Let’s break it down:


1. "Particles can be 'observers'"
  • In physics, observers are not literal particles. An "observer" just means a reference frame — a way of measuring events in space and time.
  • A particle can define an inertial frame (because it has a worldline through spacetime), but that doesn’t make it an “observer” in the sense of a conscious entity or a computational agent.

2. "Since there are 10^80 particles in the Universe…"

  • 10^80 is indeed the rough estimate for the number of protons (or baryons) in the observable universe.
  • But nothing in relativity requires the universe to track all pairwise relations between every particle. Physics is local — interactions are between nearby particles/fields, not across the entire universe simultaneously.

3. "In order to compute length and time (using Special Relativity) the Universe has to compute a number: 2 combination 10^80"
  • "2 combination 10^80" is a combinatorics expression (binomial coefficient). It would be the number of ways to choose 2 objects from 10^80, which is ≈ (10^80)^2 / 2 ≈ 5 × 10^159.
  • But relativity doesn’t require computing all such pairs. Time dilation and length contraction apply locally between two reference frames (two worldlines), not across every possible pair of particles.
  • So the premise is wrong: the universe doesn’t need to “compute” this gigantic number to make relativity work.

4. "That number is much too large to compute in a fraction of a second."
  • Physics doesn’t work like a digital computer doing brute-force combinatorics. The universe doesn’t “compute” reality using an algorithm in the way a CPU would. The laws of physics just are, and interactions evolve naturally according to them.
✅ Bottom line:
The statement is not accurate. It confuses the idea of “observer” in relativity, misuses combinatorics, and treats the universe like a digital processor that has to crunch all possible particle combinations. Special relativity only needs local relations, not 10^159 computations.
 
w1z4rd said:
I know the OP is on his own mission, but ChatGPT actually breaks down what he is saying and what is missing from his reasoning very well and I found it an interesting read worth a share:



That forum post is not accurate — it mixes real physics terms with misunderstandings. Let’s break it down:


1. "Particles can be 'observers'"
  • In physics, observers are not literal particles. An "observer" just means a reference frame — a way of measuring events in space and time.
  • A particle can define an inertial frame (because it has a worldline through spacetime), but that doesn’t make it an “observer” in the sense of a conscious entity or a computational agent.

2. "Since there are 10^80 particles in the Universe…"

  • 10^80 is indeed the rough estimate for the number of protons (or baryons) in the observable universe.
  • But nothing in relativity requires the universe to track all pairwise relations between every particle. Physics is local — interactions are between nearby particles/fields, not across the entire universe simultaneously.

3. "In order to compute length and time (using Special Relativity) the Universe has to compute a number: 2 combination 10^80"
  • "2 combination 10^80" is a combinatorics expression (binomial coefficient). It would be the number of ways to choose 2 objects from 10^80, which is ≈ (10^80)^2 / 2 ≈ 5 × 10^159.
  • But relativity doesn’t require computing all such pairs. Time dilation and length contraction apply locally between two reference frames (two worldlines), not across every possible pair of particles.
  • So the premise is wrong: the universe doesn’t need to “compute” this gigantic number to make relativity work.

4. "That number is much too large to compute in a fraction of a second."
  • Physics doesn’t work like a digital computer doing brute-force combinatorics. The universe doesn’t “compute” reality using an algorithm in the way a CPU would. The laws of physics just are, and interactions evolve naturally according to them.
✅ Bottom line:
The statement is not accurate. It confuses the idea of “observer” in relativity, misuses combinatorics, and treats the universe like a digital processor that has to crunch all possible particle combinations. Special relativity only needs local relations, not 10^159 computations.
Click to expand...
This, and especially even just that first part xD
 
It does compute: how else is energy conservation gonna work?

If Nature "just is" then it is a soul. But souls need unconscious computation and it needs some computer to issue orders to.
 
talanum1 said:
It does compute: how else is energy conservation gonna work?

If Nature "just is" then it is a soul. But souls need unconscious computation and it needs some computer to issue orders to.
Click to expand...
Have we solved neutron decay yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X