FQXi Community

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.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

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

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:52am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 5:02am UTC, wrote Azzam Sorry is too busy should not yet discuss right with you. The...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 11:09am UTC, wrote Dear Azzam, I hope you are fine. Hello. This is group message to you and...

Azzam AlMosallami: on 9/27/12 at 22:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Loenard, Thank you very much for your comment. Actually if you would...

Loenard S.: on 9/24/12 at 12:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Azzam It's great essay! You successed in unifying quantum and...

Azzam AlMosallami: on 9/20/12 at 0:48am UTC, wrote Dear hoang cao hai, Thank you very much for reading my essay. I really...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 13:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Azzam AlMosallami: on 9/11/12 at 22:32pm UTC, wrote In the case of faster than light, it proofed experimentally the atomic...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Modified Special Relativity Theory and the Meaning of Time: The Interpretation of Quantum Tunneling, Quantum Entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, and SN 1987a by Azzam K AlMosallami [refresh]

Author Azzam K AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT

Essay Abstract

Through the meaning of time in the Modified Special Relativity Theory MSRT [23], we introduce an interpretation to the most problems in physics related to quantum tunneling [1-9,16], quantum entanglement [29,30], OPERA [26], ICARUS [27], and Sn 1987a [28].

Author Bio

Director General-the Science Center for Studies and Research

Download Essay PDF File

Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 07:24 GMT

Azzam

Time

The analogy of reality and a film is correct. Reality is a sequence of physically existent states, each of which, by definition, exists for a point in time (as in timing). This is so because any alteration in any given physically existent state constitutes a different reality (physically existent state). Only one state can exist at a time. Or put another way, that state was the present (existent) as at that point in time. So, ‘time’, as such, does not exist. ‘Things’ (technical term!) exist, and change occurs. That change occurs at a rate. That is the physically existent phenomena which corresponds with the concept of time, ie rate of change. The quantification of this (known as timing) involves the comparison of these rates, either directly, or with respect to a common denominator. We use devices for this known as clocks/watches. If it is a quartz watch, for example, what is actually being measured is that X occurred whilst a crystal oscillated n times. Movement/motion (which is comparative alteration in spatial position) is but one example of change. There may be other primary properties, which, for some reason(s) are caused to alter.

Observer

The processing is irrelevant, in that it is what is received by the observer, or indeed any organism effecting any form of sensing, that needs to be identified. What is received is physically existent, and is the result of an interaction between the reality (a physically existent state) and one of a number of physically existent phenomena (which was in a particular existent state as at the point of interaction). The observer, or hearer, or feeler, etc is, in physics, no different from a brick wall. That which is physically existent and is received by the organism is only ‘information’ because organisms have developed sensory detection systems which can process it, brick walls have not. Obviously (unfortunately!) we only have the output of this processing from which to discern what physically occurred. And that has two components:1) that which occurred (was physically existent at a point in time), 2) that which occurred as a result of an interaction with the latter, which while undergoing alteration (ie its physically existent state changes), from the perspective of sensory systems, it retains certain physical features. These exist in multiple numbers and over considerable durations, even though they only ‘represent’ (in the context of sensing) one existent state of the reality under consideration. These phenomena are commonly referred to as light, noise, vibration, heat, etc.

The above then explains all that follows. In very simple language: there is a physical occurrence, this interacts at the point in time of this occurrence with other physically occurring phenomena, thereby creating other physically existent phenomena, which, if an organism is in the line of travel, will subsequently be received. The recipient can have no effect on anything, because it is receiving, ie existence has occurred. And indeed, what it is receiving is not the reality.

Light

As I have already said in other posts, light is just a physically existent entity which is moving. Calibrating its speed is purely a matter of comparing change in spatial poison. The fact that it enables organisms to ‘see’ is irrelevant. The word ‘frame’ is concerned with reference. There has to be one in order to effect a comparison and thereby calibrate the attribute. Any frame is valid. However, having chosen a frame that must be used consistently. Light just has a constancy in that it always initiated at the same speed, will continue at that speed unless impeded in some way, and is independent of ‘observer’. Their hypothesis was that matter actually altered in one dimension. SR involved no altering form of motion, and there was no dimension change in it.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 13:10 GMT

Paul,

Thank you very much for reading my article. I agree with you with many points. Please read my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002

according to my paper, time is related to present, and since we are existed in a material world which owns mass, it is existed the definition of reality, and the knowledge of the reality, because at the present the material system can't receive more than one information element at the present, from that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from. Present and the wave-function in quantum is the same thing. In my theory it must existed a state in which the reality and the knowledge of the reality must be the same. At this state it is exited a present only, there is no future and past. This state I called it "infinity state", and at this state the system owns a pure energy and its rest mass is equal to zero. Light system is located at the infinity state, because its rest mass is equal to zero. If I'm a system located at the infinity state, I'll live all the information of my life at the same present, there is no future or past. and at this state the meaning of reality and the knowledge of the reality is the same. But, since I'm a system owns a mass greater than zero, less than infinity, it is existed what is called past and future, and I can't catch the present. I'm very interested by your thought regarded to light. Light is an entity, located at infinity state with mass equals to zero, But I'm a system owns mass greater than zero, because of that I measure the light speed to be c (light speed in vacuum), but for the light beam as it is a system located at infinity state, every thing for it happens at the same present and there is no past or future. In the infinity state the light beam transforms from point to the farthest point at a zero time separation and it is existed at infinity number of points at the same time. So the meaning of space is meaningless in the infinity state, because I can present at any point in space at the same time, and that is equivalent according to our knowledge in physics to moving with speed equals to infinity. So according to my knowledge in physics I can say the light beam at the infinity state is moving with speed equals to infinity. but Since I'm a system located at the mass world, I measure it to be c. This is answering the question of Einstein, How can I see the world if I'm riding a light beam. The right question, how can I see the world if all of my mass transformed to energy and became at the infinity state same as the light beam. This also proposing the beginning of the universe is not coming from small point of dense mass, and then this small point is exploded (the big bang). We can say, the origin of the universe comes from the pure energy (infinity state), and from this energy it is formed the mass and time (Planck time).

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 07:35 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT

Paul,

The infinity state, which I proposed in my previous paper,is existed also in the philosophy of Hegel and and Plato. they talked about the comprehensive consciousness in their philosophy. My paper is considered as a translation of this philosophy into physics, depending on quantum theory (Copenhagen school), quantum field theory, and the modified relativity. In my paper the light is an entity same as the neutrino, electron, and proton. The speed of light is the speed in which the information element is transmitted from the infinity state to our material world, because the information element is existed in the infinity state and the light is exited also in the infinity state. So the light speed is a method to measure the speed of transmitting the information elements, same as by the ruler you measure the length. information is transformed by the light speed, not by the light itself.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT

Azzam

Well, contrary to how people try to depict me, I have no interest in philosophy. To me such musings about things that are inherently unknowable is a complete waste of time. We are involved in a physical existence. We can never know the 'true nature' thereof (if there is one anyway). We can only know what is, which on occasions involves overcoming known problems with the physical process of effecting that (ie sensory detection).

So the "infinity state" is the pysically existent state, light is, from the perspective of the sensory processing system, "information" about that. There is no "material world", but the best abstracted approximation of that existent state we can construct by extraoplation from individual sensory experiences. And, by definition, the speed at which any given light actually travels is the speed at which that particular information is conveyed from the reality to the recipient, the information being some form of encodement in photons (an effect, ie light, not photons).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 00:42 GMT

Paul,

There is a good question for Stephen Hawking, he asked " which came first the chicken or the egg". Before and after are existed in our material world, But if I returned to my authentic state " the infinity state" I'll find the chicken and the egg existed at the same present, and there is no past or future, I'll find myself with my grandfather existed at the same present. We can't decide if the chicken came before the egg or the egg came before the chicken, or I came before or after my grandfather, we all existed at the same present, and we will remain at this present.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT

Azzam

The question is flawed, because there is no such thing as chicken, or egg. Our conceptualisation of reality as 'its' is incorrect. We only perceive it that way, because we could not cope with the actuality, and we are thinking of reality in terms of superficial characteristics, which we then deem to be an 'it', which persists over time. All, there is is a sequence of physically existent states, each different, with some innate property causing alteration.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT

Paul

Exactly! In my theory, the reality is existence of the information element in the infinity state, and our knowledge the reality in transforming the information element through the present (wave function) from the infinity state to the material world of the system. This process of transforming the information element from the infinity state to the material world of the system is called in quantum "the collapse of the wavefunction".

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 05:50 GMT

Azzam

Not sure it is "exactly". Because what you are doing there is conflating the reality, the effect reality instigated by that, and our knowledge thereof. Put simply, reality occurs independently of us, but we are trapped in a closed system of sensory detection. Specifically on the point about chicken/egg, have a look at the exchange in JCN Smith's essay blog (Rethinking a key...), please, rather than me repeating it here.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Nash wrote on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 00:42 GMT

time is related to present, and since we are existed in a material world which owns mass, it is existed the definition of reality, and the knowledge of the reality, because at the present the material system can't receive more than one information element at the present, from that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from.

report post as inappropriate

Nash replied on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 00:48 GMT

Don't you think that such ideas are more into philosophical perspective than materialistic? are you trying to prove realities with philosophy?

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 01:12 GMT

Nash

Have you read my paper in order to say that? It is a theoretical physics discussing the main problems in physics related to quantum and relativity. Each theory in physics has its own philosophical aspects, so we discussed previously the philosophical aspects of my theory, and that is important for physicists and philosophers. Einstein title was Scientist-Philosopher.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT

Azzam K AlMosallami,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It appears that we have taken different approaches for explaining special relativity type effects. I do continue to agree with your statement posted in my blog. I commented on it over there.

James

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 00:07 GMT

James,

I really thank you for reading my essay, and I'm very happy for your comment.

I'm also enjoyed when reading your essay, and I found there are ideas we can share. Please read my paper for the exact solution for the unsolved problem in physics regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 My solution is related with what you proposed in your essay. Also my solution for the Pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the proposed solution of the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006 According to my solution to the Pioneer anomaly is gives us different approaches for explaining the Hubble's law, and General relativity depending on my Modified special relativity, depending on quantum theory. According to that wormholes in GR can be explained by the same explanation of quantum tunneling and entanglement and that gives new interpretation for faster than light. According to my MSRT in the case of measuring faster than light particles or a light beam depending on distance and time, there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality, and locally the the light speed is the same and equals to c. Locally no particle can exceed light speed in vacuum, and the problem in measuring the light faster than light will be existed in the measuring of time. What I proposed is agreed with the experimental results of OPERA, ICARUS and SN 1987a, and also with the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement, and with what proposed in quantum field theory relative existence the proposed particles Tachyons and other phenomena relative to faster than light in quantum. I have many to say, and I'm ready for more discussion at any point.

report post as inappropriate

J. Albion wrote on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT

Azzam,

You have very excited ideas must be studied seriously!

report post as inappropriate

J. Albion wrote on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 12:50 GMT

Azzam

You talking about the vacuum energy, Is there a relation between what you are proposing and the Casimir effect? The causes of the Casimir effect are described by quantum field theory, which states that all of the various fundamental fields, such as the electromagnetic field, must be quantized at each and every point in space. In a simplified view, a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position. Vibrations in this field propagate and are governed by the appropriate wave equation for the particular field in question. The second quantization of quantum field theory requires that each such ball-spring combination be quantized, that is, that the strength of the field be quantized at each point in space. At the most basic level, the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, and its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. However, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure, so all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 15:12 GMT

Albion

thank you very much for your comment. In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force exerted between separate objects due to resonance of vacuum energy in the intervening space between the objects. Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field. In cosmology, the zero-point energy offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive values of the proposed cosmological constant. In brief, if the energy is "really there", then it should exert a gravitational force. In general relativity, mass and energy are equivalent; both produce a gravitational field. One obvious difficulty with this association is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is absurdly large. Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is handled. It is also arguable that undiscovered physics relevant at the Planck scale reduces or eliminates the energy of waves shorter than the Planck length, making the total zero-point energy finite. If you review my equivalence principle, you will find it is more comprehensive than Einstein equivalence principle. My equivalence principle, it depending on the difference of the vacuum energy of the observer locally stationary, and the vacuum energy in which the experiment is done. This difference is may be negative, or positive. this difference is depending on the difference of temperature, pressure, and the effective density. Most of the experiments regarded to quantum tunneling and entanglements are performed in a very low temperature, comparing to the lab temperature and this case is studied in my MSRT, where in this case the difference of the vacuum energy is negative, where in my MSRT this difference is representing to the Lorentz factor (gama) in relativity, and according to my MSRT, it is producing to measure the speed of light or particle faster than light in vacuum depending to the measured distance and time, but there is no violation to the Lorentz transformation or causality and the speed of light is not broken locally According to my MSRT.

report post as inappropriate

Roger Schlafly wrote on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 19:27 GMT

You seem to be saying that special relativity is wrong. Is there some experiment that can be done to prove that special relativity is wrong?

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 22:58 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 05:58 GMT

Azzam/Roger

Except that, it is best to follow what Einstein defined SR as:

Einstein SR & GR 1916 section 18:

“…the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion… Up to the present, however… provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion…The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion”.

Einstein Foundation of GR 1916 section 3:

“…But we wish to show that we are to abandon it and in general to replace it by more general conceptions in order to be able to work out thoroughly the postulate of general relativity, the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation”

Einstein SR & GR 1916 section 28:

“The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of isolated material points holds relatively to it… In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity”

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 23:24 GMT

Roger

I'm posting my theory to proof not I'm right, but to proof I'm wrong. I have been 18 years living in a conflect with myself if I'm right or wrong. I remember the seminar that I had done and told my teacher it can be measuring light speed greater than light speed in vacuum for the particles or light beam. and this measured speed is not real but depending on the measured time separation of the event. and according to that as it is exited time dilation, it must exist time contraction, that means if a reaction performed in a time separation t according to my clock, then according to my theory in some physical situations it could be performed in t' according to my clock where t' less t. The latest OPERA experiment is proofing what I proposed in 1996. Also all the experiments regarded to quantum tunneling and entanglement. I'm seriously need a serious discussion here, not proof I'm right but I'm wrong to know the right.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 23:34 GMT

Paul

I have a serious question in response to your previous comments. If I transformed as a light beam with rest mass zero. How can I see the world and the natural laws working? Will I see the electrons are distributed around the nucleus according to quantum theory and according to the probability of quantum. Will Heisenberg uncertainty principle applied for me in this case. And if I did an event while I'm a light beam, will this event throw to past and then I live another event and the other will throw to past as I see now in my mass world. As a light beam how can I see the motion of the clock (time)?

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT

Azzam

I am not sure I understand your question as written. So I will make a few points in response and then you can come back, rather than just asking you to repeat the question.

Light is some form of physical effect. It results from a physical interaction. Sensory systems have evolved to utilise this. That is, the physical entity light, has acquired a functional role in the sensory process. But this does not alter its physically existent properties, and as such, it is just something that is moving, just like every other something. And as such we need to understand how it works. Whether you, or any other organism can ‘see’ something is irrelevant, it is still occurring. And what happens to any given physically existent light is also irrelevant, because light is not the reality (it is, of itself, a reality because it is existent). That light is, from the perspective of the sight sensory system, a representation of the reality.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty can only apply to the sensing of reality, there is no form of uncertainty in reality. It occurred, and to do so involves certainty, whether we can define that is irrelevant. Whether what did occur was ‘random’ when compared to what occurred previously, is also irrelevant. Randomness is a certain form of relationship, it does not mean something strange has happened, or that the organism sensing the event had any input, which could not happen.

[Incidentally, time is not a clock, everything is a clock, because everything is changing. But I do not want to go down that road here]

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 06:40 GMT

Azzam

Ah, looking at the posts above, it might be worth me adding a supplementary to that post.

Light always starts at the same speed, because it is the result of an atomic interaction, not a collision. It will continue to travel at that speed unless impinged upon, just like anything else. As it is a physically existent entity in its own right (ie forget its function in sight), this speed is independent of other things, again, just like everything else. This is what constancy is about.

Now, when it comes to calibrating that speed, then some reference must be utilised. It can be any reference, but once chosen that reference must be maintained so that comparison can ensue. This applies to any such attribute, ie colour, texture, etc, etc. By definition, when we say something is X, that involves a reference. So, the calibrated speed of any given light will be a function of what reference was chosen. It is something travelling, just like a bird, the Andromeda Galaxy, St Pauls cathedral, whatever. The practicalities of doing this are another matter, our inabilities do not change reality as it occurs.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 07:15 GMT

Director General-the Science Center for Studies and Research,

isn't this a title rather than a bio?

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT

Eckard

Yes you are right! I'm a Palestinian-US citizenship. I'm graduated from Applied Science university in Amman-Jordan in 1997. In 2000-2003 I worked as a Director in the Scientific Committee in the PNA, and after that the director general for The Science Center for Studies and Research.I'm an independent physics researcher from 1996 till now.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 01:55 GMT

Paul

In my theory, I do not say that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, but it is needed some modification to match up with the quantum theory. In order to distinguish between reality and the knowledge of the reality, we must understand that within the concept of quantum theory and the modified relativity. There is an important question for Einstein, which is; how the world will be seen by me if I was riding a ray of light? According to the relativity theory of Einstein, if the light beam is transfromed from point A to Point B separated by distance, then for the light ray itself, the light will pass the two points A&B at the same time, also, if the distance between the two points is equal to infinity, and also if there are infinity number of points separated by distance, the light ray will pass all the points at the same time. That means for light beam itself, there is no past or future, it is existed only present. So if I'm a light ray, I'll find all the information of the history of my life (past and future) are existed with me at the same present, where, there is no past or future. Since the light is an energy has a rest mass equals to zero, and according to the relativity equation E=mc^2, mass and energy are equivalent. And Since according to relativity the information are received to me in my mass world by the speed of light in vacuum, that means, all the history of my life is existed as a present in the state in which the light is exited. This state I called it (infinity state), it is the state of pure energy. Mass is created from energy, and by mass it is created what are called space, time, past and future. The reality is exited in the infinity state, and the knowledge of the reality is transforming the information from the infinity state to be lived by me in my mass world. This process is describe by what is called in quantum the wavefunction. My future in my mass world is defined by the probability in quantum, and my past is defined by the collapse of the wavefunction. The light speed in vacuum which is equal to 3.0x10^8 m/s is not related to the light itself, but is related to transforming the information from the infinity state to my mass world through the space-time that is created by mass....why? because for the light itself, it is transformed from point to point at the same time (in a zero time separation), that is equivalent according to my calculation in my mass world, that the light beam for itself, is moving with speed equals to infinity. But what I'm seeing in my mass world, it is moving with speed 3.0x10^8 m/s which is related to the speed I measure to the information to be transformed from infinity state through the space-time that is created by my mass to be received in my mass world.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT

Azzam

“In my theory, I do not say that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong”

The point in my post above was that if people are discussing SR then it is best to discuss what it was, not what it has been interpreted as being. And who better to tell you what it fundamentally entailed, than the man himself, hence my set of quotes.

“how the world will be seen by me if I was riding a ray of light?” Answer: logically, exactly the same as if you were riding a horse. The various lights (remember light is a specific physically existent entity) that you would receive in order to ‘see’ the world are just the same in both circumstances. But you just have a practical problem(!), because you are travelling at more or less the same speed as them. So, which lights you would actually receive, ie be in the line of travel with and be at the same spatial position at the same point in time, depends on environmental conditions within which each physically existent light travels, and the direction of travel. BUT the one possible variable to be thrown into this mix, according to Lorentz/Einstein, is that matter alters dimension when subjected to a differential force, which also causes changing momentum whilst it is occurring (ie it is accelerating or de-celerating).

In 1905 Einstein stated that light is always the same speed irrespective of its source speed, and in vaccuo travelled at a constant speed. Both these statements are physically correct. His theory was about the electrodynamics of moving bodies, not the observation thereof. Frame of reference is about the reference used, and there must always be one, to effect a judgement, because everything is relative, movement, colour, texture, heat, noise level, etc, etc, etc. It was not about observation.

I am not sure that what you say is “According to the relativity theory of Einstein”. But what I can say is that any given physically existent light cannot “pass all the points at the same time”. It is a physical entity (an effect in photons), so it travels (how and why is another issue) just like anything else. Its present will constitute its specific physically existent state at any chosen point in time, just like anything else. So you will not “find all the information of the history of my life …” Indeed, in one example of light, you will discover very little. It takes vast numbers of light from any given source and then there are vast numbers of sources, for us to make even some sense of anything. And of course many examples of light never find an observer, they hit brick walls first, or they have still to get here.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 13:25 GMT

Paul

There is a difference between, If I'm a system of rest mass greater than zero less than infinity riding a ray of light or moving with speed very approach to the speed of light in vacuum. In this case, I'll see the events as I'm riding the horse. But if all of my rest mass is transformed to energy, according to Einstein’s equation E=mc^2, in this case I'll find all of my life information existed for me at the same present, and thus there is no past or future. In relativity, for the light itself, the ray of light can exist in infinity number of points separated by distance at the same time, and that well known in SR. And if we develop this concept, that means, for the light itself, there is no past or future, there exists a present only. And since in relativity, any information that I receive, is transformed to me by the light speed, and since the light is energy, thus, if all of my rest mass transformed to energy I’ll find all of my life history existed as a present, and there is no past or future. For the light itself the space-time length is equal to zero. What is drawn around me, space-time is drawn related to my mass which is greater than zero, and causing the space-time length greater than zero. Thus the speed of light 3x10^8m/s that I measured in my mass world depending on the space-time length that is drawn around my mass is related to my mass not to the light itself. It the speed of transforming the information through the space-time into my mass world. In my theory, I proof also as in SR, the light speed is locally constant for any frame of reference, also, the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames of reference same as in SR. In my theory the light itself is an entity same as the neutrino, but, what is different, is the mass of the light is zero, and the neutrino has a rest mass greater than zero. If I want to get information related to light or the neutrino, I must get it by the light speed, not by the light itself. The mechanism that the information transforming into my mass world according to my theory and the laws of quantum theory is illustrating the meaning of the wave- particle duality.

If you review carefully my theory in FQXI contest, you will find how my theory is unifying between quantum and relativity in concepts, principles and laws.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 08:55 GMT

Azzam

I do not want to get involved in notions of mass, etc, because I do not understand it. All I can say is what I have said. And in this context you are conflating ‘seeing’ with light. Light is just another physical entity. It just so happens that with the evolution of sensory systems it has acquired a functional role in the sensory process known as sight, that is, it gathers and conveys a representation of the reality to. Seeing only results if an eye is the point of interaction, ie the line of travel of light and eye coalesce. Many lights hit brick walls, etc, or ears, or travel in space, but the failure to realise them does not change their physical existence. What does or does not happen to mass/energy, is irrelevant. If you, as an entity that can utilise light (ie see), are travelling at the speed of light, then leaving aside other effects(!) all that happens is that many lights will not ‘catch up’ with you, or your lines of travel will not cross so often because you are going at such a speed. And any given light only has a specific piece of ‘information’.

Re SR, I have already commented on this, and would bring your attention to my response today in James’ blog. Though this is something I have said many times, including to you. I would also stress that this is not James personally, this is an urban myth, that keeps being repeated. I mean, I am not sure how one argues against how Einstein defined his own theory!! Indeed, whilst you are at it, forget spacetime, because this is nonsense as a model of reality, there are not just 3 spatial dimensions, and there is no such thing as time.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 01:06 GMT

Paul,

Leave me and my name out of your incorrect messages:

Paul: "I would also stress that this is not James personally, this is an urban myth, that keeps being repeated. I mean, I am not sure how one argues against how Einstein defined his own theory!!"

Special relativity includes and depends inescapably upon length contraction and time dilation.

You do not understand the meanings of the words in the quotes that you use. You are misrepresenting the meaning of Einstein's words. You are not understanding Lorentz's words. Either return with the correct meaning of 'normal' in your Lorentz quote or stop using my name or offering your incorrect teachings to me. Please learn for a change.

James

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 05:47 GMT

James

I was not using your name, I was referring Azzam across to a post in your blog. Indeed, I also added, as you point out, that this is a commonly held view, ie that SR involves length contraction and time dilation; that is it is not yours personally.

Obviously, if I "do not understand the meaning of the words in the quotes", this implies you do, and are therefore able to countermand what Einstein actually said SR involved. That would be a useful response in your blog, rather than keep asserting I do not know what I am talking about.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT

Paul

In my theory http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 Light speed variable when passing through the gravitational field depending on the radius r from the center of mass. Schwarzschild geometry illustrating that. Same as when the light beam passing through a tube of length L full of water, the light speed will be decreased for the lab observer. That is because according to my theory vacuum energy of tube full of water will be greater than the vacuum of our laboratory. In my theory what is determining the speed of light is the space-time that is drawn by the field or the vacuum energy. In the case the light beam passing through the water, it is passing through a uniform field for the lab. observer. But in the case of the gravitational field, it not uniform, it is depending on the radius r from the center of mass. Relative to a train moving with constant speed, in this case when the light beam passing through moving train, in this case for the stationary earth observe, the light speed is passing through higher vacuum energy than the earth and thus the speed of light will decreased inside the train and measured to be c'=(c^2-v^2)^0.5 for the earth observer depending on L/t, where L is the length of the train, and t is the time measured by the earth observer by his clock for the light to pass the length of the train. c' here doesn't depend on the direction of transmitting the light beam comparing to the direction of the velocity, and the length of the train during the motion for the earth observer is L same as if it is stationary. Now if the earth observer has an empty tube of length L and he cooled the tube to temperature -237C degree. In this case and according to my equivalence principle, the vacuum energy of the tube is less than the vacuum energy of the lab observer. That is equivalent to as the lab observer is moving with uniform speed v relative to the tube. Remember, in my theory, the light speed is locally constant and equals to c, the speed of light in vacuum. In my modified relativity theory we have got the lost key to unify between quantum and relativity, and by that I could interpret quantum tunneling and entanglement and what is the meaning of faster than light and my interpretation is agreed with the latest experimental results in quantum. Also my interpretation is applied on faster than light relative to the wormholes in general relativity, which is the same interpretation as in quantum.

in my theory as measuring light speed in a higher vacuum energy to less than the speed of light in vacuum, that lead to refractive index greater than 1. but in the case of measuring the light speed in a less vacuum energy to be greater than light speed in vacuum, the lead to refractive index to be less than 1. I agree with that principle, But in my theory in the case of measuring the refractive index less than one. there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 00:55 GMT

Please learn how to use the link help page. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 00:56 GMT

one more will fix it.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 00:16 GMT

Paul

According to quantum theory the information is transformed to us by the wave function. and the collapse of the wave function meaning receiving the information in real. How can we coincide this concept with the concept of relativity that the information is transformed to us by light? the wave function is not a material wave. it is not moving through the space-time with the speed of light. In physics the wave-function is meaningless, but the square of the wave-function represent the probability.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 06:13 GMT

Azzam

I find I am unable to respond with anything different to the post above this. In respect of this one, the point here, in very simple language, is that both are based on faulty logic, ie they are philosophically rather than physically based when it comes to defining how physical reality occurs.

We are aware (ie see) because an entity known as light is created as a result of interaction with the reality. That ceases to exist, if and when it interacts with an eye. Alternatively, it may of course have hit a brick wall en route, or gone in another direction. That is what physically happens, in respect of sight, then there is hearing, etc, etc, all of which have the same functional logic. Other elementary particles, etc also ‘hit’ us during their travel. But so what? All that has happened is that certain sensory systems have developed which can utilise certain physical phenomena. The reality does not alter as a result of being sensed, indeed it is not the reality that is sensed, and anyway, that reality has ceased to exist by the time it is sensed. Which brings into question certain statements which only work on the basis of a presumption to the contrary

Paul.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT

James

In March 2010 researchers at UC Santa Barbara have provided the first clear demonstration that the theory of quantum mechanics applies to the mechanical motion of an object large enough to be seen by the naked eye. In a related experiment, they placed the mechanical resonator in a quantum superposition, a state in which it simultaneously had zero and one quantum of excitation. This is the energetic equivalent of an object being in two places at the same time. The researchers showed that the resonator again behaved as expected by quantum theory. From this experiment we can conclude that the theory that governs the micro and macro world must be same.

[Ref: Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2010.130]

If we try to interpret this experiment according to Einstein’s SR, we found it impossible existing a particle in two states at the same time for example (a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time). I think this experiment is agreed exactly with what I proposed in my MSRT. In my MSRT equivalence principle (in the case of the particle located in a negative vacuum energy relative to an observer located in a higher vacuum energy , it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously. Through a phenomenon known as 'superposition' a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time — at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions. This force which is applied on the particle is produced by transforming the particle from the less vacuum energy to the higher vacuum energy of the observer existed in, as I explained in my theory.

If you review this experiment, you will find this experiment was done in a very low temperature, that produced a less vacuum energy compared to the lab vacuum energy.

report post as inappropriate

Tony Salem wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT

Dear Azam Almosalami,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your new paper which do agree with the reality and consistence with the present time. On the other hand, luckily your paper contradicts with few old papers, this thing helps me as interested in understanding the fact of physics science. Mr Azam i wish u all the best and go a head towards sustainability and innovation.

Yours,

Tony Salem

Malaysia

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 10:21 GMT

Tony

Thank you very much for comment. I appreciate that,and I hope we success in order to solve unsolved problem in physics.

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 20:48 GMT

Azzam

The concepts of Zero Point Energy, and mass-space-time dilation are described in detailed mathematical descriptions in my paper -"From Absurd to Elegant Universe" posted today in this forum. Many of the discussions in this thread are addressed in the paper.

Thanks

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT

Dear Avtar,

Your paper is very interesting, I agree with you with many points. Specially Eq(4) in your paper. Please review my paper http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Rela
tivity%20Theory/Download/2310

In my previous paper I used the same equation in order to express about the quantized inertial force and thus expressing about the relativistic quantized gravitational force. in my paper when a particle existed in a gravitational field, apart of the mass of the particle will be changed into energy, this energy is let the particle to be fallen down. The relativistic mass during the particle is falling down is always equal to the rest mass of the particle. This amount of energy is equal to the escape velocity.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT

Dear Azzam,

the beginning of your essay is very beautiful indeed. You describe emotions to which I can strongly relate. I have a great many photographs of my children, taken over many years, because at each age I have wanted to stop time and keep them as perfect and lovely as they are; as well as wanting to capture moments of joy in their lives so that they can remember it when they are older.

I really like your very clear descriptions and the way in which you have described a wave function becoming a thought.It carried me along very gently to the mathematics. Unfortunately I don't find the mathematical descriptions easy to follow, though I am sure there are many readers who will. That is my shortcoming not your essay's.I'm sorry I lack the ability to give a useful critique of the mathematical parts of your essay.

I was surprised that there was no verbal summary or conclusion at the end to balance the fine introduction. I asked my daughter, who is a keen amateur writer, for her opinion. She said that perhaps you had given or had built towards a profound mathematical conclusion that we just didn't understand or appreciate.Good luck in the competition.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 23:49 GMT

Dear Georgina

thank you very much that you read my essay, I really appreciate that and I'm very happy. While I wrote my essay for FQXI, I was restricted to write it in 9 pages. That was not enough for me to explain my thoughts in 9 pages, specially I discuss the most important theories in physics quantum and relativity, and their related experiments results. what I wrote in FQXI is considered as a brief statement to my theory. See my work in

http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001

http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002

http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0050

Or you can choose

http://vixra.org/author/azzam_almosallami

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 00:14 GMT

Dear Georgina,

You told me that you had a great many photographs of your children, taken over many years. Can I ask you a question? These pictures were taken by you in the past, where they were once a time a present that you were living. Where do you think these moments were gone. Are they gone forever or they are still existed in some place? If they are gone forever, and each moment that I'm living now leaving me to past suddenly, so, all my life is considered as a past, and all my life will gone away forever, so where can I find myself if I can't catch my present, am I a past? is that logic?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 01:34 GMT

Dear Azzam,

you ask an interesting question. This is my veiwpoint. Our bodies are structures which might be thought of as arrangements of atoms or even sub atomic particles. That structure is always undergoing change. Some of those changes are the metabolic activity of being alive, including growth and repair, and others can be regarded as ageing. Such as glycolysis of proteins, free radical damage, telomere shortening, loss of skin collagen and hair pigmentation.

According to the explanatory framework, shown in my essay, each new arrangement replaces the previous. There is only the youngest iteration of the universe. Due to the deleterious changes that can occur to a biological organism, as well as positive growth and repair, with each new iteration I am growing older.Repair is not keeping pace with damage. There is no younger me still in existence in the universe. The me I am in this moment will also be replaced by me in the next. Individual blood cells will be in different places, some cells will have died and new ones will have been formed by cell division. I am not a perfect thing that is unchanging but part of everything in the universe undergoing continual change (whether in form or just in universal position).

What does persist after change has occurred is data that can be processed to form output via the sensory system or artificial detector or sensitive material. That data could be EM radiation in the environment, so a distant observer might percieve an image of me as I was in an earlier iteration of the universe; or the arrangement of pigments on a piece of paper giving a likeness of my former self (photo). Similarly images might persist as a memory, encoded within the neurological structure of an observer.

As you can see from diagram 1. There is no "existing" past other than in records and memories- and pre-written futures that have the potential to become a present experience but are the data generated from former events.That sounds a little complicated because it is a break from our traditional view of the differentiation between past, present and future. However it does allow the paradoxes of relativity and the philosophical red hat problems I discussed to be overcome. You question does make sense to me. There is no you as a fixed and unchanging entity. Nor are you all that you have been spread within a space-time continuum. As a physical presence in the universe you are only what you are in the uni-temporal- Now of Object reality, (preceding the observed present).

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 06:49 GMT

Correction- I should have said glycosylation not glycolysis. The first can be detrimental cross linking of proteins and the other a helpful part of metabolism supplying a source of energy.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina parry replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 11:29 GMT

Link to information on Various theories of ageing

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 23:30 GMT

Dear Georgina,

I'm really very interesting with your comments. What you are introducing is not giving us a complete answer relative to the meaning of the reality. For example, the time dialtion. Let's study this example regarded to time dilation in order to understand what I mean. Sally and Sara are twins of old 20 years. Sally traveled by his spacecraft for space trip. The speed of the spacecraft

was constant and equals to 0.87c. Sally returned to earth after 2 years according to her clock time. Now, according to the special relativity theory SRT, when Sally returned to earth, her old would be 22, while she would find Sara’s old 24 years. Sara would be older than Sally by 2 years, although they are twins. According to SRT, time in the moving frame of Sally will move slower than Sara’s frame on the earth surface. And since Sara and Sally are

computing their old using the motion of their clocks, thus, the motion of the clock of Sally will move in a slower rate than Sara’s clock. Georgina! now as you see from this exampale relative to time dialtion, although Sally and Sara are twins, but when Sally returned from her trip she was younger than Sara. As we know what causing the ageing the chemical and biological reactions inside the human body. But in this example relative to the time dilation there is a theory more comprehensive that controls these reactions inside the human body and by this theory the reactions inside Sally's body were perfomed in a slower rate than Sara's body, and by that Sally was younger than Sara not by the number of years, but also by the form of her body to be of age 22 years not 24 years as Sara's form of old 24. We are looking for this comprehensive theory which controls the motion of events through the spacetime. These events may be chemical or biological reactions, or any moment of feeling in love, hate or pain...etc.

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 23:48 GMT

Georgina,

The results produced by my modified special relativity theory are in agreement with the results produced by quantum tunneling experiments and thus it explains theoretically what occurs in quantum tunneling. It proves the events inside the tunneling barrier should occur at a faster rate than the usual situation in the laboratory. It provides a new concept of time speedup which is not existed in special relativity theory. The concept of time speeding up in my theory is proven by many experiments, where some enzymes operate kinetically, much faster than predicted by the classical Delta(G) . In "through the barrier" models, a proton or an electron can tunnel through activation barriers. Quantum tunneling for protons has been observed in tryptamine oxidation by aromatic amine dehydrogenase. Also British scientists have found that enzymes cheat time and space by quantum tunneling - a much faster way of traveling than the classical way - but whether or not perplexing quantum theories can be applied to the biological world is still hotly debated. Until now, no one knew just how the enzymes speed up the reactions, which in some cases are up to a staggering million times faster. Seed Magazine published a fascinating article about a group of researchers who discovered a bit more about how enzymes use quantum tunneling to speed up chemical reactions. The modified special relativity theory answers all the preceding questions, and the answer is existed in the developed concept of time dilation in MSRT. As you see in my previous example, when Sally returned to earth she was younger than Sara although they are twins...right? that means when Sally returned to earth, her old increased 2 years, while Sara’s old increased 4 years, that means for Sally, she had known what is the form of Sara after 4 years on the earth from the moment of the leaving the earth in a time separation of 2 years according to Sally’s time. Thus from that for Sally to Sara time is contracted. Suppose both of Sally and Sara are agreed to perform a chemical reaction, each one will do the same reaction in her reference frame at the moment of Sally leaving the earth. This reaction required a time separation 4 years to be performed. Now when Sally returned to earth after 2 years according to her time, the reaction would not be performed in her spacecraft, it is required other 2 years to be performed. But the reaction was performed on the earth, because the passed time on the earth was 4 years. Sally would know the result of the reaction which required a time separation 4 years to be performed in a time separation 2 years.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT

Dear Azzam ,

thank you for your explanations 23.30 and 23.48 GMT.

I agree that when considering the age of a person it should be regarded as more than a clock time or date on the calendar. Biological age is to do with maintenance of the body rather than just its duration as an object. Two people of the same calender age can have significantly different biological ages if they have lived under significantly different circumstances, or have made very different lifestyle choices impacting upon their health.

I don't think that a reaction occurring faster is time speeding up. Passage of time is something different from rates of different kinds of activity.I don't think a "time tunnel" is required to avoid energetic barriers. Its like saying the pole vaulter quantum tunnelled when he walks around the obstacle rather than leaping over it. Who said leaping was the only way to get past the barrier.Facilitating the least energetically demanding means of carrying out processes is advantageous to biological organisms and therefore has a positive selection pressure. Enzymes do that task.

When sally returned to the Earth she was probably much older because of bone loss, muscle wastage, radiation damage to her cells and eyes. The damage to her body is occurring faster under those conditions compared to on the Earth, where there are lower radiation levels and gravity to maintain bone density and muscle mass. It seems to me wrong to say that she is younger because other different chemical reactions are not progressing as fast.As you are aware for fair comparisons to be made all of the conditions must be the same except the one under investigation.

You will see in my essay that there is differentiation between objects that exist independently of observation , data in the environment produced from interaction with the object, and the images produced from processing of the data. The output image from data processing, of a clock's time is irrelevant to what the clock object is doing unobserved. It is not the output images that are controlling time but what is happening in Object reality, the actual changes to the material objects and media.

I think the twins paradox is a misuse of the theory. Assuming the distant observers subjective reality, formed from the data from former events.. processed into a present experience, actually exists out in space.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you even though I am sure you have given a lot of thought to your theory and it may well do all that you say. I have appreciated hearing your point of view. I too have given a lot of thought to the subject of time and, as I see it, it is only the output Image reality, emergent reality, that has a flexible time dimension not the independent Object reality, the realm of the actual atoms and particles.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 21:10 GMT

Dear Georgina,

Time dilation is verified experimentally.

* Ives and Stilwell (1938, 1941). The stated purpose of these experiments was to verify the time dilation effect, predicted by Lamor-Lorentz ether theory, due to motion through the ether using Einstein's suggestion that Doppler effect in canal rays would provide a suitable experiment. These experiments measured the Doppler shift of the radiation emitted from cathode rays, when viewed from directly in front and from directly behind. The high and low frequencies detected were not the classical values predicted.

* Rossi and Hall (1941) compared the population of cosmic-ray-produced muons at the top of a mountain to that observed at sea level. Although the travel time for the muons from the top of the mountain to the base is several muon half-lives, the muon sample at the base was only moderately reduced. This is explained by the time dilation attributed to their high speed relative to the experimenters. That is to say, the muons were decaying about 10 times slower than if they were at rest with respect to the experimenters.

* Hasselkamp, Mondry, and Scharmann (1979) measured the Doppler shift from a source moving at right angles to the line of sight (the transverse Doppler shift).

* In 1959 Robert Pound and Glen A. Rebka measured the very slight gravitational red shift in the frequency of light emitted at a lower height, where Earth's gravitational field is relatively more intense. The results were within 10% of the predictions of general relativity. Later Pound and Snider (in 1964) derived an even closer result of 1%. This effect is as predicted by gravitational time dilation.

* In 2010 gravitational time dilation was measured at the Earth's surface with a height difference of only one meter, using optical atomic clocks.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 22:13 GMT

Dear Georgina,

So, since time dilation is verified experimentally, and as I explained to you in my example relative to Sara and Sally. In my example, it is illustrated, as time is slowing down in Sally's frame compared to Sara's frame. Thus for Sally, time is speeding up in Sara's frame compared to Sally, and that is illustrated for Sally when she returned to earth and found Sara's old 24 years, not 22 as her old.

Quantum tunneling and entanglement experiments are performed in a very low temperatures. That causing the vacuum energy of the medium that the experiment done in to be negative compared to our lab vacuum energy. This is leading to the events to be occurred in a faster rate than the same events if done in the medium of our lab. In the quantum computers, they using the quantum entanglement in a very low temperature and because of that they perform the processes faster than our normal computers, and then we get the result in the quantum computers in a less time separation according to our time. according to that we think information are processed in a faster than light speed in vacuum. same as what happened in Opera experiment, and the problem was in the measuring of time as they discovered lately. In my theory in the case of faster than light there is no violation for Lorentz transformation or causality. and according to that I proof in my theory there is not particles named Tachyons. Tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light, and was coined by Gerald Feinberg in a 1967 paper. Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light, but instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation. Nevertheless, they are still commonly known as "tachyons", and have come to play an important role in modern physics.

Most physicists think that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics. If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.Potentially consistent theories that allow faster-than-light particles include those that break Lorentz invariance, the symmetry underlying special relativity, so that the speed of light is not a barrier.

Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence had been found. So my theory illustrates what is meaning of faster than light without the proposed particles Tachyons. and the results of my theory agreed with the experimental results of the high energy physics and the elementary particles.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (7 not shown)

Azzam Almosallami wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 00:14 GMT

Dear Georgina,

There a fascinating result of my MSRT. From the previous example, suppose we have a virus, where it performs a transform each 40 years. If we would like to know what form this virus will take place after 40 years, we should make a tunneling barrier of gama =1262304000 (gama here is the lorentz factor in special relativity and according to my theory it depends on the difference of the vacuum energy of my laboratory and the vacuum energy of the barrier, where this difference is negative, where the barrier has a negative vacuum energy. This difference can be evaluated by quantum field theory).

Now when we put this virus inside the barrier, we would get the form this virus would be taken after 40 years in 1 second according to our time. The time passed inside the barrier would be 40 years according to a clock inside, while the time passed according to our clock is 1 second.

report post as inappropriate

M.jack wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT

Azzam Almosallami

You have very excited theory unifying between quantum and relativity in concepts and principles and laws. I agreed with you more than Relativity theory of Einstein. I hope scientists take your theory into account seriously

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 13:09 GMT

Dear All,

This is new test by CERN attacks the existence of dark matter which is agreed with what I proposed in order to unify between quantum and relativity. In my solution to the Pioneer anomaly http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 which is depending on the modified GR and MSRT. I found there is no dark matter or dark energy, it is something like refractive index. Hubble's law can be interpreted by my MGRT and MSRT. I hope to discuss relative to this new test which is good proof to the consistency of my theory which is posted here in FQXi

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 13:11 GMT

This is the link of the the test made by CERN http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/07/new-cern-tests-
attack-the-existence-of-dark-matter-.html

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 04:40 GMT

Marhaba=Hi Azzam

I read your paper and enjoyed the warm personal anecdote in the beginning. However I find that to comment intelligently on it I will have to think about SR in more detail, and think about it and your essay more analytically. In general I can say that you emphasize the role of the observer, which is in line with Einstein's SR, but you derive a different SR.

In my Beautiful Universe Theory which is the basis of my fqxi essay Fix Physics! I emphasize a new starting point of an absolute Universe with no time dimension. In other words I envisage a universal State evolving whether we observe it or not. When we do observe it (as opposed to analyze it as a model) the relativity of Lorentz comes into play. But I do not think superluminal speeds of light exist or can be measured, but I will have to study more about what you say about tunneling.

Wishing you the best in your researches,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT

Dear Azzam

I thank you for your message. You seem confident of your theory and I will have to understand better what you are saying. Unfortunately my brain works very slowly and it is hard for me to change ideas about that I have acquired and built up gradually over the years, so do not blame yourself if I am not understanding exactly how your theory differs from SR. I do understand the concept of vacuum energy playing an important role in the speed of light, but not in how this allows superluminal speeds. Do not worry, it is good to think about these things and communicate with people from around the world - experts, or like me, dreamers.

Best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 13:29 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you very much for your massage. Today I posted my new paper "The MSRT, The Interpretation of the Lorentz transformation Equations, Faster than Light and The Cherenkov Radiation" http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018 . In this paper I illustrate how the Lorentz transformation equation can be derived according to my MSRT, and then keeping the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. I also proof, the Lorentz factor in SR is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. Thus it is solving the problem related to GR if the light beam is bending by gravity or refracted. According to my MGRT according to MSRT I reached to the exact solution of the unsolved problem to the Pioneer anomaly, furthermore it is introducing new interpretation for the Hubble's law which is agreed with quantum field theory regarded to vacuum. In my MSRT in the case of faster than light, there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality as it is confirmed by quantum tunneling or entanglement, or by the concept of wormholes in Schwartzschild Geometry. If you review my MSRT you will find every think regarded to the contradiction between quantum and relativity is solved

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 13:31 GMT

My new paper "The MSRT, the Interpretation of the Lorentz Transformation Equations, Faster Than Light and the Cherenkov Radiation"

attachments: Cherenkov_radiation.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 14:14 GMT

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman and Shan Gao,

Edwin is right. Superposition of wave function associated with different objects leads us to observe them. In PicoPhysics this issue is integrated with action at distance and concept of exchange particle as the mode of interaction between objects. PicoPhysics view on the subject (Though discussed at stage 3 – only stage 1 is available at...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 00:19 GMT

Dear Fqxi community,

Please, review this movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2mZ8bNEXcY

then you compare how my MSRT is interpreting all questions regarded to faster than light in quantum and wormholes. then review my other paper http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

I think what is questioned in the movie is answered in my MSRT. My aim in participating in FQXI contest is not to win the prize, But to understand real physics and real relativity and quantum.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 01:24 GMT

Dear FQXI community,

My interpretation to twins paradox in SRT is different from Einstein, which is depending on the concept of the speed of connections, or the transmitting of the information elements. Also my interpretation of length contraction is different. If you review this interpretation which I used to interpret faster than light, it is the same principle which is adopted by Joao Magueijo relative to the variability of the speed of light and faster than light. According to my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018 Einstein is right in some cases, also Joao Magueijo is right. I hope you study my paper seriously, I'm sure everything is solved in physics according to my theory.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 16:16 GMT

Azzam

Lorentz factor equivalent to refractive index, simply brilliant, (I know it must be of course as it agrees entirely with the relevant parts of my own essay!).

Excellent Essay, and I hope you will agree mine is too. Be warned it is crammed in very densely, but I think and hope you may also find the answer to some of your questions there, or 'rational completion of some of your concepts'.

Faster than light is implicit, but in a new class of 'apparent' for all observers not using 'Proper Time'. Real and Local gives CSL.

Do please advise if you extract the kinetic ontology, it is clear many have skimmed over and missed it's very important implications.

Best of luck in the competition, but more importantly in the quest for truth.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 16:41 GMT

Azzam

That was me!

Peter J

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 22:31 GMT

Dear Peter J,

Thank you very much for your comment. I really appreciate that. Relative to "Lorentz factor equivalent to refractive index", you can imagine any vacuum or medium has an energy, which is known in quantum field theory (vacuum energy). For water this energy will be higher than the free space. In the case of the gravitational field this energy will be higher than the free space. The Lorentz factor or the refractive index is depending on the difference of this energy. This difference may be negative. For example in the case of Casimir effect. In this case, the vacuum energy between the two metallic plates is less than outside according to the boundary conditions of the quantum theory. This difference between the vacuum energies (outside and inside) will lead to the two plates to approach to each other, where there is a force applied on the two plates from outside to inside. Now, if there is an observer outside keeps the distance between the two plates to be constant although this applied Casimir–Polder force, and if this observer sent a ray of light between the distance of the two plates. Now if this observer measured the time separation for the light beam to pass the distance between the two plates, he will find this measured time separation is less than required time separation for the light beam to pass the same distance in free space. Thus the observe will think the light beam passed the distance between the two plates in faster than light speed in vacuum, and thus he measure a refractive index between the two plates less than 1. According to my MSRT, for an observer inside the two plates the light beam is not exceeding the light speed in vacuum. But events between the two plates are occurring in a faster rate than outside, thus the light beam will pass the distance between the two plates for the observer inside before the observer outside seeing the light beam passing the whole distance (see my interpretation of the length contraction). Also the clocks inside will move in a faster rate than the clocks outside See my interpretation of the twins paradox in MSRT). So when the light beam reached the second plate, the observer outside will register a time separation less than a required time separation according to his clock, and thus computing faster than light. According to MSRT in this case the observer outside will see the light beam in two places at the same time as in quantum tunneling. In My MSRT, for the rider of the moving train, the rider is existed in a higher vacuum, than the stationary earth observer, and thus difference of the vacuum energy of the earth surface compared to the moving train vacuum energy of the rider is negative. Thus in the case of Casimir effect, the observer outside is equivalent to move with speed v which is depending on the difference of the vacuum energy between the two palates and outside.

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

Peter J replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT

Azzam

Wow, I got a bit lost in the middle of that, but think I found my way again. Very original, interesting and testing. Worth a good score. I hope you read and find mine so too. It's rather more down to earth than yours but the findings are falsifiable.

The Dynamic Casimir effect is also very interesting and informative, perhaps even more so than the Higgs.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Mohammad Shafiq Khan wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 07:18 GMT

Once the Aristotlean & Einstein's perspective of time is proved wrong then a different perspective of time emerges according to which time is independent of space, time is relative depending upon the motion of the object and time as such could be emergent. This has been done and open challenge put forward to both Aristotlean & Einstein perspective of time. You and all others can see the open challenge on

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=
Display&id=6476&tab=2

and also on

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 12:54 GMT

dear Shafeq,

Thank you very much for your comment. I really appreciate that. I'll read your papers, and I hope to discuss a lot. I really need your criticism about my paper posted here.

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT

This is new experiment that illustrates the validity of my theory relative to the interpretation of quantum entanglement. http://www.zdnet.com/quantum-teleportation-over-143km-smashe
s-distance-record-7000003883/

According to my theory we can apply this experiment not only on photons, but also on particles which own mass greater than zero. On the future I predict we can use quantum tunneling and entanglement for airplanes. It is possible a plane which is required 9 hours to fly from London to New-York, by quantum entanglement and tunneling can fly according to our clocks less than a second. From that the faster than light comes according to my theory. I'm challenging the scientists to proof the inconsistency of my theory.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 22:32 GMT

In the case of faster than light, it proofed experimentally the atomic clocks are moving in a faster rate, and that what I predicted in my theory (time speeding up). In my interpretation in the faster than light, there is violation of causality of Lorentz transformation.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:58 GMT

Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 00:48 GMT

Dear hoang cao hai,

Thank you very much for reading my essay. I really appreciate your comment. I have an answer relative to your previous questions basis on my new theory. Actually, we can't answer your questions in the light of existence the contradiction between the quantum and relativity. But before I give the my answer and then we discuss, Please will you read my two papers

http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002

Before we answer these questions we must understand what is hidden among the Einstein's equation E=mc^2? Why the speed of light is locally constant and equals to C? Is the light speed C (which is 3*10^8 m/s) measured relative to me because I have rest mass greater than zero? What if all of my mass is transformed to photons which own rest mass equals to zero then, how can I see the world? What is the meaning of simultaneity according to that? what is the meaning of motion, and thus the velocity and acceleration and thus the force according to that? then, is the space-time is drawn around me because of my rest mass greater than zero? What is faster than light speed C, and less than light speed C, and how that is related to time dilation and time speeding up, which is proofed experimentally?

I answered all of these questions in my previous papers. I hope to read them. I'm really very eagerness to discuss, and then to understand if the Higgs boson are existed or their effect are exist. In my theory according to my interpretation to faster than light without violation of Lorentz transformation or causality, I proofed Tachyons are not existed.

I'm waiting from you.

Sincerely,

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 05:02 GMT

Azzam

Sorry is too busy should not yet discuss right with you.

The problem you come up with the constant "c" and the formula E = mc2, is the false notion that I have discovered in the course of research on the "speed of light" - if you look at the essays my, you will see it - and unfortunately my new theory (the ABSOLUTE theory) built with independent measures and completely different from the existing concepts, so it is difficult for us to can argue until have one appropriate of results.

The solve the problem in my theory based entirely on fact,as example:

E = mc2 will is how to calculate the energy for a potato or a bread?

Glad to know you.

report post as inappropriate

Loenard S. wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:11 GMT

Dear Azzam

It's great essay! You successed in unifying quantum and relativity in many aspects. Actaully you are the best. But can you explain to me how your theory rejecting the existence of Tachyon particles. I'm trying to unnderstand this point. I wish to hear from you at the nearest time.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:09 GMT

Dear Azzam, I hope you are fine.

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:52 GMT

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is

$R_1$

and

$N_1$

was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have

$S_1=R_1 N_1$

of points. After it anyone give you

$dS$

of points so you have

$S_2=S_1+ dS$

of points and

$N_2=N_1+1$

is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have

$S_2=R_2 N_2$

of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:

$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$

$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$

$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$

In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points

$dS$

then the participant`s rating

$R_1$

was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate