QM answers that observer and observer are dependent on each other. In other words, QM says that observer and oberserver are NOT independent. Observer and observed can be said to be alwasys "in sync,' partially or totally.

For example, nothing can observe something without influencing it. However, there can be isolation based on energy, time, frequency, or momentum. We call this effect, by the name "sympathetic resonance" and is very much used and demostrated in music, to conduct energy, and in anything when viewed as vibration -- such as matter itself. It is also observed in gravitation, as another example.

This has made the solar system stable, until a certain resonance disturbs it, and even planets can be easily disturbed in their orbits. Example, the possibility that the orbit of Mercury is open (see my preprins) under QM and GR, not really closed, enables an expanding radius, and its capture in a different orbit, progressively. This could lead to exchange orbits with the Earth, and the extinction of organic life on Earth. This is an unlikely event, but possible,

QM answers that observer and observer are dependent on each other. In other words, QM says that observer and oberserver are NOT independent. Observer and observed can be said to be alwasys "in sync,' partially or totally.

For example, nothing can observe something without influencing it. However, there can be isolation based on energy, time, frequency, or momentum. We call this effect, by the name "sympathetic resonance" and is very much used and demostrated in music, to conduct energy, and in anything when viewed as vibration -- such as matter itself. It is also observed in gravitation, as another example.

This has made the solar system stable, until a certain resonance disturbs it, and even planets can be easily disturbed in their orbits. Example, the possibility that the orbit of Mercury is open (see my preprins) under QM and GR, not really closed, enables an expanding radius, and its capture in a different orbit, progressively. This could lead to exchange orbits with the Earth, and the extinction of organic life on Earth. This is an unlikely event, but possible,

Relativity pays a lot of attention to what you see, depending if you share a comon reference system or not.

On the other hand QM almost always assumes you share the same reference system.

There is relativistic QM, but there is little about this.

Maybe a little explored field of inquery.

This is a topic that can be talked about for a long time. I have read the comments of my friends and since I have different opinions, I can continue the conversation wherever my friends are interested.

We face several issues:

· Observer

· Phenomenon

· The process of measuring or observing

In my opinion, there are observers and phenomena independent of each other. What connects them is the measurement process.

My suggestion is to continue with the measurement process or observation process.

Further Deductions:

If it were possible to take all the measurements, the observer measuring the observed and also to transform the properties, that define the very essence of the observed, to measures...

then there are two possible cases:

(1) The measurements taken are same as the measures, this is "in sync", and hence one can also deduce and say this is the state of rest and no change or time does not exist in such a situation or time is stationary.

(2) The measurements taken are not the same as the measures, this is "out sync" or simply not in sync, and hence one can also deduce and say that this is the state of motion and there is change or time exists in such a situation or time is non stationary.

Therefore, The definition of time based on this logic will be as follows:

"Time is the measure of changing and/or non changing of the measurement/s of observations by the observer from the measure/s that defines the very essence of the observed."

This is the simple generalization I could reach and which requires validations in many ascpects as well.

Also, the further complications this simple deduction can have seems to be out of the syllabus for now for me at least, :) .

The conclusion to my original question of what I mean by "IN SYNC", in capital letters refers to some other meaning than what I used in small letters, is still somewhat unclear but the valuable contributions by all the participants in this discussion have made it a little clear.

Feel free to discuss this further, I will be taking some time off for now from the discussions to focus more on my work life but I will go through it in time.

Thank you all

Hello Shubham:

This is a great topic of discussions. Several decades ago, I had thought about in great detail on these aspects, especially because I was working with scanning tunneling microscope with quantum effects, as also metaphysics.

Probable circumstances might happen experiencing observer becomes observed, and the observed becomes observer, example of a mirror & perhaps of mirror symmetry reflection with universe and that very existence itself. With present knowledge about the quantum entanglement, what you are enquiring might become quite appropriate needing to go more in detailed aspects. Theories that presently I'm analyzing having formalism might eventually answer some of that. Often, there's that problem of isolating or differentiating between observer versus observed. Consider are we the observers of the universe or the universe observing us? Answer may be usually both. There is switching that I think is going on to change our observational role, though often times we aren't consciously aware!!

Thank you all with great discussions.

"The past of shadows"

As the conversation became more serious, I became more motivated to write. That is why I am ready to write this short text now in honor of this discussion.

It is good that there are different opinions. I also try to continue the conversation in my own way, which is a little different from my friends' approach.

Basically, in my opinion, the material world is the world of data. We become aware of the world through data.

I believe in the "self-observation physics" and that every observer in the world is independent and unique, and I have presented this in my work. So my relationship with relativity is clear. Basically, I do not believe in the equivalence of observers.

On the other hand, there is no talk about the measurement process.

How we measure or observe. There are two types of measurements:

· We influence the system and get information from it. This is a common type of measurement.

· The system gives us information without our intervention. This type is not common. In this type, the question is whether the system remains as it was after giving the information. We do not know. Maybe yes, maybe no.

That's why we always have data from the past of systems.

Why?

Because matter has memory and the effect of memory.

One of the effects of memory is the perception of time. Understanding time means comparing the past, present and future of systems.

No system can return to its previous state after observation (by any measurement mechanism), or at least we are not sure that it is. So we are always talking about one thing: the past of shadows.

We are talking about both the past of systems and shadows.

Should we be disappointed?

No.

So what do we do?

analyze. Conceptual and numerical analysis. To do this, we need tools. Formulations, modeling and techniques.

Are we allowed to use any tools and techniques for any subject?

No. We must have the right tools and analysis for each topic.

What should we do to do this?

Dialogue, dialogue and dialogue again. Serious and respectful conversation.

This is my only critique of science, physics and physicists. Even presenting the best work without challenge and dialogue is useless. Even getting the best prizes is useless without dialogue.

Science grows only through dialogue and challenge, and only through dialogue and challenge can we discover the secret of the past of shadows or raise the curtains a little.

Shubham Birmi Wouldn't simple grammatical considerations answer your question of what it means?

"Observe" is a transitive verb.

• X observes Y (active voice)
• Y is observed by X (passive voice)
• If X observes then there is something Y that is observed.
• If something Y is observed then there is something X it is observed by.

Perhaps, grammatical considerations and thought processes might solve on what it means...

But If not for the experiments that I will be conducting in time, using mathematics and statistics in practice to measure the change in the measurements I make and the measure of transformation of the essence of things to measurables, I would have used that approach.

In essence, I need to have strong philosophical basis and firm scientific, Mathematical and statistical basis on which results can be obtained.

This is something I feel might give me some practical results as well in time.

So I can not just consider grammar but I can check out the etymology of the words to better understand things and thank you for that, :)

Maybe I have to use matter instead of mass, because it is always right, and you have to accept that mass is right and measurable for a comoving observer. We are both right, then. And mass was defined using m = F/(dp/dt) without anbiguity at that level.

you can if you are trying to obtain a result,

In this case, I am proposing not only the use of mathematics and statistics to be able to indirectly determine how meausures of the essence of things would look like but also measure from the experiment measuring the same but having an error,

Measuring that error, the so called measure of change, one can always consider etymology of words for some kind of a clue.

From experience where I stumbled upon some word which when traced back to it's origin meant 'caru' in welsch,

Which also was in direct relation to what is termed 'love', suggesting that love is nothing but to care.

There are so many things that has become clearer just by tracing what the roots of the word mean and relations to that,

But this is only to give clues, one must ask oneself how to make the clues meaningful if they are actual clues foremost, and how to be able to make some use of them to deduce something that will give much more insights.