Search FQXi


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

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

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

George Kirakosyan: on 8/7/13 at 21:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Shahdaei My friend Vladimir have advised your essay and I am...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Koorosh, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/7/13 at 19:00pm UTC, wrote I rated your essay in Aug 4, 2013. Motion is everywhere, Duality is...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 8/7/13 at 11:17am UTC, wrote Dear Kooroshб Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 8/5/13 at 1:04am UTC, wrote Dear Amazigh, Interesting point of view, I will read your essay shortly....

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/4/13 at 20:01pm UTC, wrote Dear Kooroch, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 8/1/13 at 12:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Héctor, There are many good articles, I wish I could read them all....

Héctor Gianni: on 7/31/13 at 22:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Koorosh Shahdaei: ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Lorentz symmetry broken by Koorosh Shahdaei [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on May. 30, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

As the concept of symmetry in physics has developed by full swing in the twentieth century, the extension of the concept of continuous symmetry from “global” symmetries to “local” symmetries has been at its heart. The principle of local Lorentz invariance is shared by general relativity and particle physics, which in contemporary sense enwrapping the theory of special relativity, which has been viewed as global. A new evaluation is proposed to manifest that in specific cases Lorentz violation occurs related to special relativity for observers with low velocity in about inertial frames that perform aligned and synchronized observations to frames approaching relativistic velocities. These observers perceive Galilean transformation rather than Lorentz transformation, which disagrees with special relativity and Lorentz symmetry that basically state that the laws of physics look identical to any (local) inertial observer. In other words the outcome of physical experiments observed by different observers contradicts Lorentz symmetry, and there might exist an uncertainty about prediction of events depending on how observations are carried out. Additionally it is concluded that clocks in such frames can be synchronized as no length contraction and time dilation takes place in the mentioned frames which also controvert special relativity. Generally gauge transformation approach is exploited which incorporates with the principal of general relativity with reference to general coordinate transformations in the essence of invariant under continuous reparameterizations of space-time in conjunction with the topological arrangement of events through space time and as well as the additional assumption of general relativity that each infinitesimal small region of space approaches flatness with metrical properties of special relativity. This stand point could also be viewed as incorporation of Lorentz transformation and gauge transformation on the same basis.

Author Bio

Koorosh Shahdaei, MSc. Engineering Physics, Member of Swedish Physical Society.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 08:56 GMT
Koorosh Shahdaei, welcome to the contest with your interesting essay.

I am not sure I have fully understood how your transformation which violates Lorentz symmetry at low velocity works, perhaps you could clarify. Is there a preferred reference frame in the theory?

Also, what does this tell us about "It from Bit or Bit from It?"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 11:17 GMT
Thank you Philip. Indeed, I would also like to thank all involved people for their efforts for arranging the contest for further contribution to science. 

Traditionary, one could define a statinary inertial observer (that observers another inertial frame), furthermore this observer would be allowed to be approximately inertial, and that would for instanse result in a tiny...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 06:53 GMT
Koorosh

Observation does not affect the physical circumstance, it affects the perception thereof. The relevance of relative movement s as follows:

There is always a delay between time of physical existence, and time of observation of that existence, as light has to travel. The duration will vary as a function of the distance involved, and the speed at which any given light travels...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 15:32 GMT
Optical illusion! Any math? Trying to understand your argument, consider an infinitesimal object with length AB, moving with a relativistic speed compared to a stationary observer. Referring to observer's time, at each particular time, light from AB will travel towards the observer simultaneously i.e. a snapshot and this will go on as the object makes displacements at each time. And the assumption is that the physical content and underlying space-time would be the same.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 06:44 GMT
Koorosh

As the object is moving at a different speed, then the spatial relationship of observer and object will alter. So the time taken for light to travel will increase/decrease. If you think of the object in terms of a constant rate of change, in itself, then that rate will appear, to the observer, to alter (ie slow or increase in rate).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 19:53 GMT
Respectfully Mr. Shahdaei,

Michelson and Morley and everybody in the room at the time, completely overlooked two vital facts when they conducted their aether light experiment. Physical fact number 1: When a light is directed toward a mirror, the reflected light automatically assumes enhanced brightness intensity greater than that emitted from the source light. Possible physical fact 2: Although the initial burst of a light from a light source might be correctly assessed to move, once light contacts a surface, light becomes stationary. What they were trying to show was that the aether had an effect on the presumed “speed” of light. What I think they proved was that light is the only substance capable of being still.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 21:02 GMT
Mr. Fisher,

It is more complicated, for instance assuming the light is still, then imagin the like is independent of the source, then when the object emitting the light moves, you would get a fringe shift, did I get you right?

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Respectfully Mr. Shahdaei,

I think we have to distinguish here the difference between fabricated light and natural starlight. When one points an activated flashlight at a flat surface, it is true that one can appear to get an objective illuminated fringe shift if one shakes the flashlight vigorously about. But no star is capable of such peripatetic action. Another important point to keep in mind is whereas fabricated light is quite a recent development, the stars may have been shining natural light eternally.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
Mr. Fisher,

I see your point, but one thing we both can agree on, is that we can't have two sets of physical laws, at least in the same region of our universe. 

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear Koorosh

Although the article shows your enthusiasm, but I have a feeling you're off-topic.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Hoang,

At first glance, looking at the caption, it might seem so, but in general it matches the requirements for the contest, at the end it is about the fundumental questions.

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
Dear Sir,

The SR was built on totally wrong foundations and we have shown it in many threads here – specifically in the thread of Dr. Paul Reed.

The concept of measurement has undergone a big change over the last century leading to changes in “mathematics of physics”. It all began with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities of measurement...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT
Mr. Mishra!

This is an intressting point :"Einstein’s ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell’s Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model.". For instance looking at famous Fizeau Water Experiment, there will be a fringe shift in water.

Generally when mainstream sticks to a specific view, then you need to speak same language for your arguments, as you already mentioned, the math of SR is based on LT. Therefore it is natural to use same arguments for falsifying SR. In this paper a photon (which has an absolute and central meaning in SR) is considered in accordane with MMX for measuring lengths. Mathematically LT:s are self-consistent, but interestingly  both LT and Galilean T seem to overlap in our case, regardless the speed and length. The rest are supporting math that help excluding none linearity, as SR initially is concerned with inertial frames, but in modern sense is has to comply with rotating systems as e.g. Earth and other systems in the galaxies that rotate.   

As SR is based on lenght contraction in the driction of movement (e.g. x) then it will also have an impact on mesurments in y as it is assumed that there will be a time dilation, therefore it is sugessted a method for time synchonization as you already seen in this paper.

The twin paradox itself is the first crush on SR, as mathematically LT only changes the sign but treats both twins equally. SR is about relative movement, but in reality we assuming one of the twins to get older. 

The bottom line is that, we need another interpretation for null result of MMX which has been tested for a certain degree of accuracy. 

Regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Koorosh,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 09:02 GMT
Hello Koorosh,

Thanks for presenting your interesting essay.

It is original to explore transformation which violates Lorentz symmetry at low velocity works. After all that is what the contest is about - new ideas at foundation levels that challenge current thought. We must always consider that physics potentially took a wrong turn, as even theories such as SR and GR must stand up to experimental tests for the rest of time. Nice work.

Did you decide Bit from It or It from Bit?

My essay is also slightly removed from current thinking, please take a look if you get chance.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 10:44 GMT
fHello Antony,

Thanks for your comment. Actulally this work also differs from the contest naming. Agree that science is evolving and new ideas shape our belief for now and future. There has been a century of dispute regarding SR and GR, and together with experiments I am sure we will have new conclusions. 

I will read your essay soon.

Cheers 

Koorosh 

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 22:29 GMT
Dear Koorosh Shahdaei:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Héctor,

There are many good articles, I wish I could read them all. I'll have a look at your essay soon.

Kind Regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Kooroch,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

Interesting point of view, I will read your essay shortly. I cant't see the essay was rated lately.  

Good luck.

Regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share


eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:00 GMT
I rated your essay in Aug 4, 2013.

Motion is everywhere,

Duality is everywhere,

1 and 10 is everywhere,

Our effectiveness reasoning is binary,

With me or against me,

And some refuse to believe in the reality of duality.

Thank you.

Good luck and best wishes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Kooroshб

Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... You have a new radical idea. In your essay deep original analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts and conclusions. You "dig" a very deep, to the most remote of meanings, where the "coincidence of opposites" ... Eureka! The highest rating.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Shahdaei

My friend Vladimir have advised your essay and I am thankful from him because the old and still mystery problem of ST for me remains intersting theme. Thank you for offering your own interpretation to Lorentz transformation. Your work however I find now only, therefore it will so wrong tell something resonable without properly study and examination. The question definetly intriquing for me and I will study your work in near further. Then we can discuss and change our opinions. I am going to rated your work on high score as per as you really have presented properly formated nice written work.Es text

Hope my work also will deserve your attention.

Best regards,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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