A11pl3Z

[stryder]

That's physics. Every mass interacts with every other mass, and the only body that can be considered "at rest" is a co-moving body in the same frame of reference (same direction and velocity). There is no "rest frame" or "absolute rest" in physics.

That's Classical Physics, however there is potentially some future changes through Theoretical Physics that might come due.

General Relativity is not classical physics.
There's no frontier of physics that foresees any change in frames of reference.

Multiworlds.

[Syne]

That's physics. Every mass interacts with every other mass, and the only body that can be considered "at rest" is a co-moving body in the same frame of reference (same direction and velocity). There is no "rest frame" or "absolute rest" in physics.

That's Classical Physics, however there is potentially some future changes through Theoretical Physics that might come due.

General Relativity is not classical physics.
There's no frontier of physics that foresees any change in frames of reference.

Multiworlds.

The Many-worlds interpretation of QM doesn't change the physics of GR domain frames of reference. This is because there is no theory of quantum gravity, whereby a QM interpretation could alter General Relativity. Even if there were, we have no way to prove that Many-worlds is a better, more valid interpretation of QM than several others. And if there were, GR has proven so successful that a theory of quantum gravity would still have to reproduce the predictions of GR, hence maintaining frames of reference within that domain.

[confused2]

Being unable to understand a phenomenon doesn't prevent it from occurring. QM works perfectly well in a gravitational field - we just don't know how it does it within such a field - or indeed anywhere else.

[Syne]

The only unexplained phenomena here is Stryder claiming something can be at rest, unaffected by gravity.
There's no actual unexplained observations here.

[confused2]

Even the sanest interpretations of quantum mechanics are insane (take your pick), something at rest, unaffected by gravity, is mild.

[Syne]

No, that would fly in the face of decades of verified evidence for GR.

[confused2]

You think 'many worlds' is good?

[Syne]

No, the many-worlds interpretation suffers from having to postulate countless whole universes, which seriously violates parsimony and might as well be "it's turtles all the way down."
All only to avoid wave function collapse.

[stryder]

No, the many-worlds interpretation suffers from having to postulate countless whole universes, which seriously violates parsimony and might as well be "it's turtles all the way down."
All only to avoid wave function collapse.

Think of the universe as being a sapling growing in it's first instance. It's restricted in it's form and direction, it's choices limited because it's finited in it's design and can no support growing beyond it's restricted bounds. If we reached a point however of systemically alterating it's seed (Namely folding energy to support universe creation back to the near the same point in spacetime to create a singularity, such as the Big Bang.) then it would be possible to nurture the universe from a singular into a multiworlds and allow support for "whole universes" to form.

While it would be nice to think that such a thing could be done with precision, there is always the potential that the universes might birth at different rates depending on when the energy (Causality) and interaction arrive. This would lead to the potential of us to see the universe through our physics, but only have a limited scope as far as our observational volume. As the physics we'd assume to know would actually not be all of what there is outside of the universe.

(It's a messy thing to talk about and get a point across since we can't just go out and build a "doohickey" to prove it works that way currently.)