Einsteinians reject, more or less explicitly, the absurd consequence, Einstein's spacetime, but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these...

view entire post

Einsteinians reject, more or less explicitly, the absurd consequence, Einstein's spacetime, but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

You are very close to the truth, but you took a right hand turn instead of a left hand turn...your paper states:

"There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure time. It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds more adequately to the physical world and resolves Zeno problems of motion."

But what...

view entire post

You are very close to the truth, but you took a right hand turn instead of a left hand turn...your paper states:

"There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure time. It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds more adequately to the physical world and resolves Zeno problems of motion."

But what clocks measure is what defines time. In fact, all objects in the universe are clocks since there is a fossil time record in how every object evolved. Clocks are simply objects that have a very regular action called a tick rate, but the earth is also a clock in the fossil layers of its geology. We can tell time with any object, but clocks are especially useful.

You replace the word time with a words numerical order of material change, which sounds a little bit like replacing continuous time with the discrete time delays of matter change. In denying continuous time, you accept discrete time delays, but call it a "numerical order of material change."

There are actually many different ways to describe how the universe really works but you really should not simply redefine time with new words for time. This can be really confusing since your main thesis is really about the vacuum energy of space, not time. Another paper states:

"Starting from the above fundamental considerations, we have already proposed [7] a novel model of Quantum Vacuum consisting of a granular structure of the universal space, similar to that assumed, for example, in many version of loop quantum gravity, but conceptually very different and based on the conception of a physical 3D space composed by energetic packages having the size of Planck volume."

So you redefine continuous space with a discrete granular structure that you call the quantum vacuum of universal space. You even have a particle for that quantum vacuum that defines all matter...go figure. However, nowhere do you use the term aether.

In other words, you have an aether theory in every possible way except the word. These kind of euphemisms are used in most aether papers since there is a strong prejudice against the notion of an aether that fills space. Your quantum vacuum is a classic example of an aether that fills space.

You have not yet gotten to the pressure-less dusts or quantum fluids of others, but I see the outline of those issues in some of your various papers. There are numerous pathologies that you need to address that you have not yet addressed. You work very hard explaining things that already have explanations, like gravity. You should focus more on explaining things that have no explanations, like black holes.

Thus your approach is to fill space with aether called quantum vacuum and to replace time with sequences of discrete events. What happens at the event horizon of a black hole? What is the entropy of a black hole? Does your quantum vacuum explain why the CMB is so uniform? Are the speed of light, Planck's, and fine structure truly constant for all time?

Predict something that we do not already know and then measure it and verify your prediction...

view post as summary