Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

thamtubachtin: on 3/23/17 at 15:52pm UTC, wrote Tìm dịch vụ thám tử Hãy đến...

thamtubachtin: on 3/23/17 at 14:40pm UTC, wrote Bạn đang tìm công ty cung cấp dịch vụ thám tử? Hãy đến...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/6/16 at 12:22pm UTC, wrote Hello,theproblem isthat gravitons are bosons.And that we have a problem of...

DURGA DATTA.: on 7/6/16 at 12:08pm UTC, wrote Thank you, Sir. Gravity is due to gravitons and we have so far discussed...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/27/16 at 6:54am UTC, wrote Hi ,welcome and happy to see you on FQXi,Regards

DURGADAS DATTA.: on 6/27/16 at 5:48am UTC, wrote Newton described gravity as force of attraction. But why neutral mass will...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/16/16 at 7:53am UTC, wrote These photons are not really the foundamental particles in fact, these...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/15/16 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Hi Amrit, Nice to see you again on FQXi.I liked this work.It is a...



FQXi FORUM
March 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Wrinkles in Spacetime [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 06:13 GMT
Space-time model has no physical existence. Time is not 4th spatial dimension of space. Space is what we measure with roads and time is what we measure with clocks. No signal can move in time. Signal can move in space only and time is duration of its motion. CMBR cannot move from dome remote past which does not exist. Universe is NOW.

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 06:20 GMT
here is the paper

attachments: Bijective_Epistemology_and_Space-time.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:40 GMT
Pico-Physics agree with your analysis. But it arrives at Conclusion "space to be 3-D" from a different logic. This logic is based on Unary law of Pico Physics "Space Contains Energy". Multi-dimensional space can be seen as a mathematical formulation to understand problems, but not a reality of nature.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Ms. Hossentfelder,

You have a complete skin surface. Einstein had a complete skin surface when he was alive. No matter in which direction a normal person looks, the normal person will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed partial solid, liquid and vaporous surfaces. The real Universe consists of an infinite amount of visible surface. The infinite surface is visible because it is lit by an infinite amount of surfaceless light. Please stop writing codswallop about invisible black holes, invisible quantum particles and invisible gravity waves.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:45 GMT
I would like to draw your attention to a chapter in Pico-Physics - Observation & Observer, picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer.

I believe with your approach to understanding reality, we may have much in common.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 16:12 GMT
"So far she has been working on models involving flat spacetime..."

...and has always blinded herself to the fact that flat spacetime is "an immediate consequence" of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, and that her colleagues reject flat spacetime, thereby implicitly admitting that the postulate is false:

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 15:02 GMT
Infinite surface cannot have a finite flat space/time.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:54 GMT
I had problem understanding the concept of Zero & infinity. It took me a long time, to understand the numbers by theself are just symbols, when associated with a unit they represent reality. They come to exist when associated with a unit. From this understanding evolved Infinte Maths, which I use to establish - Three dimensions of space and integrate whole lot of isolated divergent branches of physical sciences into UNary Law - "Space Conatins Energy".

You may like to visit /picophysics.org/concepts/pico-mathematics/ or just download vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/infinite-maths7.pdf

attachments: infinite-maths7.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Jim George Snowdon wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 16:57 GMT
Time does not exist as a thing or force.

The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.

Our rotational surface motion is approximately 1600 kilometers per hour at the equator. We exist on a gigantic merry-go-round. We are immersed in this constant motionary environment, at the same time, as we use this same motion, to measure duration elapsing.

We use the constant period of duration of our planet`s rotational motion, as the baseline measurement for our time keeping systems. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience.

We have motion in our timeless Universe.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 15:08 GMT
Finite time cannot exist in the infinity of the real unique observable Universe. Neither can finite space. Neither can finite invisible black holes or finite invisible quantum particles.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
If time does not exist as a thing or force, then finite time, or infinite time, does not exist either.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 14:58 GMT
Correct. Infinity is not durational.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
The agiotage around the incompatibility of Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics has been a money-spinner for decades so physicists and philosophers do their best to prolong the confusion and not to solve the problem. The following red herring successfully serves this purpose:

"Well clearly special relativity and quantum mechanics are quite compatible, in that QFT represents their...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 15:05 GMT
Newton and Einstein failed to notice that all objects have a complete surface and all observable surface travels at the same constant speed. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is the only stationary spirit in the real Universe.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 19:03 GMT
Wonderful news! Sabine Hossenfelder is very deserving of this grant and will make good use of these resources.

Probing the network of quantum defects in space could prove to be very fruitful because these words simply are another way to rebuild the universe from a quantum aether and not from space at all.

Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects.

It will be necessary to rebuild our notions of space in order to finally unify all forces...

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 23:57 GMT
Steve Agnew,

Hi Steve, I think that you can give no empirical support for this claim:

"Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects."

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 02:37 GMT
Hmmm...this seems so easy that I am not sure why there is a question. An atomic clock measures the frequency of an atomic transition and since every object in the universe (except for space) is made up of atoms and atomic transitions, every object has its own atomic time.

Using two atomic clocks and comparing over time them shows that they drift apart, the so called Allan variance or deviation. The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object.

People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question...

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 03:13 GMT
Steve,

"The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object."

"People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question..."

Theoretical constructs "...the second dimension of time..." are support for theoretical constructs "...Time is just a property of objects..."

Evidence of object activity supports claims about object activity. It was the claim about activity of time and space for which I was asking for empirical evidence. What experiments have been performed upon either time or space? Empirical evidence consists of effects. What is the evidence for effects upon either time or space?

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 12:38 GMT
CLUES FOR SABINE

Having previously read your article, Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity, and with the intro saying you have the ability to shoot down theories, let me offer a few suggestions/ clues/ pointers, with the best of good wishes on the FQXi grant award…

1. You say, "We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent—when you combine them the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 14:13 GMT
Thanks for the reference to Hossenfelder's review article. Very short distance scales mean very short time delays and have the same infinity problems as do very long distance and time scales at event horizons.

Excerpts: "We review the question of whether the fundamental laws of nature limit our ability to probe arbitrarily short distances...Finally, we touch upon the question of ways to circumvent the manifestation of a minimal length scale in short-distance physics...Exploring the consequences of a minimal length scale is one of the best motivated avenues to make contact with the phenomenology of quantum gravity, and to gain insights about the fundamental structure of space and time."

Mainstream science must break out of the straitjacket of spacetime and replace space with the pure time and matter dimensions of a primitive reality. Aether is the way out of the blind alley of space...

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 16:27 GMT
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman’s path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."

The two concepts of time are not both true and cannot be reconciled, so either quantum mechanics or special relativity will have to be discarded. In my view, both special and general relativity will be abandoned soon:

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 16:39 GMT
The socond POSTULATE of thermo and heat tells us that the time is irreversible on the entropical Arrow of time.It is a postulate.The special relativity also,it is a postulate.It is proved you know.It is not because we have these postulates that we cannot analyse the gravitation differently.Special and general relativity are two Tools very important for the classment of our evolution.The mass curves our space time and c is correct.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 17:03 GMT
I have my book near me ."Heat and themodynamics" by Mark W. Zemanski,PhD.

All the équations and works in this book are deterministic and rational.And the second law of thermo is well utilised.If the second law was not a reality, how could you analyses the engineerings correlated with heat, themro, work.....Ask to Stirling about the machine or to an engineer in refrigerators in a thermonuclear industry ???? Mr Valev, you must really rething your foundmentals but it is just a suggestion of course.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 12:10 GMT
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 14:47 GMT
The real unique observable Universe consists of infinite surface. It is observable because it is illuminated by an infinite light that does not have any surface. All objects have a complete surface. All solid, liquid and vaporous surface is physically connected. You are all wrong about invisible finite atoms and invisible finite particles and invisible finite gravity waves and finite duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 17:30 GMT
Mr Fisher please ,could you develop , we are on a Platform of sciences.It is irritating to always see your post with this surface and this light.Please develop with scientific words.Develop with équations and laws please.Stop to repeat this philosophical post.If you develop a little your analyse of the luminerous aether, it could be well.In fact we don't need a course about the infinity and the light.You think that we don't understand the infinity above our walls? Please develop I don't know even if you speak about the luminerous aether in a spiritual point of vue.Really develop, your spirituality, your physics, your maths, your philosophy ,....something but please develop your analyse.Anybody can understand your post in fact.Please develop.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Mr. Dufourny,

The real Universe was not created from finite invisible scientific precepts, or by an invisible God’s command.. You have a real observable complete skin surface. Every object, be it solid, liquid or vaporous has a real observable surface. Obviously, surface must be infinite. Obviously, infinity cannot contain any finite features. Please stop wasting your time with codswallop supposedly finite physics conjecture.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 16:43 GMT
a phenomen ,apparently you don't want to develop .I have tried to have explainations but you don't want.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 21:32 GMT
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

This is an incredible question. Obviously people who work on quantum gravity don't have a clue about what they are doing.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Mr. Valev,

The real observable Universe is simply an infinite surface illuminated by an infinite amount of non-surface light. Visible infinity cannot contain finite invisible particles, or have a finite duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 18:12 GMT
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

Yes, safely leaving the sinking ship is a daunting task indeed.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 6, 2016 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Mr. Valev,

Nobody has ever seen a real finite event happen. No matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed partial flat surfaces. The reason for this is because only an infinite surface exists and the reason you see it is because surface is lit by infinite non-surface light. Einstein was wrong about the constant speed of light through a vacuum tube. It is surface that travels at the same constant speed. Light is stationary because light does not have a surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 7, 2016 @ 00:02 GMT
Humor in Einstein Schizophrenic World

Einsteinians are given a $1.32 million dollar grant to say if Einstein is wrong:

University of California Santa Barbara: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue their work on finding an answer."

Mark Srednicki and Joseph Polchinski found the joke really amusing, took the money and said that Einstein was not wrong.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 01:55 GMT
INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This applies to both photons and the Sun. (They are linked. Energy involves gravity, and gravity cannot be shielded.) This unifies gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism.

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 12:40 GMT
The Eotvos experiment dates back quite some time ... late 1800's I think. It has been improved upon several times. Even Newton performed a simple version of it. BTW, the o's it Eotvos have two dots above them. I do not know the correct pronunciation.

Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 14:39 GMT
INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This applies to both photons and the Sun. (They are linked. Energy involves gravity, and gravity cannot be shielded.) This involves balanced attraction, repulsion, inertia, gravity, and ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. This unifies gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism.

INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This is the most fundamental law/truth in all of physics, as it balances gravity and inertia.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 23:16 GMT
Inconstant Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)

"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 15:14 GMT
A real observable vacuum tube needs to have a real visible complete surface. All real solid objects have a real visible solid surface. All real liquid has a real visible surface, and all vapors have a real visible surface. All real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed, otherwise, it would be imposible for any surface to be visible. In order to be visible, surface must be illuminated by light. Light cannot have a surface, and because light does not have a surface, light has no effect on the constant speed of surface. These esearchers claims that invisible light is capable of twisting is utter codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 16:03 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a consistent theory that combines two inconsistent ones:

"In particular, Hossenfelder is searching for a good theory of quantum gravity - a framework that would bring together Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, which describes how cosmic bodies move, and quantum theory, which governs the behaviour of particles on the smallest scales....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 19:52 GMT
Pentcho,

Thank you so much for linking the August 2015 Science article. This coincides closely with the date of my stroke, and I missed a lot of significant news. A very important experiment. Brilliant methodology.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 13:27 GMT
Hi Tom and Pentcho,

What are the highlights from the article, "A self-interfering clock as a “which path” witness"?

Tom, you never betrayed you had any health challenges. Your posts have been as poignant as ever. Tempted to use the adjective "stubborn" or "incorrigible" but probably not politically correct :) Wish you all the best and hope your health is fully restored soon. I am sure you have access to the best care and latest technologies. Stroke is almost a death sentence on this side.

Pentcho, thanks for the link to the Perimeter Institute roundtable discussion...

Sabine has her job well cut out. Let's hope she does not disappoint. Relative time: To be or not to be, that is the question.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 15:24 GMT
hello dear thinkers,

Tom ,me also I wish you all the best for your health.Take care.We have had several difficult discussions due to my stupid parano in the past.But I have always liked to read your posts and developments.I am asking me also how is going Lawrence.Hope he is well.Take care dear Jedi of the Sphere.Regards

report post as inappropriate


Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:35 GMT
I have spent considerable time trying to understand nature. Some of intricacies of nature as they became known to me, created the fascination. One of the earliest one was - conservation of Energy, the next was special theory of relativity, the third was exploding universe. The complexity of nature grew more as I progressed though my education as carrier as engineer. But now, I consider myself to be Pico-Physicist. TO say more, In Pico-Physics, the wrinkles are result of presence of matter in space. Some corollary of Pico physics state, that if we compare a star which is hiding behind lot of matter in space and another with line of clear space between start and observer, the one with matter clusters will appear to recede faster.

We have lot of data now, may be some day, I my inquisitiveness will be satisfied.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 14:40 GMT
You do not have to try to understand visible nature. Just look at yourself. You have a real complete visible skin surface. Every real person place and thing has a real complete visible surface. Obviously, only visible surface is real. In order to be visible, surface must be illuminated by light. Obviously, light cannot have a surface. Reality is simplicity itself.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 01:07 GMT
Quantum Gravity - If we mean some thing like quantized radiations, Pico-Physics Negates this. To a Pico-Physicists gravitation is result of interaction of Space & Energy as per Unary Law "Space Contains Energy". The essential loop contemporary science is in on gravitation is due to basic understanding about potential energy (postulated to preserve law of conservation of energy) being misplaced. Refraction and Gravitation are two aspects of this interaction Space with Energy.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 14:49 GMT
Reality is visible infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality has nothing to do with invisible finite black holes, invisible finite atoms, invisible finite quantum particles, or invisible finite strings of energy. Please stop wasting your time with codswallop theories about the invisible.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 12, 2016 @ 14:00 GMT
Einsteinians (other than Sabine Hossenfelder) reject special relativity

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 12, 2016 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Pentcho Velev,

Although Einstein foolishly insisted that a finite amount of invisible energy was exactly equal to a finite amount of invisible mass multiplied by a finite beam of invisible light multiplied by its finite invisible self, this has absolutely nothing to do with observable reality. Only infinite surface is observable because it is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 14, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
Paul Davies (2003): "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 15, 2016 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Pentcho Valev,

In order for only infinite real surface to be visible, it must be illuminated by real light. Therefore, real light cannot have a real surface. We can see the real surface of real objects moving and it is only surface that moves at the same constant speed. As real surface is infinite, no part of it can be finitely measured. The surface of a fly hovering close to a person’s eyeball is immense. As it flies away, it gets quite smaller until it flies out of view. Einstein’s proposed formula for calculating the magnitude of invisible space/time is utterly preposterous.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Ellie wrote on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Dr. Hossenfelder,

My question is what in your opinion is your most significant contribution to scientific knowledge

report post as inappropriate


Ellie wrote on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 19:18 GMT
Joe Fisher - what do you mean by 'surface'?

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 18, 2016 @ 16:35 GMT
Spacetime Is Doomed, Therefore Einstein's Light Postulate Is False

According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand, (21:41) spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how they are moving. But since the consequence is nonexistent and doomed, the postulate from which it has been deduced is false, isn't it? Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence". See also this:

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 19, 2016 @ 04:48 GMT
Pentcho,

Excessively high-pitched lessons like Arkani-Hamed's tend to indicate weak arguments. Einstein's split thinking is obvious to me: He took different points of view at a time and felt therefore forced to deny simultaneity.

Let me just tell you for pleasure what I was propagated to radio listeners: E's Relativity is not used by those who are designing experiments in cosmos, funningly - because the belonging equations are too difficult to solve -.

++++

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 19, 2016 @ 12:20 GMT
:) hello Mr Valev and Eckard,

:)(--)(--)(--)(--)

report post as inappropriate


Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Apr. 21, 2016 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Sabine Hossenfelder, I really admire that you're working on this. I think that deciding whether spacetime is discrete versus continuous is THE most important question in physics and will make it easier to find out how everything is brought together.

I think it must be because if you define a universe to be a set of discrete information with a nonzero chance of interacting, you really run into trouble with continuous spacetime which would be an infinite set.

Do you think it would be possible to use data from the black hole merger date from LIGO to deduce if a black hole is a 2D object with no interior as opposed to a 3d object? A 2d black hole could indicate that spacetime has broken down which again could indicate discrete spacetime.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 22, 2016 @ 14:34 GMT
Neil deGrasse Tyson (1:09): "If you are moving fast through space, your time will tick more slowly, as observed by others."

However special relativity predicts that, as observed by yourself, your time will tick FASTER than the time of others (who are not moving):

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

So special relativity predicts no real difference in the clocks' readings and Einsteinians are forced to introduce the camouflage called, in the quotation above, "enough strangeness".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 22, 2016 @ 15:19 GMT
Pentcho,

You win the prize for relativity ignorance. Understand why Einstein said 'all physics is local' and cure yourself.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 25, 2016 @ 15:35 GMT
Absurd Variation of the Speed of Light in General Relativity

The following texts horrify and paralyze Einsteinians:

Albert Einstein: "Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 25, 2016 @ 18:17 GMT
I see nothing either horrifying nor paralyzing in the excerpted quotes of Einstein which Pentcho has just posted. GR is covariant and predicated on spherical geometry where change of volume is calculated from the curvature on a prescribed surface, not protracted from an assumed zero point center. SR is invariance between two gravitationally isolated gravitational domains and only enters GR in the terms of elapsed time on a curve, which via the Lorentz Transforms computes a length along a line of spatial curvature. But as in any measurement system, a result can only be expressed in terms where a choice of one parameter is taken as the benchmark against which all other parameters are relational. It is only in normalizing the time parameter across the entire gravitational domain in relation to an averaged mass density, when a result obtains that the speed of light is variable in relation to position and magnitude of gravitational field. So covariantly when expressed in terms of the compression of time in a spatial volume, the light has to traverse a greater amount of time in any given span of space relative to gravitational magnitude. Hence the clearly stated specification by Einstein that ", the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable." the key word *spatially* cannot be discounted. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 17:00 GMT
John Rennie: "The variation of the velocity of light with distance from the black hole looks like:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/XlKh0.gif

At large distances (large r) the velocity tends to 1 (i.e. c) but close to the black hole it decreases, and falls to zero at the event horizon." [end of quotation]

Idiotic isn't it? It can be shown that the absurd DECREASE of the speed of light as photons approach the source of gravity is a consequence of Einstein's 1911 equally absurd fabrication called gravitational time dilation.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 19:06 GMT
Banesh Hoffmann: No gravitational time dilation. The gravitational redshift "arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation, Einsteinians? Do they accelerate?

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 09:18 GMT
Hi all,

Dear John and Tom,Eckard,could you tell me more about the fine structure constant and the theory of perturbations please ,I learn a little the different mathematical methods for the creation of spherical algebras.I don't know well this constant but It is very relevant considering the harmonical oscillators.If the quantum gravitation is a different quantum of E,it is relevant it seems to me to insert the spherical volumes and motions,spinal, orbital and linear before encoding in nuclei.This standard model must insert the BH and dark matter relativelly speaking like our cosmological scale.The standard model seems encircled by BH and dark matter.The harmonical oscillators can perhaps answer.The bridge between the standard model and our irmpoved model is interesting to analyse.Regards

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 14:11 GMT
Steve,

There are a lot of interesting quotes from notables in physics about the fine structure constant, but nobody knows what its physical significance is. What can be said is that it consistently is observed as a simple numerical proportion in the spacing between elemental spectral lines, in particular the 'splitting' of a dominant line such as the yellow band distinctive of sodium. The problem is that those spectral lines are emitted or absorbed frequencies of light by elements, but when subject to Doppler shift measurement the frequency changes smoothly as would be evident of a continuous spectrum having a physical waveform. So while the emitted light behaves as a wave, the emission behaves as a particle. Its a puzzle. good luck with that - jrc

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 17:07 GMT
I am thanking you John,it is nice.I am asking me how I can utilise the newtonian mechanic and the 3 motions of sphères and the harmonical oscillators.Quantum gravitation can perhaps be found with simple the quantity of movements.The différences is about the E of a spheron and so the planck constant is Under the stadard model, so a bridge is necessary simply with the newtonian mechanic more the spherical volumes.The primes can be inserted.We could insert this new constant intead of h for the fine structure constant considering the particlesof gravitation encoded.The elementary charge also socan be extrapolated for this gravity but differently than with our electromagnetism, it is there that the volumes and the 3 motions become relevant for the different stepsof stability.If the dark matter is also encoded but it is not baryonic, so it becomes relevant to consider if they are correct my humbleintuitive équations.That tends towards infinity this gravitation, it is logic because the central sphere produces the speedest and smallest spherons.The linear velocities of different spherons in function of their spherical quantum volumes and correlated BH.The method can be superimposed and sorted for the gravitation in inserting BH and dark matter even in our standard model.An other constant must appear like alpha the fine structure constant but not with e²/hc4piEo we insert instead of the fréquences of photons, the fréquences of spherons.The relevance is their paradoxal infinite number.The weakest force so is in the same time the strongest considering thecentral singularities.E=m²+ml² seems relevant if it is correct because we can calculate the entire entropy in evolution, increasing furthermore and paradoxally infinite due to this link physicality and infinity above the walls of thissaid physicality.A real puzzle John :)Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 17:18 GMT
I am persuaded that a boson photon cannot pass c but a spheron yes.I don't see why this infinite entropy has created a physicality with a prison due to our relativity.It is just that we are still Young and that our technology is limited.In all case, fortunally that we do not check these particles, already that on earth, we are not able to harmonise globally this pale blue dot like said Carl Sagan.It is better like that for this moment.In the future it is necessary for thecivilisations to travel Inside the galaxies and even between the galaxies.But not with our relativity, it is not possible.The spherons permit to communicate also at a kind of present with extraterrestrial lifes.If a civilisation tries to communicate, it utilisees these waves , not our lectromagnetic waves Under our specialrelativity.The future is the gravitation,this universal natural equilibrium purelly correlated with rotating sphères.The centralcosmological BH is the secret of all in fact.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 30, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
Why Is Flat Earth Society Thriving?

"Our new website includes the Flat Earth Society forums (a thriving online community since 2004) as well as..."

The Flat Earth Society is a natural opposition in Einstein schizophrenic world, less insane than the science establishment. For instance, the flat-Earth idea sounds much less idiotic than this:

Introduction to Classical Mechanics...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 1, 2016 @ 05:26 GMT
Question to All .....

I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.

What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 08:18 GMT
Hello Gary,

You can learn the lagrangian and the Minkowski space time.In fact it is just model of evolutive metric to see the evolution in time.So time is considered like a relativistic tool which permits to class and analyse the intrinsic dynamics.You can also learn more about the maxwell's équations.The works of Lorentz are relevant also considering the time dilation and lenght contraction.The relevance is to link with the special and the general relativity.You can also see that general relativity islinked with sphères acting on the space time considering the curvature of our space time.The spherisation appears naturally due to this mass curving.They are just Tools to analyse our quantum scale and cosmological scale.It permits to have correct results considering the evolution and the encodings.Hope that helps.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 15:52 GMT
Qunantum is relativistic, but not 4D in the same sense as GR...

Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 1, 2016 @ 05:26 GMT as "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions. What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"

While GR is clearly 4D with time as a spatial dimension, Quantum uses mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2, and therefore an exchange particle, the photon, to make things relativistic.

In GR, things always happen along geodesics ever since the universe was set in motion from the big bang. In quantum, the universe moves by exchange of photons and so there are no completely certain geodesics. Since gravity and charge differ by 1e39 power, these differences can be ignored for most all objects and action.

The quantum phase coherence of photon exchange entangles objects throughout the universe with each other but GR has no such quantum phase coherence. While GR is a very good representation of most objects of the universe, GR utterly fails to represent objects inside of black holes and other event horizons. GR also fails to represent dark matter and dark energy, which are simply quantum exchange forces working at very large scale.

However, a quantum gravity will represent objects inside of event horizons as well as the quantum exchange forces called dark matter and dark energy...but mainstream science does not yet have a quantum gravity. I am glad that I do because it is silly not to have a quantum gravity in a quantum universe...

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 16:22 GMT
Steve D,

Thanks for the input. I am generally familiar with most of the major mathematical tools presently used. This includes the Lagrangian and Minkowski. But it does not explain why I should believe that dimension number 4 in GR (ict) is the same as dimension number 4 in QM (also ict sort of).

Steve A,

Thanks for the input also. So, if I read between the lines you are implying that QM and GR do not share the precise same 4'th dimension. The fourth dimension of each model is based upon time but is operated upon differently. I agree. If the next essay topic is agreeable, I will have some interesting mathematics to present. It might be of interest to you.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on May. 1, 2016 @ 19:11 GMT
Black holes represent singularities in space and time, but in aethertime, black holes are not singularities because that is no continuous space and time. There are lots of difficulties with the notions of continuous space and time and the black holes of mainstream science are simply a product of the limitations of these notions.

Presuming that the universe is not infinitely divisible means...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 2, 2016 @ 18:58 GMT
I'm a little unclear as to how these experiments and theories expect to tell the difference between a defect in spacetime and a break in symmetry which might not reach parameters precipitating a virtual particle. Would that be considered a real defect, or recognizable as a simply 'less than limit' condition?

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT
Your question is fuzzy. I get that 'defect in spacetime' = 'break in symmetry', yet what are 'parameters precipitating a virtual particle'? Do you mean black hole conditions? Do you mean 'parameter' as something other than an adjustable variable?

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 20:50 GMT
Tom,

that Anon was me, I thought I was still logged in.

no, no... a break in symmetry precipitates a condensate of energy into matter, which you often refer to as diffeomorphis. The outstanding question of course being how do parameters of physical properties correspond to mathematical properties of geometry to result in that break in symmetry in a confluence of events. But also a confluence of events might not reach critical levels of proportion that would break with symmetry, and no discrete volume condition would form. My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime? The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 22:41 GMT
Okay, I think I get it.

"My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime?"

They don't. The arguments for and against continuous and discrete spacetime are equally valid. One has to propose what a defect would look like -- perhaps an unexpected change in curvature. Then again, the existence of curvature itself suggests continuous spacetime.

"The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective."

I don't think Sabine hasn't gotten that far yet.

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 7, 2016 @ 00:58 GMT
Lorraine,

I've copied your post and used it to start a new thread ... I'm pretty sure that was my choice:-) My question was simply about the difference between dimension 4 in QM vs dimension 4 in GR.

"Tom, Gary and others,

I studied physics at university. But I’m not suggesting for one moment that that gives me the right to comment, and that others who didn’t study physics...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 06:48 GMT
Hello ,

Thanks Gary.

Dear Ms Ford,

It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 09:22 GMT
You imagine dear thinkers if allthe scientists were focusedon global priorities.We must solve our global problems.Soon we shall be 10billions and the exponentials are at our doors in several foundamental centers of interest.If we don't change our global system, never we shall arrive to adapt us.The future is not really good if we continue like that.The earth can be harmonised and even we must...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 23:29 GMT
There are many experiments that show that there is no completely deterministic outcome for an action. This is the nature of our quantum universe. So free will is then a result of that same quantum uncertainty.

"I will simply ask one question and give my interpretation. Is there an experiment that can be performed that will distinguish between determinism and free will? I don't think there is. Remember, we can only empirically prove that something is false by presenting contrary evidence."

What this means for neural action is that it is our primitive mind that chooses action or inaction and that choice is a function of a lifetime of experience, the sensations of the moment, and a recursion or feedback that involves the choice. Since the choice that we make is entangled for some very short correlation time with the neural packets that are defining that choice, that self energy represents a fundamental uncertainty. In other words, given the same universe, a repeat does not result in the same outcome.

This does not mean that there are not more likely outcomes for choice, but it does mean that free will is part of a quantum universe. Note that the GR universe is deterministic and that is why we know that GR cannot represent all of reality.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 7, 2016 @ 16:47 GMT
Hello dear friends,

I discussed with a professor on LinkedIn.Do you know the 1660 circles per second Tom,Gary,Mr Agnew...." Joseph Weber 1660 circles per second, as Max Planck calculated approximately 660 wavelength for constant in vacuum for the speed of light 3 multiply 10 of exponent 8 meter per second square. The absolute speed of light, is absolute because it is uniform in all colours of the Spectrum"

what is its meaning in deeper analyses?

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 17:17 GMT
the fréquences of resonance in fact to detect the gravitational waves of weber.I have seen on wikipedia.LIGO has found with interferometry.The collusion of BH implying these waves.

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 7, 2016 @ 23:20 GMT
Gary,

Re your reply 7 May 2016 @ 00:58 GMT:

A 2016 experimental test of the Conway and Kochen free will theorem reported that: “Our experiment is a test of the free will theorem since it implements the conditions under which axiom (i) applies, then checks axioms (ii) and (iii), and finally reveals an extreme violation of the predictions of theories in which elementary particles have no free will.”[1] Did you notice that FQXi referred to this paper, under the Tweets banner on the left of the Community page, about 5 days ago?

Mathematicians Conway and Kochen describe what they mean by free will: “To say that [experimenter] A’s choice of x, y, z is free means more precisely that it is not determined by (i.e., is not a function of) what has happened at earlier times (in any inertial frame).” [2]

If we have free will, then so do particles: “. . . ‘We’ve proved that if we have free will, then so do the particles.’ ” With this discovery, and this particular choice of words, Conway and Kochen created one of the most controversial theorems of their careers: The Freewill Theorem.” [1]

1. “Experimental test of the free will theorem”, Bi-Heng Liu et al, 27 March 2016, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08254v1.pdf

2. "The strong free will theorem", John Conway and Simon Kochen, 2009, https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3286.pdf

3. https://plus.maths.org/content/john-conway-discovering-free-
will-part-i

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 14:37 GMT
Lorraine,

Many thanks. I will take a look at the links provided. I do not use Twitter.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 9, 2016 @ 08:18 GMT
Protons and their stability considering the time of desintegration are relevant to analyse in deeper calculations. .The spherical volumes can be correlated.What is the serie towards the singulartity, the biggest volume.That said it is paradoxal because we tends towards 10^-35m and more far even andthe spherical volumes increases towards the number 1 but the scale decreases.The bridge between the two quanta of E can be found.Dear Jedis ,let's utilise the good mathematical methods......

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on May. 13, 2016 @ 17:12 GMT
Space we measure with roads, time we measure with clocks. Space-time does not exist.

attachments: Advanced_Relativity.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 13, 2016 @ 22:07 GMT
If space is measurable distance between material objects, space-time is measurable distance between the images of objects formed from received electromagnetic information. For example I could use a rod to measure the distance between two stars that I am seeing in the night sky. The information from which those images are formed will have had its origin at different times unless the star objects are exactly equidistant from my location. So it is not just a space measurement. Likewise astronomers can make space-time measurements between the images of objects obtained via their observational devices. There is no evidence that space-time is a part of the external environment.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 14, 2016 @ 12:03 GMT
Maybe I didn't say that very well. The images of objects are interpreted as the sources (that produced that information from which the images are produced). Images of the external environment are not necessarily formed from information of temporally homogeneous origin. The night sky is a good illustration of this because of the very large and very different distances of the sources of the images seen together. If the images are interpreted as their sources then the distance between them is a space-time interval. If the images are regarded only as images co-exiting Now then the distance between them is a spatial only distance.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 19:52 GMT
Space we measure with time delays between objects and time we measure as changes in objects.

"Space we measure with roads, time we measure with clocks. Space-time does not exist."

Continuous space and time both emerge from measurements of objects and their changes or actions and so space and time do exist as very useful properties of objects. Just like color or texture or mass, time delay and object evolution exist as properties of objects.

Continuous space and time are both still very useful notions that allow us to keep track of objects, but continuous space and time both fail at very large and at very small scales.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Balke wrote on May. 14, 2016 @ 18:46 GMT
One of the criteria for axion theory, which has three degrees of freedom, was the avoidance of topological defects that arise as the local ground states with inconsistent phase meet (a la grain boundaries in solid-state physics).

If we consider this as an analogy for the formation of a spatial lattice manifested as "dark energy", then we don't need to avoid the defects: they actually serve to explain the existence of quasars, the super-massive black holes at the center of galaxies, and the large voids in the distribution of visible matter.

These concepts are explored in more depth here: https://everdeepening.com/toward-a-new-physics/

Of course, this might also arise in purely quantum theories of gravitation, but I tend to doubt that: the mathematical formalism seems unlikely to support the formation of rigid grain boundaries.

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 20, 2016 @ 13:45 GMT
Pentcho,

I started a new thread here just for you.

You frequently refer to the schizophrenia of Relativity ... i.e., the requirement of simultaneously keeping apparently mutually contradictory concepts inside one's brain.

I won't attempt to alter your opinion on this but I will offer an additional thought ... At the age of 56, I am learning to play piano. After two months of lessons and many hours of practice, I have learned to play simple versions of Sonatina by Clementi, Fur Elise by Beethoven, and Hungarian Rhapsody No 2 by Liszt. Why do I mention this? Because in each of these pieces, my left hand and my right hand must do different things and they must do so in a way that is synchronized with each other. This is a little like the schizophrenia you describe.

Perhaps the way to resolve these apparent contradictions is to find a way for the left hand and right hand to work in unison. The first problem is to figure out what physics uses as 'hands' and then figure out how many hands it has.

Just a thought ...

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 14:32 GMT
Gary,

The contradictions Einsteinians keep in their heads are not apparent - they are of the type "both A and not-A are true". For instance, Lee Smolin rejects Einstein's relative time but continues to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate (from which the relative time has been deduced). In logic, as you know, the combination "true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden.

Another example is the speed of light falling in a gravitational field. Some Einsteinians teach it is constant (zero acceleration), others that it DECREASES (the acceleration is NEGATIVE). There is even a third (small) group that teaches that the speed of falling photons varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies (the Newtonian view). The groups never contradict one another so here Orwell's "doublethink" should be replaced by "triplethink".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 21:52 GMT
Gary,

nice try, but what both you and Pentcho describe is not what constitutes clinical schizophrenia. Actually diagnosis is not only inexact, it is highly subjective and there are no objective tests by which to categorize behavior which might resemble symptoms. It can be easily confused with hypervigilance associated with post traumatic stress, and unfortunately environmental conditions producing traumatic stress are also precursory of schizophrenia. If you are interested, there was an experiment done by David Rosenhan published in the journal Science in 1973 titled 'On Being Sane in Insane Places', which was the result of his own studies of how schizophrenia was being perceived and treated by the psychological norms of the time. In that experiment, volunteers with legal professionals proactive as safeguard, feigned auditory hallucination and were admitted to hospital wards diagnosed as schizophrenic. They then acted normally while concealing flushing the prescribed medications down the commode, and responded to staff they felt fine and weren't experiencing any symptoms. Not surprisingly, none of the staff on the wards or psychological professionals recognized any as faking it, but a lot of the other patients did. It led to a revision of protocols in diagnosis and treatment, including removing the long held belief that the condition was incurable. It currently is estimated to afflict only about half a per cent of world population, and in Pentcho's case is simply a handy prejorative against what he disagrees with. There isn't anything clinically insane about Relativity. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 23:58 GMT
Pentcho & John,

I don't actually think piano is a form of schizophrenia ... it is multi-tasking that requires good coordination. Sometimes I find it useful to think of things in entirely different ways or from a new perspective. Sometimes someone else can trigger a new or useful thought for me ...

Regarding Relativity, to me the objective is to have a perspective that resolves the contradictions if properly understood. The perspective must also make predictions and allow calculations:-)

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on May. 21, 2016 @ 20:23 GMT
Basically, each atom today is bound by photon exchanges between electrons and nuclei. These atom's bonding photons remain entangled with the complementary photons these same atoms emitted billions of years ago at the CMB emission. Quantum gravity is then a result of those pairs of photons, called biphotons.

The CMB was our creation event since it is where all matter condensed from a primordial soup. The subsequent entanglement of bonding charge photons with their complementary emitted CMB photons represents a irreducible biphoton quadrupole that has the quadrupole strength scaled by the time of the universe as tB/2Tu x e. The ratio of the Bohr atom period, tB = 8.1e-21 s, to the universe time, Tu = 13.4 Byrs, is 9.5 e-39, times electron charge is then the strength of gravity force.

Sweet.

So quantum gravity is really moderated by a version of the same photons that moderate quantum charge and there is no need for a separate graviton particle to form quantum gravity and gravity waves.

To first order, the deflection of starlight by the sun's QG is the same as GR and so is the perihelion shift of Mercury, the Hulse-Taylor pulsar decay, and gravity lensing of distant galaxies as well.

However, event horizons and black holes as well as the primordial soup beyond the CMB, the Hubble red shift, dark matter, and dark energy all have different interpretations. It is possible that Hossenfelder's defects in spacetime could turn into a discrete aether whose further decoherence defines both quantum charge and gravity in the universe...or it might not...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 17:14 GMT
Hello Mr Agnew,

It is a relevant general analysis.That said I have really difficulties to accept that gravitons are a reality and are correlated with gravitational waves.

I see humbly (and I can make errors like all of course :))that gravitons are bosons photons and so cannot explain quantum gravitation.But it is just my opinion of course.The gravitation implies a real problem...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 17:22 GMT
It is a wonderful coincidence of models that the biphoton that is a basis for a quantum gravity also is a basis for a pilot wave for the classical gravity of general relativity. Essentially the photon pair that makes up a biphoton entangles the very short time photon bond of an atom today with the very long time photon emission over 13.4 Byrs ago.

In a sense, the CMB photon emissions of creation represent the pilot waves of today's photon bonds. The notion of a pilot wave is one way to make general relativity compatible with the coherence of quantum phase, the so-called superdeterminism of Bohmian quantum theory. Instead of there being an uncertainty, Bohm suggested that there is simply a lack of knowledge about the pilot wave and so biphoton quadrupoles provide determinant geodesics.

Each photon path in the present then has a pilot wave photon at the CMB and as long as those two waves remain coherent, measurements show quantum uncertainty. As soon as those waves are no longer coherent, then they show classical GR. Thus, up until the diffeomorphic limits of GR, biphoton QG can coexist with pilot wave GR. Near the event horizons of very large and very small matter, QG provides the only valid predictions of action.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 17:50 GMT
Thanks frosharing,The wave pilot and Bohm's works?I don't know ,I am going to learn more ,perhaps we can find a method for the gravitational aether and that in fact the wave pilot is gravitational.The correlated linear speed before encoding implying this gravitationalaether seems having the main frequence.The luminerous aether is in fact a state of the spheronic aether it seems to me humbly.Of course it is intuitive like my équation but we need centers and singularities.The standard model seems simply a state due to main gravitational codes more far in our protons,nuclei.The standard model like our universe seems really encircled by gravitation, so BH and dark matter not baryonic.These gravitational codes encodes so fermions, bosons and spherons(the smallest and speedest before encoding with the linear velocity.If we nalyse spiritually and philosophically speaking, I don't see why God has created a sphere in imrpovement spherisation with a limit of special relativity.That has no sense for the future travels between planets and solar systems and even galaxies Inside this sphère and its galaxies.We are just limited actually technologically speaking.In all case it is better like that for the moment, already that we have difficulties to harmonise ourplanet,I don't see a reason to colonise other solar systems.So the special relativity is well made by God, this infinite entropy above our physicality.Even at c we cannot travel in our milky way, we are al 27000 AL of the central supermassive BH so c is a problem.The gravitational aethers them become relevant with my equation,we could pass c but with spherons, not photons.But in logic a photon can pass c if it becomes a spheron but it is an other story:)

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 26, 2016 @ 13:13 GMT
What typifies all objections to the dichotomies inherent to relativity, is the assumption that physics today is operating with a full set of physical laws.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 16:14 GMT
Anonymous,

Is what you are saying mean that while anyone can see that if its this moment here, then its also the same moment 'there', but we can't verify that instantly because any verification of measurement can only occur at light velocity? And that if we do verify it by Special Relativity we end up with such physical results as 'infinite mass'. And without SR, linear momentum would not compute at near light velocity in agreement with what is experimentally observed in high energy accelerators? So by 'dichotomy' you mean that neither instantaneous measurement or infinite mass are physically possible?

So we must be missing a fundamental physical law? (that I'd buy) jrc

by the way; Microsoft took over my machine earlier today and spent an hour+ installing an upgrade to windows10 without my consent. I was able to decline the upgrade and have the previous version reinstalled but now my 'scroll' won't work unless I left click on the narrow slide bar at far screen right. Anybody had similar corporate raiding of their files (?) and any fix to get my touchpad scroll back? thanks

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 21:49 GMT
What is missing is correct categorization of the different aspects of physics.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 26, 2016 @ 20:05 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder: "How can we test quantum gravity? One testable consequence of quantum gravity might be, for example, the violation of the symmetry of special and general relativity, known as Lorentz-invariance. [...] No evidence for violations of Lorentz-invariance have been found."

On the contrary, the Doppler effect unequivocally shows that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 20:15 GMT
Pentcho,

Those whom don't know how Doppler Shift of light differs from sound, and how it is technologically possible to observe Doppler shift of light at all, may be fooled by your claims. So Right here, right now; How is Doppler Shift in the visible spectrum actually observed? HOW and BY WHAT MEANS is WHAT change in the spectrum observed? I'd bet you don't know! jrc

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 22:38 GMT
"fooled by your claims"

The Albert Einstein Institute's claims. They say that

"four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses"

which is tantamount to saying that the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 23:22 GMT
So Pentcho doesn't know what the visual spectrum looks like when Doppler Shift is detected. Won't even look it up and cut and paste it, let alone deduce from it what it says of constancy of light velocity. He doesn't know and doesn't want to know.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 27, 2016 @ 17:11 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder: "If you haven’t read his [Joao Magueijo's] book “Faster Than the Speed of Light”, I assure you you won’t regret it."

There is a short text in the book that could be very regrettable for any Einsteinian:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

However Sabine Hossenfelder and her brothers Einsteinians live a happy life because they don't know that the text exists - any related thoughts in their heads are automatically blocked by crimestop:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 15, 2016 @ 12:44 GMT
gravity and electromagnetism have the same source which is quantum vacuum

attachments: Fiscaletti-sorli-UJP.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 15, 2016 @ 17:43 GMT
Hi Amrit,

Nice to see you again on FQXi.I liked this work.It is a beautiful essay towards what is this accelerating entropical foce.I have seen a relevance considering the sense of rotation.The 3D is essential indeed.Congratulations to both of you for this papper.PS I ampersuaded that this gravitation is a natural force correlated with rotatig quantum andcosmological sphères.The electromagnetism does not seem thesolution due to our problme of equivalence tending to infinity.That said the sense of rotation can be imrpoved with the spherical volumes also and the good seri for the stable gravitation quantum serie and its finite number.Where is this bridge between our actual standard model and this gravitation,this weakest force still weaker than higgs bosons which are not the particles of God in fact.Gravitons also are not rational because they are bosons simply.The formalisation can be made.Try also my équations if they are correct of course.I will correct them if I made errors.We cannot pass c with photons bosons but with particles of gravitation, yes.We cannot see these quantum BH and these particles encoded also so we must utilise a good mathematical method for the correct formalisation of this gravity.I liked your work.The vaccum seems in fact this stable serie of our nuclei encoding.Indeed we have a serie ravitational and this serie encode photons but also spherons produce not by stars.So this gravity cannot be bosonic nor baryonic even.The quantum vaccum seems relevant considering an other sense of rotation that linear particles.That said we don't know if they are synchronised in turning in the same sense or if they turn in opposite sense.Perhaps even that we must insert the volumes and the angles.The volumes ,spherical increase towards the singularity of this quantum vaccuum like you say.E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant try them:) Regards from Belgium jedis of the SPHERE.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 07:53 GMT
These photons are not really the foundamental particles in fact, these photons seem encircled by gravitation giving the real properties of photonic codes correlated with thermo and heat.These photons are a tool in fact for the créations of complexification of minerals, vegetals and animals.The stars in fact produce and permit to create all these planets and lifes...The quantum uniqueness is in the same relative logic,the gravitation seems encircling our standard model.The primordial codes and informations are gravitational and not photonic.The BH and dark matter are our other steps towards this entire entropy considering the roads towards the siingularities quant,and the singularity cosmological.These quantum singularities turn around this cosmol singularity.The spherical volumes are important respecting the newtonian mechanic.The aether is gravitational and it exists several superimposed aethers due to these volumes.What a big puzzle.Regards

report post as inappropriate


DURGADAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 05:48 GMT
Newton described gravity as force of attraction. But why neutral mass will attract each other is not explained. Einstein described gravity as the effect of curved space-time around matter . But why and how space-time curves with a suitable mechanism was never discussed. Standard model prescribes an unidentified particle graviton as gravity field carrier with zero mass and spin2. Gravity is fundamental force and infinite range. All these assumptions of space potential and gravitational field concept is not very much acceptable even from considerations of GR. Emergent directional push coupling local molecular action by massive graviton is a new theory. It suggests from calculation that gravitons must be around 750 proton mass and spin2. Also to justify Avogadro law and chemical reaction, we must have M/R.R of any molecule is constant. M is mass and R is radius of any molecule. So gravitons are flowing like arrows towards center of earth and as such force of gravity gradually increasing by a factor 1/r.r where r is distance from center of earth. So strictly speaking , acceleration due to gravity gradually increasing , though very small while falling. But all matter light or heavy will fall side by side equally. As such by simple calculation, we can deduce that as all molecules fall equally, then we must have a constant M/R.R for any molecule. Doubts about equivalence principle now seen and Einstein in formulating SR and GR made mistakes in assumptions. Gravity being emergent force, and no potential or field , we can surely say that gravitational waves of Einstein is wrong idea. LIGO simply found some ripples in the gravitoetherton super fluid due to collission of black holes and relativists are beating their drums as prediction of Einstein.

attachments: New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism._1.doc, New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 06:54 GMT
Hi ,welcome and happy to see you on FQXi,Regards

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jul. 6, 2016 @ 12:08 GMT
Thank you, Sir. Gravity is due to gravitons and we have so far discussed at molecular level from observation that all molecules fall equally due to M/R.R is constant. This is classical gravity we observe is fall of an apple due to flow of gravitons like arrows towards center of earth. But planets rotate in orbits due to swirling of gravitoetherton super fluid and by directional tangential push of gravitons. This is what Einstein described as following space-time curvature. Again gravitons play a vital role in providing a quantum /Planck scale effect on color charge quarks in side protons and neutrons due to a residual coupling . This is quantum gravity but we unnecessarily assume gluons as force carrier of an assumed strong nuclear force. Strong nuclear force may not exist. Bigger atoms with many protons and neutrons suffer due an unbalance residual force of disintegration , we named weak nuclear force. This is also extension of quantume gravity/strong nuclear force effect . I have been working on it and some exact datas from LHC and the nature of new 750 proton mass particle and some description of pentaquark properties may help me in calculation.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 6, 2016 @ 12:22 GMT
Hello,theproblem isthat gravitons are bosons.And that we have a problem of equivalence.This weakest quantum force cannot be bosonic.That is not really dterministic universally speaking.You think really that if an infinite entropy above our simple human understanding ,above our physicality,has created an universewith intrisic laws.I am doubting that the special relativity ,heat and thermo and standard model are the only one Tools.it is not really logic philosophically speaking, nor gravitationally speaking.Photons are not the ultim particle.This forceis not emmergent due to electromagnetic forces.It is more than thissimple analyse.Gravitation has so many secrets still to show us with determinism respecting the steps and scales.We know sofew still about our nuclei and this matter not baryonic.Gravitons are bosons and so cannot answer to gravity it seems tome humbly.Regards

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'G' and 'I':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.