Azzam

Re your paper, I do not agree with the fundamental presumptions.

We can only pursue a scientific analysis of reality, as it is manifested to us. Whether there are alternatives is irrelevant because they are not of our existence and therefore unknowable. Or put the other way round, can only be beliefs. ‘As manifest’, involves the closed system of sensory detection. Which,...

view entire post

Azzam

Re your paper, I do not agree with the fundamental presumptions.

We can only pursue a scientific analysis of reality, as it is manifested to us. Whether there are alternatives is irrelevant because they are not of our existence and therefore unknowable. Or put the other way round, can only be beliefs. ‘As manifest’, involves the closed system of sensory detection. Which, while being a closed system (ie in one sense a ‘perspective’), it is valid as such, and unavoidable. [Note: this is different from being unable to know because of practical difficulties, ie something is potentially knowable (experienceable), there is just a problem in effecting this].

So, within that confine, which is a function of our very ‘existence’, physical reality occurs independently of us. And indeed, what we (and all organisms) receive (ie is impeded by in its travel), which is then processed by the sensory system, is not the reality as such, but an effect (which is physically existent and therefore a reality in itself). That effect results from the interaction of the reality with certain other physically existent phenomena, and is commonly known as light, heat, vibration, noise, etc.

What this demonstrates is that the philosophy underpinning Copenhagen, and the subsequent translation of what was originally postulated and became known as Relativity, is incorrect. It does not correspond with how reality occurs.

There can only be ‘a present’. Which is that which physically existed as at any given point in time. That is all there is. Obviously, from our perspective, by the time we are aware of it, it has already ceased to exist. Yes, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle revolves around the difficulty of acquiring knowledge of reality (which is any given present), it does not relate to any inherent characteristic in reality, which is most definitely ‘certain’. Otherwise, it could not exist in the first place, and then alter, which clearly it does. I am not bothered about wavefunctions. As at any given point in time, there is ‘something’, and we subsequently become aware of it because of an interaction therewith at that point in time. Now if that interaction equates with wavefunction and its ‘collapse’, so be it. Whether it be a ‘wave’ or ‘collapses’ is irrelevant to the generic point. Reality and knowledge of it, are different. Or more importantly from the physics viewpoint, reality and the reality we receive upon which we can formulate knowledge, are different. Leaving aside the probable inadequacies of the sensory processing system, there is no reason to assume that the physically existent phenomena which have acquired a functional role with the evolution of sensory detection systems, are able to achieve this perfectly.

On the subject of light, people keep thinking in terms of the observer’s perspective. He (or she) just happens to be the matter which was in the line of travel of a particular light. It is just an entity, and it is moving, like all entities. Forget that is enables us to ‘see’. There is an effect in photons (what, how many photons, how that effect then travels, ec, I do not know) which is created as the result of interaction with any given entity (reality). It then travels, and there are a number of them (ie effects) for each interaction. These continue to exist over time, in that the effect from a sensory detection perspective is maintained. We know this because recipient observers in different directions and at different distances, receive the same input.

Space is a meaningless concept. It is just that which is not of the objects being considered. Only objects exist. They have a ‘size’. The space, either within them or between them, is just another object. There is no space between me and the monitor, just something else which is either me nor monitor.

Paul

view post as summary

Roger

Thank you very much for your comment. As it is known in physics, there is a contradiction between the basis that the relativity theory of Einstein built on and the experimental results produced by quantum theory. Some phenomena in quantum can't be interpreted according to the relativity theory of Einstein, like quantum tunneling and entanglemeny. In cosmology, there is a contradiction...

view entire post

Roger

Thank you very much for your comment. As it is known in physics, there is a contradiction between the basis that the relativity theory of Einstein built on and the experimental results produced by quantum theory. Some phenomena in quantum can't be interpreted according to the relativity theory of Einstein, like quantum tunneling and entanglemeny. In cosmology, there is a contradiction between GR and quantum field theory. I believed most of the problems in physics can be solved if we could solve the contradiction between quantum and relativity. what I did in 1996 in my graduation research that I built new theory that unifying between relativity and quantum in concepts, principles and laws. According to my theory, I found quantum tunneling and entanglement can interpreted according to the modified relativity theory, and I found all the experimetal results is agreed exactly with what I proposed in my MSR theory and according to that I introduce new intepretation to faster than light, and my interpretation is agreed with what resulted in OPERA, ICARUS, SN1987a and quantum tunneling and entanglement experiments. In 1996 I introduced that it can be measured a light or particle to move in faster than light speed in vacuum depending on the measured distance and time but this measured speed is not real. the speed of light locally is constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. And in the case of faster than light for a paprticle or light, it depends on the measured time separation, where in this case the particle or the light is passing through a vacuum of negative vacuum energy which leading the time to be speeding up, and thus the measured time separation will be less than the required time separation. The latest experimental results of OPERA, ICARUS, and SN 1987a are agreed with what I proposed in 1996. The problem in the measuring faster than light is in the measuring time as seen in my MSRT, the neutrino speed locally not exceeding the light speed in vacuum, and in this case there is no violation for causality and Lorentz transformation. In quantum tunneling, the chemical reactions are performed in a time seperation less than the normal situation, why? my interepretation is interpreting that depending on my interpretation for faster than light. Existing a paprticle in two states at the same time in not interpreted according to SR, and this is prooved in quantum, but in my MSR theory it is interpreted. Quantum entanglement is not interprted according to SR, but according to MSRT it is existed and interpreted. EPR, and cat schrodenger can be solved by my MSRT. Furthermore, if we modify the General relativity theory according to my MSRT there is no contradiction between quantum field theory and the modified General relativity,( review my previous comment). I solved the Pioneer anomaly according to my MGR and MSRT see http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 and my solution is an exact solution, and gives new interpretation for the Hubble's law. My exact solution for the pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the thermal origin for the Pioneer anomaly, see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

Many scientists are not agreed by the proposed solution of Einstein for the twin paradox see http://twinparadox.net/ I solved this problem and according to my MSRT there is no twin paradox. Roger, I'm ready for excessive discussion for any point.

view post as summary

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you very much for reading my essay. I'm very happy happy for your comment. Relativity to superluminal speed, I agree with you there is no particle or electromagnetic wave can exceed the speed of light in vacuum, but that is locally. But the measuring faster than light can be interpreted as the concept of the action-at-a-distance as you see in my paper. In my paper as...

view entire post

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you very much for reading my essay. I'm very happy happy for your comment. Relativity to superluminal speed, I agree with you there is no particle or electromagnetic wave can exceed the speed of light in vacuum, but that is locally. But the measuring faster than light can be interpreted as the concept of the action-at-a-distance as you see in my paper. In my paper as you see, in the case of measuring faster than light, there is no violation for Lorentz transformation or causality locally. Lorentz factor is equivalent to "refractive index" and time can be slowing down or speeding up, it is depending on the vacuum energy of the medium of frame comparing to the vacuum energy of the medium that the observer is taking the measurement. The difference between the two vacuum energies represents the Lorentz factor. In the case of the observer located in a higher vacuum energy , and a particle existed in a lower vacuum energy, where the medium of the lower vacuum is defined by the length L locally for the observer located in a higher vacuum energy. In this case, when the particle transformed from the lower vacuum to a higher vacuum by passing the length L, the observer will think this particle passed this distance in a less time separation than it is required, and by measuring the locally measured distance L divided by the measured time, the observer will think the measured velocity is greater than the velocity equivalent to the owned kinetic energy by the particle. If instead of a particle, the light beam passed the length L of lower vacuum energy, the measured speed of light for an observer will be greater than L depending on L/t. and in this case the Lorentz factor according to L/t is less than 1, which is equivalent to refractive index less than 1. But according to my theory is an observer stationary within the range of L of lower vacuum energy, the light beam or the particle will not exceed the speed of light in vacuum locally, and thus there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality. Now in the case of a particle which is located in a slower vacuum energy and moved with speed very approach to the speed of light locally. Now if this particle is passed the length L, and then appeared in a space of higher vacuum energy, in this case the particle will radiate a radiation which is called Cherenkov radiation.

While electrodynamics holds that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c), the speed at which light propagates in a material may be significantly less than c. For example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed (although still to less than c) during nuclear reactions and in particle accelerators. Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed greater than that at which light would otherwise propagate in the same medium. Cohen and Glashow [2] pointed out that these analogs to Cherenkov radiation must appear at superluminal speeds. And from that they refuted the OPERA collaboration claim that muon neutrinos with mean energy of 17.5 GeV travel 730 km from CERN to the Gran Sasso at a speed exceeding that of light by about 7.5 km/s or 25 ppm. http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2

According to the special relativity theory of Einstein, in order the neutrinos to move with speed equals to the speed of light c in vacuum, it is required the neutrinos to be owned kinetic energy equals to infinity. So, what about if these neutrinos moved with speed greater than the speed of light in vacuum. From that the proposed solution by Cohen and Glashow in their paper is based on a wrong concept to the superluminal speeds, and this wrong concept is based on a flaw existed in the special relativity that must be modified. So, what is the flaw that is existed in SRT. According to my MSRT I found the concept of the relative velocity in SR is wrong, and instead it is required to consider the vacuum energy of the medium in which the light moving. I found, when the train is moving with constant speed V, its vacuum energy is increased compared to the vacuum energy of the earth surface. And when the light beam is passing through the vacuum of the train, it is similar to passing through a medium of refractive index greater than 1. In this case I proposed in my MSRT, the time required for the light to pass the length of the moving train for the earth observer is independent of the direction of the velocity of the train compared to the direction of transmitting the light beam.

view post as summary

Dear Loenard,

Thank you very much for your comment. Actually if you would like to understand how is my theory is rejecting the existence of Tachyons, You must imagine first how is my theory solved the twin paradox in special relativity. and then how my theory is interpreted the faster than light.

For example, Suppose Sara and Sally, Sara is existed on the earth surface, and Sally...

view entire post

Dear Loenard,

Thank you very much for your comment. Actually if you would like to understand how is my theory is rejecting the existence of Tachyons, You must imagine first how is my theory solved the twin paradox in special relativity. and then how my theory is interpreted the faster than light.

For example, Suppose Sara and Sally, Sara is existed on the earth surface, and Sally traveled by her spacecraft with speed 0.87c. Now if both of Sally and Sara are twins of old 20 before Sally left the earth. Now when Sally returned to earth after she computed 2 years by her spacecraft clock during the motion, her old would be 22 years, and when she stopped her spacecraft on the earth she would find Sara's old 24 not 22, as she was thinking. Now if we apply the same example in the Lab, as in my theory equivalence principle, for example, if we have a tube of negative vacuum energy. The negativity of the vacuum energy of the tube is equivalent that Sally who existed in the lab is moving with speed 0.87c. Now if Sara is existed inside the tube, and after Sally in the lab computed 2 years according to her lab clock, in this case the clock of Sara for herself inside the tube is faster than the clock of the lab, and thus the time passed inside the tube is 4 years not 2 years as was thinking by Sally. After that, when Sara exited the tube to the lab, her old would be 24, not 22 as Sally was thinking and seeing Sara. As you see from this example, according to my MSRT, there is no Tachyons thay led Sara to be older than Sally. According to my MSRT, because of the negativity of the vacuum energy comparing to Sally lab, time inside the tube was moving faster. but the difference between my theory and SRT, is how Sally seeing the motion of the clocks inside the tube, according to my theory, Sally will see the motion of the clocks inside the tube same as the motion of her lab clock. Thus before Sara exited the tube Sally was seeing Sara of old 22 same as her old, but when Sara exited the tube, Sally found Sara of old 24. Sally was not seeing how was Sara at time greater than 22 less than 24.

view post as summary