Recent content by timmdeeg

What exactly is the difference between the wave function being an object and being ontic in case it is ontic according to a certain interpretation?

Whether or not the wave function real is in the sense of ontic is interpretation dependent.

Isn't this in contradiction to ? We don't distinguish infalling mass from mass of the black hole.* So, either the "mass" of the hole isn't "due to any remnant of stress-energy" or "most" (means not all und thus there is still stress-energy) of the interior is still vacuum. * Thereby assuming a...

Is this true regarding infalling mass too? If stress-energy of infalling mass doesn't disappear then how would this fit with contributing to the geometric property of the spacetime"?

Just to add a forth point, that's because we will never be able to to measure spacial flatness zero in the strict euclidean sense.

Orionnebel M42 mit Pferdekopfnebel IC 434 und Flammennebel NGC 2024 Unexpectedly I could capture these nebulae at my birthday after a very long starless period. Teleskop: William Optics RedCat 51 Montierung: Skywatcher HEQ-5 Pro SynScan GoTo Guiding: MGEN-3 Kamera: Sony A7III modifiziert...

Instead, looking for negligible tidal effects one would consider areas far away from gravitational centers like stars and galaxies. Within a galaxy cluster there might be such areas and if being connected these could result to scales of 4 to 15 MPc. Perhaps that's what the authors refer to...

So, if you say "that it (the equivalence principle) only applies locally, over a scale where spacetime curvature is negligible and an individual patch of spacetime on that scale can be considered to be flat" does it mean that tidal effects are negligible? From this point of view I would assume...

Such scales refer to Galaxy cluster which as I understand it don't feel isotropic expansion. If we consider them as spacetime patches containing galaxies as point particles, why then can't we assume flat spacetime within them?

Why can't one simply argue that in an infinite expanding universe the distance between any two comoving objects grows without limit?

Unexpectedly for me this seems a crucial point! PeterDonis and Ibix, many thanks for enlightening comments.

So ##t## now isn't special. Now both models predict the same "amount" of accelerated expansion whereby the temperature ratio is 1100. If true independent of ##t## wouldn't this mean that in the far future both models predict the same "amount" of accelerated expansion whereby the temperature...

Good point. And the values of ##t## might depend on where one lives, in a wall or in a void.

Yes, but isn't it astonishing that otherwise much different models predict this very same ratio of scale factors? Of course they have to, so its not a coincidence (wrong wording).

What I meant, saying "coincidence" : There are two models (one established and the other one speculative) which explain the measured accelerated expansion today (using the same Supernovae data) much differently, but nevertheless agree that the universe has expanded by a factor of 1100 since...