"As I wrote in a news article about the work for Nature, Afshordi’s team has found tentative signs of such echoes—potentially the first signs of general relativity unravelling. You can read more about that in my story, "LIGO Black Hole Echoes Hint at General-Relativity Breakdown.""
Steve Giddings is hypocritical in this paper. He is looking for breakdown of Einstein's relativity in the...
view entire post
"As I wrote in a news article about the work for Nature, Afshordi’s team has found tentative signs of such echoes—potentially the first signs of general relativity unravelling. You can read more about that in my story, "LIGO Black Hole Echoes Hint at General-Relativity Breakdown."
Steve Giddings is hypocritical in this paper. He is looking for breakdown of Einstein's relativity in the gravitational waves features but, on the other hand, he knows that Einstein's spacetime is a wrong concept and therefore gravitational waves do not exist: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..."
Nowadays almost all theoreticians reject, explicitly or implicitly, spacetime - the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski
, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." "...says John Norton
, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." 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." "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." "[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."New Scientist
: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century." "And by making the clock's tick relative
- what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." "Was Einstein wrong?
At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." 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?""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 dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric.""In Einstein's general theory of relativity
, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly." "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." "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. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
view post as summary
Werner Hofmann's Dream to See Einstein Wrong FulfilledWerner Hofmann
: "My dream is to demonstrate that Einstein was wrong" 10:35: "My dream discovery is to really demonstrate that the speed of light varies with energy..."
My comment on YouTube:
That the speed of light is variable, not constant, becomes obvious as one carefully analyses the Doppler effect. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ. This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v). The latter scenario is absurd - the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light. Conclusion: The speed of light is different to differently moving observers (varies with the speed of the observer), in violation of Einstein's relativity:"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength
[...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed
but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ." "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. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
report post as inappropriate
Nowadays all sane theoreticians know that Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and its idiotic consequence, Einstein's relative time, are "the root of all the evil" in physics. But they also know that it would be suicidal to reject the falsehood. The dilemma is unbearable: "But the researchers said they spent a lot of time
working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."
report post as inappropriate
Julia Shaw in Scientific American: "I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts. They say that we have found ourselves in a world lost to emotion, irrationality, and a weakening grasp on reality. That lies don't faze us, and knowledge doesn't impress us. That we are post-truth, post-fact. But, is this actually a bad thing? I'm a factual relativist. I abandoned the idea of facts and "the truth"...
view entire post
Julia Shaw in Scientific American
report post as inappropriate
: "I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts. They say that we have found ourselves in a world lost to emotion, irrationality, and a weakening grasp on reality. That lies don't faze us, and knowledge doesn't impress us. That we are post-truth, post-fact. But, is this actually a bad thing? I'm a factual relativist. I abandoned the idea of facts and "the truth" some time last year."
Julia Shaw should't have "abandoned the idea of facts and the truth". Of the following two statements one is both "fact" and "truth", the other is "falsehood":
Statement 1: The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source.
Statement 2: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.
In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed Statement 1 and refuted Statement 2. However scientists were all etherists at that time (that is, strongly believed in Statement 2) and fabricated, ad hoc, the absurd length contraction - the experiment became "compatible" with what it had originally refuted: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light
, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
So the falsehood (Statement 2) has been established and worshiped for more than a century, it killed physics in the end, but Statement 1 remains and will always be both "fact" and "truth".
view post as summary