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 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
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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

Phuloo Nikola: on 12/11/17 at 22:30pm UTC, wrote I really appreciate you for this article. It's very useful information....

Steve Agnew: on 1/4/17 at 9:05am UTC, wrote It is somewhat surprising to me that your theory does not include...

James Putnam: on 12/30/16 at 22:56pm UTC, wrote I deny that E=M. I defined mass. I work with defined properties. Mass is...

Steve Agnew: on 12/30/16 at 12:59pm UTC, wrote Now I am really say that mass and energy are not equivalent...

James Putnam: on 12/28/16 at 0:39am UTC, wrote Knowing answers ahead of time!! Yes that can be a help when one is...

James Putnam: on 12/27/16 at 21:57pm UTC, wrote "I think it was Einstein who once helps to know the...

Steve Agnew: on 12/27/16 at 12:29pm UTC, wrote I think it was Einstein who once helps to know the...

James Putnam: on 12/25/16 at 21:05pm UTC, wrote Alternative equations replacing Relativity's length-contraction and...


thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines

Boyd Bunton: "Nice share! I am no able ti skip this moment without appreciating you...." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Greg Fantle: "Brush your hair! You look like a homeless person." in The Complexity Conundrum

kurt stocklmeir: "shape of time and space around mass vibrates - some times the shape of time..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "Still waiting for essays to be posted. There are only 5 weeks or so left..." in What Is...

Boyd Bunton: "Its absolutely very helpful put up about the subject. All readers can be..." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Georgina Woodward: "John, I reported your post as inappropriate as it is mostly irrelevant to..." in What Is...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

December 15, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Disintegration of the Moon; Art & Jazz Meet Physics; (Reverse) Debates on Consciousness; & more…from the 5th FQXi Meeting [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 20:19 GMT
Credit: Jayne Tollaksen & Francesca Vidotto
While you weren’t looking, more content from FQXi’s 5th International meeting in Banff has started to trickle through, including a bit more audio and a lot more video. Thanks for your patience.

First up, Brendan Foster and I recorded a special edition of the podcast in Banff on creativity and science. We were lucky enough to be joined by science fiction author Neal Stephenson, who chatted about how he came up with the idea for his latest bestseller, Seveneves—a story about the aftermath of the moon’s disintegration—and how authors tread the line between respecting established science and pushing into more speculative realms.

Free Podcast

Science & Creativity: Conversation with bestselling science fiction author Neal Stephenson, artist Jayne Tollaksen, and musical physicists Ian Durham, Stephon Alexander & Brendan Foster. With Zeeya Merali.


Go to full podcast

We also spoke with artist Jayne Tollaksen, who recently ran an art-physics program at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario. This involved co-creating a series of portraits of various physicists (and FQXi members), in which the physicists themselves took an active role in producing the pieces. The image on the top right is a portrait of Francesca Vidotto, by Tollaksen and Vidotto. You can hear Tollaksen talking about how these portraits were made, and the influence they had on the physicists who took part—providing the scientist with new insights into their modes of thinking, the creative process, and their physics research. At the end of the collaboration, each physicist was invited to describe their experiences. Here are Vidotto’s words, written for the project:

My hands are offering you my collaboration and all my passion for the mysteries of the universe. From my hands, my craftsmanship, a whole universe can take shape. In the theory I work with, Loop Quantum Gravity, the whole universe collapses and then bounces back into the expanding universe that we observe today. The geometry at the bounce is a quantum geometry, described mathematically  by a net of lines connecting the quanta of spacetime. Modeling the shape of the universe requires craftsmanship—a mathematical craftsmanship—but comes always first from a vision, very much in the same way of an artistic creation.

Also joining the discussion were a couple of FQXi’s favorite physicist-musicians, Stephon Alexander and Ian Durham. (Brendan is a musician too.) Alexander, a cosmologist and jazz saxophonist, recently published a terrific book—part popular physics, part musical memoir—called The Jazz of Physics. One connection between the two disciplines that Alexander highlights is the importance of improvisation, something we commonly associate with jazz, but perhaps don’t normally think of in terms of the everyday workings of physicists.

Having pondered the links between art, music and science, the next natural question for me was whether we can (and should) change the way that physics and science is taught in schools and universities, to embrace the creative process more openly. One theme that Durham, Alexander and Tollaksen all came back to was the importance of making mistakes in order to progress, and how we need to give students space to “fail” —because this is such a crucial part of the creative learning process. What are your thoughts?

Even at the professional level, scientists often feel stifled and lack the confidence to put forward ideas that may, at first, seem absurd, for fear of appearing ridiculous. Of course, FQXi is always happy to help scientists get comfortable with being laughed at. As a case in point, I’ll leave you with a video of a debate on consciousness between philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers, who formulated the “hard problem of consciousness” (the problem of explaining how we have phenomenal experiences), and physicist Carlo Rovelli, who takes a more materialistic stance. Here they are arguing about the role of consciousness in physics, but with a twist: Chalmers and Rovelli must passionately argue their opponents’ position, as if it were their own—while wearing bear hats and carrying hockey sticks.


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 14, 2016 @ 18:35 GMT
Fatal Falsehoods: Einstein's Second Postulate and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Deduction is the only reasonable method in theoretical physics (unreasonable theoreticians don't know that of course) and yet, somewhat paradoxically, it is extremely dangerous: a single false premise or invalid argument can nullify, possibly in an unapparent manner (!), the whole theoretical construction....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 15, 2016 @ 19:48 GMT
Falsehood is certainly an inappropriate word because it may have the meaning of a lie too. Let's again reveal for good the incorrectness in calculating the "speed of the pulses":

In order to correctly define the speed one has to divide the distance between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of arrival by the time of flight for any pulse from emitter to receiver.

There is no reason to define a "speed relative to the emitter" or a "speed relative to the receiver" or a speed relative to a hypothetical medium which was to be excluded after 1881/1887.

Everybody may easily find out who is wrong. Einstein was correct in that Ritz was wrong who related the speed of light to the speed of emitter as if it was a bullet. Nonetheless, when he related the speed to the receiver, this was also incorrect. Since you are persistently following Einstein's mistake, you arrive at the fallacy that the speed of light in vacuum must not be constant. Don't trust Einstein. Trust in the many experimentalists who measured the limit c.


report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Nov. 16, 2016 @ 03:10 GMT
Eckard Blumschein,

"Trust in the many experimentalists who measured the limit c."

Experimentalists are the source of physics knowledge.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 16, 2016 @ 07:59 GMT

think of the light travelled towards as information. That information is content of the observer's present when it has been received (and processed in to what is seen). If the receipt of information is altered by the observers motion so correspondingly is formation of the observers (output) present. Now imagine that the light information has come from a clock. What happens to apparent passage of time if the observer moves towards the source?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 16, 2016 @ 16:35 GMT
Brian Greene: "Special relativity in some sense is surely wrong."

My comment on YouTube:

Special relativity is actually a bunch of absurdities, metastases of the original tumor - Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. This postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 17, 2016 @ 05:15 GMT
Pentcho, if you were to think about what I wrote in my last post it might seem a little less absurd. The information received is also 'temporal information' as it, and the seen present formed from it, relates to the time {i.e. the configuration of the material Object universe} of its emission from the source. If the observer is moving towards the source, the amount of temporal information being received increases. So there is more apparent passage of time happening (that is the time dilation).

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 17, 2016 @ 08:51 GMT

You share a mistake with Greene, Cao and perhaps many others. While relativity is indeed correct, Relativity as interpreted by Einstein is disputable. The overlooked trifle is that one must choose different points of view simultaneously.


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 18, 2016 @ 12:03 GMT
I should add:Brian Greene called Einstein's Relativity in some sense surely wrong but in princible correct and gradually correctable while I consider Cao correct in that His Relativity cannot be corrected at all because it is wrong from the very beginning.

I criticise Cao's video presentation for letting too little time for reading and digesting his too numerous worrying arguments.

I also maintain my opinion that His (Einstein's) fallacy is already in the interpretation of the first postulate. I did not yet cross check what Cao formulated as the second postulate with what He actually wrote. Einstein was certainly correct in adopting that c is a constant limit. Because light does not behave like bullets which relate to their emitter, and it also doesn't relate to a medium, He wrongly ascribed it to the observer.

Cao's opinion that the speed of particles can exceed c is not at all convincing to me.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 17, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
A simple perpetual-motion machine of the second kind is shown in Figure 4 here:

POLYELECTROLYTES AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS, A. KATCHALSKY, p. 15, Figure 4: "Polyacid gel in sodium hydroxide solution: expanded. Polyacid gel in acid solution: contracted; weight is lifted."

Mineral acid (hydrogen ions, H+) is added to the system and "the polymolecule contracts and lifts the attached weight through a distance ΔL". Then the acid can be removed and the macromolecule resumes its initial stretched state, ready to lift another weight. The work involved in adding and removing (electrochemically) hydrogen ions, if performed reversibly, is virtually zero, while the net work extracted from contracting and stretching is obviously positive - the system is cyclically lifting weights at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

The problem with the second law of thermodynamics is psychological, not scientific. This law is easy to disprove but no one would be happy - in a sense, it defines our civilization. One cannot get rid of it without destroying the civilization itself.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 17, 2016 @ 17:21 GMT
Hello Pentcho,

What I find relevant with this perpetual motion is that all is already in perpetual motion when we see the quantum scale and the cosmological scale.They turn after all.The perpetual motion that said in technology is different and is not possible on earth.That said in zero gravity in space we can have it with a simple force at the begining.That is why I beleive strongly that we can create a Wheel on space for an artificial gravitation.The Lockheed martin enterprise could be focused on this ,it is the future.On earth, we cannot, on space, we can.New energetical systems could even be created on space.The rotation and the sphères are universal ,and gravitation and energy are correlated after all.A Wheels on space and turbins ...


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 18, 2016 @ 16:14 GMT
Katchalsky's work in this 1964 paper is very good, but has nothing to do with perpetual energy. Colloidal volume changes are driven by free energy changes, but free energy is not free and in fact, includes entropy as well as enthalpy. Entropy changes are very important for colloid changes, but mother nature gets her due and entropy costs just like enthalpy costs. If a colloid change does work, that work is equivalent to a free energy change just like always.

The reversible nature of this reaction is in the fact that if you squeeze and release a colloid, it will heat up just like you expect. If connected with an ion bridge to a solution, that will drive ions back and forth due to the electrochemical potential instead of heating up. This is all just plain jane everyday chemistry...but it is fun...

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 18, 2016 @ 19:45 GMT
A version of the second law of thermodynamics which is obviously false - "by the same amount" ("equally") is an unrealistic requirement:

"A catalyst reduces the time taken to reach equilibrium, but does not change the position of the equilibrium. This is because the catalyst increases the rates of the forward and reverse reactions by the same amount."

"In the presence of a catalyst,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 19, 2016 @ 01:50 GMT
Where in the world to you get this stuff? You say a catalyst does not affect equiblibrium, which is very true. Then you go on to describe two reactions with two temperatures and a gas that is in equilibrium with both surfaces and so is at a third average temperature. And then you say this a violation of equilibrium chemistry when it has three different temperatures even though you neglected to mention the gas temperature. A system at equilibrium normally has many different temperatures and thermal gradients because of thermal motion and the equilbrium that you describe is simply an example of an equilbrium with a material induced thermal gradient.

There is a thermal gradient in the system is all as there is in all systems at equilibrium. Unless you have a Maxwell demon to open and close doors, if you draw heat from the hot surface it will cool down until you have taken that heat out due to the equilibrium shift of H2 to surface H. In order to restore the thermal gradient, you will have to add more heat to dissociate the surface H.

You should not pick on works much too well to be so easily disproven...

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 19, 2016 @ 16:45 GMT
Laboratory evidence for breakdown of the second law of thermodynamics:

"Consider a dimeric gas (A2) that is susceptible to endothermic dissociation or exothermic recombination (A2 2A). The gas is housed between two surfaces (S1 and S2), whose chemical reactivities are distinct with respect to the gas. Specifically, let S1 preferentially dissociate dimer A2 and desorb monomer A, while S2 preferentially recombines monomers A and desorbs dimer A2. [...]

(Fig. 2) Duncan's temperature paradox.

In 2014 Duncan's temperature paradox was experimentally realized, utilizing hydrogen dissociation on high-temperature transition metals (tungsten and rhenium). Ironically, these experiments support the predictions of the paradox and provide laboratory evidence for second law breakdown." [end of quotation]

Clearly, catalysts can violate the second law of thermodynamics by accelerating reversible chemical reactions in one direction but failing to produce the same acceleration in the opposite direction.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 22, 2016 @ 18:00 GMT
Modifying Special Relativity While Worshiping Einstein's Postulates

The fundamental problem in Einstein schizophrenic world: How to modify special relativity while continuing to worship Einstein's 1905 postulates:

Brian Greene: "Special relativity in some sense is surely wrong. [...] And every indication we have is that Einstein's ideas will need to be modified..."

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

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..."

In a world different from Einstein schizophrenic world it would be obvious that special relativity can in no sense be wrong unless a postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 23, 2016 @ 03:52 GMT

I refer to a modernized interpretation:

(1) "The laws of physics, including electromagnetism, are the same in all inertial frames.

(2) Every observer measures the same value c for the speed of light (in vacuum) in all inertial frames.

The second postulate is really a consequence of the first, because if Maxwell’s

equations hold in all inertial frames, then the only possible value for the speed of light is c."

Nothing is wrong with (1) except for the trifle that a clarification is missing. Any application of the laws of physics requires to choose one and only one frame of reference for this application out of the unlimited amount of equally possible choices.

In contrast to you, I also agree with (2) on that c is the upper limit for the speed of light according to the definition I repeatedly gave and in agreement with overwhelming experimental confirmation.

It is not obvious to me from (2) how Einstein defined speed and how accordingly an observer can measure the speed of light.

So I see the missing clarification concerning (1) indeed affecting (2) too.

Because I was not in position to read all belonging papers, I can only guess that Einstein referred to Poincaré's unplausible method of synchronization which does still not yet fit to his mysterious understanding of the notion observer. I wonder if the FQXi panel didn't get contributions that convincingly revealed this calamity. Just a very few abstracts of contributions were published as winners.

The reason for me to distrust Einstein is Poincaré's, Minkowski's, and Hilbert's denial of the very now that separeates past from future in reality. When I criticize +++-, I criticize what I consider unwarranted interpretation of mathematical models.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 23, 2016 @ 17:20 GMT
Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin know that special relativity is "the root of all the evil":

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."

Magueijo and Smolin even know WHY special relativity is "the root of all the evil":

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

Actually Joao Magueijo did drop the false constant-speed-of-light postulate and became a Newtonian - at 53:29 in this video he declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time:

FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:29

So Magueijo believes in the Newtonian space and time but teaches... general relativity:



Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 23, 2016 @ 23:00 GMT
Doppler Unambiguously Refutes Einstein

Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000 km). A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency of the pulses to be f=c/d:

stationary observer

The observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the measured frequency shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d (Doppler effect):

moving observer

The speed of the pulses relative to the observer is

c' = df' = c+v,

in violation of Einstein's relativity:

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. [...] Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO."

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 23, 2016 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Eckard,Steve,Tom,John(whereare you John :),Georgina,...On LinkedIn I see a person Mr dDurmagambetov saying on a papper that it proved the Riemann hypothesis.Could you check this reasoning about the non trivial zéros on the critical band 1/2.The distribution of primes.

could you check please ,I know him on LinkedIn.I have seen his papper, it is a beautiful general work but is it a proof?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 24, 2016 @ 06:48 GMT
Hi Steve,

short answer no. I did find this article that has helped me understand the difficulty of the problem, not in finding 0s but in knowing if there can be exceptions to the rule ever. Will Big Data solve the Riemann Hypothesis? Eduardo Siman

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 24, 2016 @ 09:03 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Thanks for the link.It seems not possible to prove this hypothesis.It is like the interpretation of the infinity or pi or this or that.It is the same that the biggest found number of primes for example.We are with the computers at more than 22 millions of numbers at this moment.How can we find an infinite serie ??? it seems not possible.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 24, 2016 @ 10:33 GMT
Georgina and Steve D,

You are more correct than Eduardo Siman who persistently wrote Reimann. Riemann's zeta function is an infinite sum over complex numbers. Therefore it is difficult if not impossible to prove it. Several claimed proofs might rather be based on selfdeception. So called neo-Riemannian applications do also not convince me.

I consider the so called theory of numbers still more close to Stiefel-type speculations and excitement than seriously answering some questions that are really essential to physics. Why not accept Riemann's guess as correct because mathematics also prefers Leibniz's logically incorrect but pragmatic relative infinity?

The Riemann hype might rather relate to mystification of Relativity.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 25, 2016 @ 16:35 GMT
Variable Speed of Light in Imperial College London

"Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable - and not constant as Einstein suggested - have made a prediction that could be tested. Einstein observed that the speed of light remains the same in any situation, and this meant that space and time could be different in different situations. The assumption that the speed of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 25, 2016 @ 19:19 GMT
Pentcho, speed has a time component. If that time component comes from the received light information then it varies as the relation of the observer to the waves varies. Time is not the constant you are imagining it to be, when we are dealing with what is observed. That is, the output of information receipt and processing. The problem is in the assumption that the spatio-temporal aspect of the output is a foundational space-time reality.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 26, 2016 @ 17:39 GMT

To me as an engineer, always positive elapsed time and always positive spatial distance are linear measures of order from earlier to later and from closer to more distant, respectively. Their units (day and meter) were related to properties of Earth and assumed to exist independently from individual observation. Elapsed time in the reality of a frame of reference A under consideration has a reference point t=0 that is objectively given as an ubiquitous border between past and future.

How to deal with two frames of reference A and B that are spatially moving relative to each other? If the spatial reference points d=0 of both frames coincide, then the two points t=0 for A and B should reasonably also coincide. This coincidence is however only valid for t=0 and d=0.

It might not be warranted to imagine A or B like extended to both sides rigid bodies. Neither can A influence the past of B nor B the past of A. They can also not perceive signals from each other's future. Events are primarily related to either A or B except for t=0 together with d=0. Let's check SR and its critics accordingly.

Big Bang cosmology has a horizon problem with the belonging delay.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 27, 2016 @ 02:02 GMT
Eckard, this is how I see it; both observers are producing their own space-time output from the em data they receive. Those space-times are not one and the same space-time because each receives the em data differently according to location and motion. What is the same is the source event from which the information came.

Remember the observers are not actually seeing thing at d but an image produced from information received. So the when of d=0 according to each observer depends upon when each has processed the information from the material event into what they see as d=0(start position). The output space-times of the two observers do not have to synchronize. But they can both agree to call seeing d=0 time 0.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 26, 2016 @ 17:40 GMT
Einsteinians Destroy Human Rationality

Ethan Siegel: "A stationary observer sees time pass normally, but an observer moving rapidly through space will have their clock run slower relative to the stationary observer."

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, 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..."

Ethan Siegel

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 28, 2016 @ 21:26 GMT

Already Figs. 11.4 and 11.5 illustrate his and your mistake. Just apply my definition of speed, and the loss of simultaneity vanishes.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 29, 2016 @ 02:52 GMT
Re the following: Quotes; “If you’re completely stationary, remaining in the same spatial location, you move through time at its maximal rate”…”The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time, and the shorter the spatial distances in your direction-of-motion appear to be”….”And if you were completely massless, you would move at the speed of light, where you...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 29, 2016 @ 19:18 GMT
Pentcho, all,

My "his" referred to David Morin and to Him (Einstein) too. Morin admitted that he cannot understand how the speed of light relative to the observer is the same for all observers. I cannot understand why perhaps nobody defined speed as I do.

I already mentioned that with this definition there is no loss of simultaneity. Meanwhile I read further pages of Morin's lessons, and it turned out that with my definition there is also no time dilution and no length contraction. Did I overlook something?

I don't refer speed to any frame of reference of emitter or observer but to the distance between the positions of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of arrival. This does not require a point in space to refer to and no belonging velocity either.

I will continue to read and comment on Morin's lessons. Maybe, Einstein's use of Lorentz' formula is ultimately correct to some extent despite of its nonsensical basis.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 28, 2016 @ 20:15 GMT
Inconstancy of the Speed of Light: Proved Experimentally

"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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 29, 2016 @ 18:30 GMT
False Mavericks in Einstein Schizophrenic World

Generally, Einsteinians earn their living by singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" but some of them are allowed to make money and career by... bashing Einstein:

Paul Davies 2003 : "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 30, 2016 @ 05:28 GMT
Hypothesis 3: (based on definition of velocity) The maximal speed c of light from M to N does not at all directly relate to an observer O.

An ideal observer doesn't influence the light under consideration.

He cannot causally relate to both M and N, to past and future simultaneously.

If he belongs to one reference frame then he cannot also belong to a different one.

Hypothesis 1 performs an unwarranted addition of v and c as if they were two ordinary velocities of objects.

Hypothesis 2 ignores causality and assumes noncausal Poincarè synchronization.

Maxwell's equations don't need an observer O but a definition of c.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 30, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
Nowadays almost all important Einsteinians are "mavericks" - they feel it is time to leave the sinking ship:

Mavericks leave the sinking ship

Einsteiniana's "mavericks" usually attack Einstein's idiotic relative time (spacetime) but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

"That lecture, by the German mathematician...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 29, 2016 @ 22:17 GMT
Let me describe something that is to do with representation, and because of the need to visualize this art is perhaps more useful than mathematics. Though it can be converted to a mathematical model by using info-temporal numbers instead of colours. Each uni-temporal Now containing a unique set of such numbers spatially organized. Object reality could be represented as 3D space (though without any observer there is no orientation of the 3 dimensions all orientations are equally valid.) This could also be represented along a historical time line, producing a fictional 4D representation not unlike block time. Fictional as only the youngest configuration has material existence. Within that representation there is a distribution of potential sensory data. It is useful to separate out that data pool because not only can it be represented along the Fictional dimension the data pool also has an intrinsic time component. That is a temporal component pertaining to the origin of each piece of information. A way to visualize this is to consider each configuration of the object universe to be a different colour. Information that has its origin in a particular configuration is represented as that colour. So, for each uni-temporal Now there is a ‘cocktail’ of differently ‘coloured’ information in space. When an observer receives the sensory data it is from the ‘multi-coloured mixture’ of data (info-temporally non homogeneous data). From the info-temporally mixed data the emergent space-time Image reality is produced. It has spatial dimensions and has a time dimension because of the different temporal origin of the data from which it is formed.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 29, 2016 @ 22:38 GMT
Hopefully that makes clear the different dimesnionality of foundational (Object) reality and emergent space-time (image reality), and the reason for that.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2016 @ 00:37 GMT
Can you visualize that? Each photon will be associated with a frequency, a spatial location and a info-temporal number identity. Maybe associated frequency could be numbered and info-temporal number be represented by a colour. I like that because everything with the same temporal origin is the same colour and easily identifiable. Though it can be displayed in other ways.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 1, 2016 @ 20:14 GMT
This form of representation (used with with the (un-labelled)two level Venn diagram structure) seem to me to fulfill Max Tegmark's requirement that theory does not have verbal "baggage". Quote "..... is it possible to find a description of external reality that involves no baggage? If so, such a description of objects in this external reality and the relations between them would have to be completely abstract, forcing any words or symbols to be mere labels with no preconceived meanings whatsoever. Instead, the only properties of these entities would be those embodied by the relations between them". Shut up and calculate. Max Tegmark.(2007)

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 1, 2016 @ 21:00 GMT
The Time Problem in Einstein Schizophrenic World

"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 15:02 GMT
Finally you have mentioned something useful...that time has two fundamentally inconsistent definitions. The time of GR marches along each determinate GR geodesic path with a well determined direction and and fate and a velocity dependent tick rate.

Quantum time also varies with velocity and so quantum time ticks just like GR time, but does not have a determinate geodesic path and can even go backwards with antimatter. However, quantum phase decoherence does point in one unique direction determined by the decoherence of the universe. Since quantum phase coherence has no meaning for the determinate GR geodesic paths, there is no GR meaning for the second time dimension of phase decoherence.

As soon as science figures out quantum gravity, which should come soon, the second time dimension of phase decoherence will take its rightful place as a second time dimension alongside the ticking atomic clock as the phase decoherence between two atomic clocks.

Although an observer clock may tick at a different rate than a source clock, both observer and source clocks will always show the same universal phase decoherence rates. The universal phase decoherence rate is that of the CMB creation...

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 5, 2016 @ 20:10 GMT
Breakthrough Awards in Einstein Schizophrenic World

Black-hole fireworks win big in multimillion-dollar science prizes

My comment in Nature:

In our post-truth ("post-sanity" is much better) world it is quite natural to give so much money to string theorists who have based their theory on the astounding result 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12 :

ASTOUNDING: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 6, 2016 @ 17:35 GMT

G. Cantor and Dedekind implicitely used the oo = -1/12 type fallacies long before Einstein's SR. Everybody should immediately see that S doesn't equal to 1/2. This mistake is about as unobstrusive as within Einstein's first postulate, the postulate of Relativity. Why did David Morin call it just the second one? Maybe, he intended to distract from the really questionable first postulate of Relativity by focusing on the correct and therefore irrefutable second postulate of constant maximal speed of light in empty space?

How do you define speed?


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 6, 2016 @ 18:20 GMT
"How do you define speed?"

Speed has only one definition, Eckard: dX/dt, where X is distance and t is time. To define it otherwise is... well... not very intelligent, to say the least.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 6, 2016 @ 22:05 GMT
No matter how small the increment delta x is, it is the distance between two locations that may move relative to each other. Michelson found out that there is no aether wind i.e. no localizable aether to refer to. However, this doesn't exclude the possibility that space is distances between locations at a time.

At least you should admit that dx/dt, and in case of constant speed x/t, doesn't depend on the speed of emitter with respect to e.g. ground. Michelson 1871 and later found out that the speed of light doesn't depend on the direction of emitter's motion with respect to a universal frame of reference.

I consider my definition the only reasonable one.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 6, 2016 @ 23:30 GMT
Yuri Milner's money goes to LIGO conspirators for discovering ripples of spacetime, but also to Nima Arkani-Hamed for discovering that spacetime does not exist:

"This May, the Breakthrough prizes cemented another distinction from the Nobels by announcing a special collective prize to 1,015 people working on the LIGO project. In February, researchers working at LIGO announced the first...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.