Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 06:13 GMT
Space-time model has no physical existence. Time is not 4th spatial dimension of space. Space is what we measure with roads and time is what we measure with clocks. No signal can move in time. Signal can move in space only and time is duration of its motion. CMBR cannot move from dome remote past which does not exist. Universe is NOW.
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 06:20 GMT
here is the paper
attachments:
Bijective_Epistemology_and_Space-time.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:40 GMT
Pico-Physics agree with your analysis. But it arrives at Conclusion "space to be 3-D" from a different logic. This logic is based on Unary law of Pico Physics "Space Contains Energy". Multi-dimensional space can be seen as a mathematical formulation to understand problems, but not a reality of nature.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Ms. Hossentfelder,
You have a complete skin surface. Einstein had a complete skin surface when he was alive. No matter in which direction a normal person looks, the normal person will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed partial solid, liquid and vaporous surfaces. The real Universe consists of an infinite amount of visible surface. The infinite surface is visible because it is lit by an infinite amount of surfaceless light. Please stop writing codswallop about invisible black holes, invisible quantum particles and invisible gravity waves.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:45 GMT
I would like to draw your attention to a chapter in Pico-Physics - Observation & Observer, picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer.
I believe with your approach to understanding reality, we may have much in common.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 16:12 GMT
"So far she has been working on models involving flat spacetime..."
...and has always blinded herself to the fact that flat spacetime is "an immediate consequence" of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, and that her colleagues reject flat spacetime, thereby implicitly admitting that the postulate is false:
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
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..."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 15:02 GMT
Infinite surface cannot have a finite flat space/time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:54 GMT
I had problem understanding the concept of Zero & infinity. It took me a long time, to understand the numbers by theself are just symbols, when associated with a unit they represent reality. They come to exist when associated with a unit. From this understanding evolved Infinte Maths, which I use to establish - Three dimensions of space and integrate whole lot of isolated divergent branches of physical sciences into UNary Law - "Space Conatins Energy".
You may like to visit /picophysics.org/concepts/pico-mathematics/ or just download vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/infinite-maths7.pdf
attachments:
infinite-maths7.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 16:57 GMT
Time does not exist as a thing or force.
The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.
Our rotational surface motion is approximately 1600 kilometers per hour at the equator. We exist on a gigantic merry-go-round. We are immersed in this constant motionary environment, at the same time, as we use this same motion, to measure duration elapsing.
We use the constant period of duration of our planet`s rotational motion, as the baseline measurement for our time keeping systems. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience.
We have motion in our timeless Universe.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 15:08 GMT
Finite time cannot exist in the infinity of the real unique observable Universe. Neither can finite space. Neither can finite invisible black holes or finite invisible quantum particles.
Joe Fisher, Realist.
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
If time does not exist as a thing or force, then finite time, or infinite time, does not exist either.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 14:58 GMT
Correct. Infinity is not durational.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 01:01 GMT
It depends on what we mean by time. Time is one of the most difficult concept to put into logic and understand it on that basis. It took me many years to get to understand time. This understanding led to stating a unary law "Space Contains Energy" as the sole fact of nature. This law integrates time in exclusion of all other properties from basic postulates of unary law, and defining Energy as an identity that is Konserved and Space that is not. Exclusion of all other properties to definition od these two identities, and delegation of all other fundamental laws of physics as corollaries of this law helps understand time as an observed reality.
The thought process thus evolved into what is now termed as Pico-Physics.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
The agiotage around the incompatibility of Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics has been a money-spinner for decades so physicists and philosophers do their best to prolong the confusion and not to solve the problem. The following red herring successfully serves this purpose:
"Well clearly special relativity and quantum mechanics are quite compatible, in that QFT represents their...
view entire post
The agiotage around the incompatibility of Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics has been a money-spinner for decades so physicists and philosophers do their best to prolong the confusion and not to solve the problem. The following red herring successfully serves this purpose:
"Well clearly special relativity and quantum mechanics are quite compatible, in that QFT represents their unification in some way."
That is, Einsteinians suggest that the absurd relative time established by special relativity is somehow compatible with the absolute (Newtonian) time used in quantum mechanics, and the source of incompatibility is none other than the warping of time by matter as predicted by general relativity. This is silly of course, and although the red herring is omnipresent, it is often contradicted. Scientists obligatorily stress that it is GENERAL relativity that is incompatible with quantum mechanics but then admit, explicitly or implicitly, that "the root of all the evil" is SPECIAL relativity:
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
"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..."
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order –
A, then B, then C – someone moving
at a different velocity could have seen
it a different way – C, then B, then A.
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
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."
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."
"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."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 15:05 GMT
Newton and Einstein failed to notice that all objects have a complete surface and all observable surface travels at the same constant speed. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is the only stationary spirit in the real Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 19:03 GMT
Wonderful news! Sabine Hossenfelder is very deserving of this grant and will make good use of these resources.
Probing the network of quantum defects in space could prove to be very fruitful because these words simply are another way to rebuild the universe from a quantum aether and not from space at all.
Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects.
It will be necessary to rebuild our notions of space in order to finally unify all forces...
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 23:57 GMT
Steve Agnew,
Hi Steve, I think that you can give no empirical support for this claim:
"Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects."
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 02:37 GMT
Hmmm...this seems so easy that I am not sure why there is a question. An atomic clock measures the frequency of an atomic transition and since every object in the universe (except for space) is made up of atoms and atomic transitions, every object has its own atomic time.
Using two atomic clocks and comparing over time them shows that they drift apart, the so called Allan variance or deviation. The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object.
People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question...
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 03:13 GMT
Steve,
"The decoherence rate of two initially synchronized clocks represents the second dimension of time for an object."
"People measure both of these properties and so they are both empirical, but somehow I do not think this is really the answer to your actual question..."
Theoretical constructs "...the second dimension of time..." are support for theoretical constructs "...Time is just a property of objects..."
Evidence of object activity supports claims about object activity. It was the claim about activity of time and space for which I was asking for empirical evidence. What experiments have been performed upon either time or space? Empirical evidence consists of effects. What is the evidence for effects upon either time or space?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 04:12 GMT
Time is not an object. Time is a property of an object. Just like mass, time is just another property. However, time is axiomatic, just like matter. That is, we simply must believe in time and matter and there is no way to prove a belief. However, time and matter make up a very nice axioms for understanding action in the universe.
Perhaps you are asking me to prove that time is an axiom. All I can do is derive a universe from the axioms of matter and time and predict the futures of objects. Thus time and matter make very convenient axioms in which one simply must believe.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 08:37 GMT
Hi ,
It becomes relevant.I agree that time is a property.Now if we analyse the rotating sphères, quant and cosm.And if we correlate with the stable series encoding and producing for cosmol sphères.So we can perhaps correlate all with these rotations and gravitation and tim.If time is a property.If mass also , so there are causes.Perhaps that time is just a pure property of rotations of sphères.Like a clock of evolution gravitational.Gravitation and time can unify indeed all the forces.The axiomatisations must insert in logic the spherical volumes and proportions.It permits to class and to see really the properties and their proportions.We see our past, we analyse our present and indeed we can predict our future if and only if the good paramters are inserted with the biggest determinism.Time and mass are irreversible even with a recursivity, mathematical giving a reversibility.Several philosophical and mathematical exrapolations have been made by thinkers.We have a problem of mass and time considering the reversibility.In fact it is simple, the mass is a result of evolution correlated with time.And the age is of 13,7 billions years.So the reversibility will take the same time to take off the encodings.It is general and harmonious reality about mass and time.Carnot d say that after all we must accept our physical limits simply.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 10:10 GMT
and if it was this central cosm.BH,the biggest sphere ,this main coded singularity,the real secret of all.Time seems correlated with its rotation implying the universal clock of evolution.The gravitation and time are created there in fact due to its weak rotation.This sphere is connected by the gravitational aether with all quantuml central sphères, the quantum coded singularities.The time is a property indeed.They turn so they are, they turn so they create space and time ,a gravitational evolution.Mass curves our spacetime, the spherisation is natural like is the gravitation.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT
Steve Agnew,
"Time is not an object. ..."
Agreed. Objects are known to exist because they change their velocities. Time has not been shown to undergo changes of velocity.
"...Time is a property of an object. ..."
I think again that there is no empirical support for this claim.
"...Just like mass, time is just another property. ..."
Time is a 'given' empirical property as is space. Both exist without any explanation. They are indefinable properties. All other properties are inferred to exist from measures of duration and length. We have no ability to measure either time or space. Duration and length are our substitutes. Both duration and length are explained by physics as aspects of object activity. Mass is inferred to exist from patterns of changes of velocities which are measured in units of duration and length.
...
"Perhaps you are asking me to prove that time is an axiom. All I can do is derive a universe from the axioms of matter and time and predict the futures of objects. Thus time and matter make very convenient axioms in which one simply must believe."
Emphasizing "... However, time and matter make up a very nice axioms for understanding action in the universe."
I presume that this claim refers to the use of time and properties attributed to matter in equations that quite successfully predict the futures of objects. The properties attributed to matter are not being addressed yet by me. It is accepted that they are inferred to exist from physics empirical evidence which consists of measures of duration and length. With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 15:29 GMT
You are very correct and I agree...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object.
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity."I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space.
Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen.
General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:03 GMT
Steve Agnew,
"...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay..."
This explanation is not empirically supported. It is an example of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of substituting imaginative guesses about what can be substituted in place of that which is unknown. There is no empirical evidence for time suffering delays....
view entire post
Steve Agnew,
"...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay..."
This explanation is not empirically supported. It is an example of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of substituting imaginative guesses about what can be substituted in place of that which is unknown. There is no empirical evidence for time suffering delays.
"... and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object."
There are no time-like properties. This is theoretical bait and switch. Only time is 'time-like'. All other properties are like themselves. Clocks are clock-like. Clock-like is not time-like. Perhaps when physicists recognize a universally constant increment of actual time, then clocks might be said to be 'time-like'. The practice in theoretical physics of giving indirect explanations while wording them to give the impression that they are actual explanations is not science-like. In order to make this point at a more common knowledge level, I point out that temperature is not a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of temperature. The indirect substitute explanation is an attempt by theoretical physics to appear to be explaining something for which they lack an explanation. It is the case that physicists do not know what temperature is. For uncertain readers: Temperature is not fixed to average molecular kinetic energy and physicists know it. In general, average molecular kinetic energy can vary while temperature remains the same value. In limited cases, temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy but in no case is temperature actually the same thing as is average molecular kinetic energy. It is an historical fact that temperature was entered into physics equations without its being explained. To this day, temperature remains a fundamental indefinable property.
Steve Agnew quoting me: "James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity.""
I repeat this quote because the point made needs repeating.
Me quoting Steve Agnew: "I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space."
I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'.
"Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen."
I am not at this time addressing the properties attributed to the assumed substrate called matter. Empirical evidence cries out for those to receive some fixing. Nor am I now addressing empirical evidence and relativity theory. The context of this message concerns the practice of theoretical physics of making empirically unjustified claims about the nature of the universe. An example given here is "... space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen." There is no empirical evidence for changes to space or effects caused upon objects by space. Rather what is stated is an example of how theoretical physics has subsumed empirical scientific learning.
"General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe."
I refrain from venturing off into addressing relativity theory in this message. The point of this message is to address, at least in part, the lack of empirical support for much of theoretical physics. The usefulness of physics equations results from how accurately they mathematically model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that allow for successful extrapolations and interpolations very often yielding good predictions. The names and explanations of terms in physics equations do not have to be accurate to achieve accurate predictions.
All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The units can themselves be arbitrary, meaning without empirical justification. Kilograms is one example. What is important is that the units are defined in terms of measurable properties. The two measurable properties are length and duration.
Steve, If you wish to not continue this exchange, I understand. No hard feelings. Other 'scientific' forums censor my messages or remove me from participating when I make these points. I will mention in closing that my recollection is that you once gave mention of having read some of my work with understanding, but not of course with agreement. I sought to test your understanding of my work by asking if you were familiar with my critique of mass? I believe you did not respond. I take this opportunity to make clear that my work begins by explaining that the decision to accept mass as a fundamental indefinable property was the first error of theoretical physics. (I am not suggesting that force should have instead been chosen to be a fundamental indefinable property. Both force and mass should have been and could have been defined properties. Empirical evidence gives us guidance on how this can be done.) The act of now defining mass has begun the process of returning physics equations back to their empirical forms. That is what I do. I remove the non-empirically based, speculative, imaginative intrusions into physics equations that have been made by theoretical physicists.
Regardless of my opinions being different, I thank you for sharing your knowledge and ideas here at FQXi.org. Your messages are always worth reading.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:53 GMT
You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements.
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:03 GMT as "...I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'..."I do actually agree that time is an axiom and so time is like activity which is like time, which is an identity. However, a second way to define a fundamental axiom is with the other two axioms of matter and action. Since action (or activity in your words) is the integral of matter in time, time is the differential of action with matter. This is the trimal nature of a closed universe.
Color is a measurable property of an object. Color change is a measurable property of an object that is time like. Change is what happens to objects with different time delays. These are very common measurements of objects no matter what kind of stuff you use to make those objects.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 16, 2016 @ 14:53 GMT
Steve Agnew,
"You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements."
Physics empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It...
view entire post
Steve Agnew,
"You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements."
Physics empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the case that time is passing during changes of velocities. It is also the case that space is traversed during changes of velocities. So, velocities change with respect to either time or space. However, neither time nor space are accessible to us so that we may make measurements upon them. They cannot serve as standards of measurement. So, we substitute measures of object activity in their places. That is our only choice because we only observe object activity. With regard to the property of time in particular, it is not what the 't' in physics equations represents. Nor do symbols for length or distance represent the property of space. The 't' represents cycles of a specific object activity. Clocks measure the number of those cycles, or cycles of their own, that have occurred during a measurement of object activity. Physicists choose to speak and write using the word 'time' for 't', and compound words that include 'time' such as space-time or time-like. Theoretical physics introduces substitutes (educated guesses) to fill in for that which is unknown. Even with these theoretical intrusions present, the equations remain useful because they are designed to accurately model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that usually provide useful extrapolations and interpolations. What the equations cannot do is fix the empirically unsound guesses that theorists have injected into physics equations. A major effect of such theoretical guessing is the introduction of fundamental disunity into physics equations. That problem began with the decision to make mass an indefinable property. Theoretical physics is stuck with disunity that cannot be undone by the introduction of additional invented, and empirically unverifiable, 'properties'.
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:03 GMT as "...I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists do speculative imaginings become 'science-like'..."
Time is an unexplained given; 'time' measurements and 'time' delays are misnomers for duration measurements and duration delays. Duration being counts of cyclic activity of objects that are not time. Time is not like objects and objects are not like time.
"I do actually agree that time is an axiom and so time is like activity which is like time, which is an identity. ..."
We do not know what time is like. We do know it is not like activity. Activity is objects changing their velocities. There is no empirical evidence for time having a velocity let alone a change of velocity. What is a physics fact is that time is a fundamental indefinable property.
"However, a second way to define a fundamental axiom is with the other two axioms of matter and action. Since action (or activity in your words) is the integral of matter in time, time is the differential of action with matter. This is the trimal nature of a closed universe."
Matter is an imagined mechanical substrate credited with being the source of observed properties. Those properties being defined by and represented by their units in physics equations. Matter has no units and is not represented in physics equations. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of matter. The choice of the idea of the existence of matter is a philosophical preference. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We do not know what cause is.
The mathematical term for 'action' does not include measured time. Time is not measurable. Measurements take time to occur but the unit of second is not a measurement of time. A measurement of time would involve the differences between two points of time. We have no way of accessing points of time. With regard to action being the product of either energy and 'time' or momentum and length: What is the physical meaning of 'action'? Its usefulness is not in question. Specifically: Why are its units Newtonsxmetersxseconds? Those units convey all of its meaning, and its purpose in physics equations.
"Color is a measurable property of an object. Color change is a measurable property of an object that is time like. Change is what happens to objects with different time delays. These are very common measurements of objects no matter what kind of stuff you use to make those objects."
It is not the measurements that are in question. The measurements give us the empirical information that we need in order to know what effects have occurred. It is the non-empirically supported practice of assigning, by means of employing inaccurate wording, additional effects that did not occur. For example, there is no evidence that time gets delayed. There is evidence that object activity gets delayed.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 18:13 GMT
You have a lot of energy on the topic of objects and change, but you do not like the word time. You say that there is no evidence that time gets delayed, but that makes time an object, which you agreed before time was not an object. Time delay is a property and that is what we measure.
You measure a change in an object and one of those measurements I call time delay. You do not want to call it time delay, but we both agree that we can measure change.
I am afraid that we are arguing about the definitions of words and not about any physical principles...
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 18:44 GMT
Steve Agnew,
"I am afraid that we are arguing about the definitions of words and not about any physical principles..."
No that is not the case. Nothing I have said suggests in anyway that time is an object. I made clear what it is that identifies objects. There has been no confusion nor contradiction in anything I have said to you.
"...you do not like the word time." ...
Despite your misrepresentation of my opinion, I like the work 'time'; it is its mistreatment by theorists that I object to. You have no empirical evidence showing that either time or space experience effects. All empirical evidence consists of changes of velocities of objects. There is no evidence for either time or space having velocities.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 23:51 GMT
I really should stop since I really agree with what you are saying, but you still disagree with my terms.
Now you say that there are objects and change and we can measure those changes. I agree.
When I send a pulse of light to an object and see it reflected back, that is a change and I call that change time delay.
When I measure a change in the atomic line position of an object, that is a change and I call that change a mass equivalent velocity or motion.
So you can call these changes anything you want, but the notions of continuous space and time are just that--notions. There is only indirect evidence for both continuous space and continuous time from the changes we observe for objects. And there is no evidence for space or time having velocities since neither space nor time are objects. I agree. Only objects have velocities.
Your words seem fundamentally confusing to me because I think I agree with you and then you say that I do not. You say that time is not an object. I agree. Then you say that there is no evidence for time having a velocity, which I agree. But since time is not an object, talking about it having a velocity does not make sense to me.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 01:00 GMT
Steve Agnew,
Sorry, I thought this was clear:
"You have no empirical evidence showing that either time or space experience effects. All empirical evidence consists of changes of velocities of objects. There is no evidence for either time or space having velocities."
Neither space nor time have velocities to change so they can have no physics empirical evidence. Physics empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocities. The point is that there is no empirical evidence to support the ideas that space or time experience effects of any kind. Likewise, there is no empirical evidence to support the ideas that space or time cause effects either upon objects or upon each other. There has never been experimentation upon either space or time. Neither space nor time have ever been observed to do anything. The equations of physics do not include terms representing either space or time.
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT: "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity."
There has been no change in meaning since my first message: James A Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 23:57 GMT; "Hi Steve, I think that you can give no empirical support for this claim: "Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects."
Finally I repeat: Thank you for sharing your knowledge and ideas here at FQXi.org. Your messages are always worth reading.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 04:35 GMT
I find discourse with others useful since there is so much intuition in thinking and feeling...and since quantum phase is such a large part of neural information packets, the entanglement of quantum phase is how we share our intuition as well as thought with others.
The whole universe seems to exist with just matter and action, just like consciousness seems to exist with just neuron connections and action potentials. But there is also a dimension of quantum phase for each of matter and action and for each neural action as well. Our notions of continuous time and space both emerge from matter and action and so what you have said about time and space is very true. Continuous time and space emerge as very useful notions from the actions of matter but do not exist
a priori.
This idea seems to show a way for both charge and gravity to come from the same decoherence rate of the universe of matter.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 12:38 GMT
CLUES FOR SABINE
Having previously read your article, Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity, and with the intro saying you have the ability to shoot down theories, let me offer a few suggestions/ clues/ pointers, with the best of good wishes on the FQXi grant award…
1. You say, "We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent—when you combine them the...
view entire post
CLUES FOR SABINE
Having previously read your
article, Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity, and with the intro saying you have the ability to shoot down theories, let me offer a few suggestions/ clues/ pointers, with the best of good wishes on the FQXi grant award…
1. You say,
"We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent—when you combine them the answer is nonsense", …and further,
"It is clearly not how nature works, there has to be a better answer".
Quantum Mechanics separates space and time, while Special and General relativity welds them together. There are then two probable options, it is either Space and time are separate or they are one entity, spacetime. This being the case, it is rational to apply the welded entity to Quantum mechanics and see if it also works, and in turn apply space and time as separate entities to Relativity and also see if it works. Where they don't work, why not? Are there alternative explanations that would not require welding of space and time?
2. They said, you have been working on models involving flat spacetime because it is easier to do the math. And you are quoted to have said,
"We don’t live in flat spacetime — (...)".I therefore put this question to you. If we don't live in flat spacetime, where were the experiments conducted on which basis the theory for spacetime rests its validity? If an experiment is conducted underwater, can it be used to substantiate or make theoretically infallible claims of what exists above water? You may have heard of the claim made severally that the domain of applicability of Special relativity is flat spacetime, and you have now said that we do not live in such a spacetime, how then can the NULL experimental findings of Michelson and Morley, 1887 be said to be due to the effect of Special relativity on the behavior of light in the experiment, a theory that applies only in flat spacetime which you have said we are not living in.
If you measure the speed of light in curved spacetime, can it have the same value in flat spacetime? Einstein says No, but some physicists insist Yes. More on this later, if necessary.
3. You say,
"People like to talk about ’atoms of spacetime’".
In the intro, it is said that Spacetime is the four dimensional fabric conceived of by Albert Einstein in his theories of relativity. It is therefore clear that talking of atoms of spacetime applies only to the conceptions (or misconceptions) of Special and General relativity and does not apply to Quantum Mechanics, where space and time are separate. When looking therefore through a Quantum Mechanical lens, what people will expect you to look out for are 'atoms of space'. It is noted that in the introduction to the Living Reviews article linked above, you have yourself stated and asked,
"For one, this is because Democritus’ search for the most fundamental constituents carries over to space and time too. Are space and time fundamental, or are they just good approximations that emerge from a more fundamental concept in the limits that we have tested so far? Is spacetime made of something else? Are there ‘atoms’ of space?".The study of space is basically geometry, and the definitions of concepts in geometry recognize the atom of space as the 'point'. The next question then is whether this atom has a minimal length or is of zero dimension? Look at this. I will urge that you shoot down the theory that says the atom of space is of zero dimension. You will thereby be removing infinities that are plaguing our physics.
Finally, the greatest clue of all is to find out whether these 'atoms of space' are eternally existing objects. That is, can they perish and cease to exist, and can they arise out of nothing? If they can, would this not be the most fundamental event underlying all other phenomena in our physics? Would such annihilation and emergence of its atoms create 'wrinkles in space'? Would the disparate lifetimes of the atoms not interfere with the otherwise continuous nature of space, thereby causing discreteness with 'time' being the separator since space cannot do its separation into discreteness? If the universe itself can be conceived in some cosmological theories as arising out of nothing in a Big bang, and annihilating to nothing in a Big crunch, can an atom of space then be eternally existing and be incapable of being extinguished?
All the best as you confront these profound theoretical physics problems.
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 14:13 GMT
Thanks for the reference to Hossenfelder's review article. Very short distance scales mean very short time delays and have the same infinity problems as do very long distance and time scales at event horizons.
Excerpts: "We review the question of whether the fundamental laws of nature limit our ability to probe arbitrarily short distances...Finally, we touch upon the question of ways to circumvent the manifestation of a minimal length scale in short-distance physics...Exploring the consequences of a minimal length scale is one of the best motivated avenues to make contact with the phenomenology of quantum gravity, and to gain insights about the fundamental structure of space and time."Mainstream science must break out of the straitjacket of spacetime and replace space with the pure time and matter dimensions of a primitive reality. Aether is the way out of the blind alley of space...
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 16:27 GMT
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman’s path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
The two concepts of time are not both true and cannot be reconciled, so either quantum mechanics or special relativity will have to be discarded. In my view, both special and general relativity will be abandoned soon:
"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."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 16:39 GMT
The socond POSTULATE of thermo and heat tells us that the time is irreversible on the entropical Arrow of time.It is a postulate.The special relativity also,it is a postulate.It is proved you know.It is not because we have these postulates that we cannot analyse the gravitation differently.Special and general relativity are two Tools very important for the classment of our evolution.The mass curves our space time and c is correct.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 17:03 GMT
I have my book near me ."Heat and themodynamics" by Mark W. Zemanski,PhD.
All the équations and works in this book are deterministic and rational.And the second law of thermo is well utilised.If the second law was not a reality, how could you analyses the engineerings correlated with heat, themro, work.....Ask to Stirling about the machine or to an engineer in refrigerators in a thermonuclear industry ???? Mr Valev, you must really rething your foundmentals but it is just a suggestion of course.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 12:10 GMT
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature....
view entire post
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
So general relativity is doomed but why should quantum mechanics and spacetime coexist? Many Einsteinians suggest that spacetime, the "immediate consequence" of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned too:
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
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."
"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
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 14:47 GMT
The real unique observable Universe consists of infinite surface. It is observable because it is illuminated by an infinite light that does not have any surface. All objects have a complete surface. All solid, liquid and vaporous surface is physically connected. You are all wrong about invisible finite atoms and invisible finite particles and invisible finite gravity waves and finite duration.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 17:30 GMT
Mr Fisher please ,could you develop , we are on a Platform of sciences.It is irritating to always see your post with this surface and this light.Please develop with scientific words.Develop with équations and laws please.Stop to repeat this philosophical post.If you develop a little your analyse of the luminerous aether, it could be well.In fact we don't need a course about the infinity and the light.You think that we don't understand the infinity above our walls? Please develop I don't know even if you speak about the luminerous aether in a spiritual point of vue.Really develop, your spirituality, your physics, your maths, your philosophy ,....something but please develop your analyse.Anybody can understand your post in fact.Please develop.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Mr. Dufourny,
The real Universe was not created from finite invisible scientific precepts, or by an invisible God’s command.. You have a real observable complete skin surface. Every object, be it solid, liquid or vaporous has a real observable surface. Obviously, surface must be infinite. Obviously, infinity cannot contain any finite features. Please stop wasting your time with codswallop supposedly finite physics conjecture.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 16:43 GMT
a phenomen ,apparently you don't want to develop .I have tried to have explainations but you don't want.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 6, 2016 @ 14:42 GMT
Dear Mr. Dufourney,
Reality is not phenomenal. Reality is infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Infinity cannot be developed. Only ignorant ideas about invisible phenomena such as invisible black holes, or invisible particles, or invisible gravity waves can be developed, and they can only be developed by ignorant fabulists.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 6, 2016 @ 16:14 GMT
Mr Fisher,
We are thanking you all for these wonderful explainations.We understand all now the infinity now.We have all understand the light, the surface and the infinity.I don't know what say.Thanks for this development about light, infinity and surface.But we have understood, so it is not necessary to post still.Please it is not Facebook.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Luca Valeri replied on Apr. 13, 2016 @ 21:38 GMT
Joe
from the point of view of history of science you are not a realist (that traditionally believes in the existence of a reality, that is independent of our perception - nowadays consisting of atoms etc.), but a positivist like Mach. The problem with this view, where you take only your sense data as real, is that one ends very fast into a kind of solipsism. And it is difficult to see a way, how general valid concepts can be developed - concepts, that are independent of our human perception.
However I would take this critic not as prove of impossibility, but as a challenge: How can we develop general concepts from what is knowable about nature. I believe modern developments in operational quantum mechanics are very promising.
Another challenge - somehow connected to the above - is your unique reality. Uniqueness cannot be named. Only things or events that are repeated can be named or recognized. However most of us believe in the uniqueness of the now, the universe - of the reality. Where does this come from? Couldn't that be a projection of our perception of the uniqueness of our self? How could we think reality as something not unique?
However Steve is right: you are repeating yourself. But you're not alone with that in these blogs!
And last but not least. Are you able to imagine a surface, that is not embedded in a 3 dimensional space? Respect if you can.
Best regards
Luca
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 14, 2016 @ 07:56 GMT
Hi Mr Valeri and Mr Fisher,
I agree Mr Valeri.Godel d have said that we must accept our known universe and the unknown universe .We are sofar of the singularities and the entire uniqueness principle.We appraoch all days but we are far of all the universal laws.Regards
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 21:32 GMT
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
This is an incredible question. Obviously people who work on quantum gravity don't have a clue about what they are doing.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Mr. Valev,
The real observable Universe is simply an infinite surface illuminated by an infinite amount of non-surface light. Visible infinity cannot contain finite invisible particles, or have a finite duration.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 5, 2016 @ 18:12 GMT
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order –
A, then B, then C – someone moving
at a different velocity could have seen
it a different way – C, then B, then A.
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
Yes,
safely leaving the sinking ship is a daunting task indeed.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 6, 2016 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Mr. Valev,
Nobody has ever seen a real finite event happen. No matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed partial flat surfaces. The reason for this is because only an infinite surface exists and the reason you see it is because surface is lit by infinite non-surface light. Einstein was wrong about the constant speed of light through a vacuum tube. It is surface that travels at the same constant speed. Light is stationary because light does not have a surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 7, 2016 @ 00:02 GMT
Humor in Einstein Schizophrenic World
Einsteinians are given a $1.32 million dollar grant to say if Einstein is wrong:
University of California Santa Barbara: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue their work on finding an answer."
Mark Srednicki and Joseph Polchinski
found the joke really amusing, took the money and said that Einstein was not wrong.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 01:55 GMT
INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This applies to both photons and the Sun. (They are linked. Energy involves gravity, and gravity cannot be shielded.) This unifies gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 12:40 GMT
The Eotvos experiment dates back quite some time ... late 1800's I think. It has been improved upon several times. Even Newton performed a simple version of it. BTW, the o's it Eotvos have two dots above them. I do not know the correct pronunciation.
Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Houston, Tx
report post as inappropriate
Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 14:39 GMT
INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This applies to both photons and the Sun. (They are linked. Energy involves gravity, and gravity cannot be shielded.) This involves balanced attraction, repulsion, inertia, gravity, and ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. This unifies gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism.
INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This is the most fundamental law/truth in all of physics, as it balances gravity and inertia.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 8, 2016 @ 23:16 GMT
Inconstant Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up...
view entire post
Inconstant Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."
"In a paper, published in Science Advances today, the researchers demonstrate that for light from a source such as the Sun, random fluctuations of intensity give rise to correlations of twisted light beams. (...) "Twisted light is all around us and occurs naturally," said Omar S. Magaña-Loaiza, first author of the study and a Ph.D. student in Boyd's team."
Do you still believe in the constancy of the speed of light, Einsteinians? If you do, here is more information for you:
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light""For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum - a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. (...) The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 15:14 GMT
A real observable vacuum tube needs to have a real visible complete surface. All real solid objects have a real visible solid surface. All real liquid has a real visible surface, and all vapors have a real visible surface. All real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed, otherwise, it would be imposible for any surface to be visible. In order to be visible, surface must be illuminated by light. Light cannot have a surface, and because light does not have a surface, light has no effect on the constant speed of surface. These esearchers claims that invisible light is capable of twisting is utter codswallop.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 16:03 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a consistent theory that combines two inconsistent ones:
"In particular, Hossenfelder is searching for a good theory of quantum gravity - a framework that would bring together Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, which describes how cosmic bodies move, and quantum theory, which governs the behaviour of particles on the smallest scales....
view entire post
Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a consistent theory that combines two inconsistent ones:
"In particular, Hossenfelder is searching for a good theory of quantum gravity - a framework that would bring together Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, which describes how cosmic bodies move, and quantum theory, which governs the behaviour of particles on the smallest scales. "Some people work on problems that I don't think are problems at all," she says. "But the question of how to find a consistent theory that combines gravity with quantum field theory is one that everyone agrees is a problem--and one that has to have a solution." (...) "We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent--when you combine them the answer is nonsense," she says. "It is clearly not how nature works, there has to be a better answer."
That is, Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a theory where the Newtonian absolute time and the Einsteinian relative time coexist consistently. Bravo, Sabine Hossenfelder:
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time."
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute."Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 19:52 GMT
Pentcho,
Thank you so much for linking the August 2015
Science article. This coincides closely with the date of my stroke, and I missed a lot of significant news. A very important experiment. Brilliant methodology.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 13:27 GMT
Hi Tom and Pentcho,
What are the highlights from the article, "A self-interfering clock as a “which path” witness"?
Tom, you never betrayed you had any health challenges. Your posts have been as poignant as ever. Tempted to use the adjective "stubborn" or "incorrigible" but probably not politically correct :) Wish you all the best and hope your health is fully restored soon. I am sure you have access to the best care and latest technologies. Stroke is almost a death sentence on this side.
Pentcho, thanks for the link to the Perimeter Institute roundtable discussion...
Sabine has her job well cut out. Let's hope she does not disappoint. Relative time: To be or not to be, that is the question.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 15:24 GMT
hello dear thinkers,
Tom ,me also I wish you all the best for your health.Take care.We have had several difficult discussions due to my stupid parano in the past.But I have always liked to read your posts and developments.I am asking me also how is going Lawrence.Hope he is well.Take care dear Jedi of the Sphere.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 17:51 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
I've learned that strokes are funny things. While my verbal skills have declined (I stutter), my cognition and focus have benefitted. Maybe the speech impediment is a blessing -- it relieves me of the burden of having to engage in small talk. I am sad that the same level of health care is not available worldwide (or even in the U.S.) -- I strongly believe that free health...
view entire post
Hi Akinbo,
I've learned that strokes are funny things. While my verbal skills have declined (I stutter), my cognition and focus have benefitted. Maybe the speech impediment is a blessing -- it relieves me of the burden of having to engage in small talk. I am sad that the same level of health care is not available worldwide (or even in the U.S.) -- I strongly believe that free health care (and free lifelong education as well) are absolute entitlements.
Yeah, stubborn and incorrigible fit.
Anyway, I get access to
Science articles through my AAAS membership. I don't know if you can access it; I would shoot you a copy if I could.
The crux of the experiment is the creation of an artificial superposition of states of time so that one state lags due to gravitational influence. The first two paragraphs of the (exceptionally well-written) article give the gist:
"Two-slit interferometry of quanta, such as photons and electrons, figured prominently in the Bohr-Einstein debates on the consistency of quantum theory (1, 2). A fundamental principle emerging from those debates—intimately related to the uncertainty principle—is that 'which path' information about the quanta passing through slits blocks their interference. At the climax of the debates, Einstein claimed that a clock, emitting a photon at a precise time while being weighed on a spring scale to measure the change in its mass-energy, could evade the uncertainty principle. Yet Bohr showed that the clock's gravitational redshift induces enough uncertainty in the emission time to satisfy the uncertainty principle. Inspired by the subtle role time may play, we have now sent a clock through a spatial interferometer. Our proof-of-principle experiment introduces clock interferometry as a new tool for studying the interplay of general relativity (3) and quantum mechanics (4).
"Time in standard quantum mechanics is a global parameter, which cannot differ between paths. Hence in standard interferometry [e.g., (5)], a difference in height between two paths merely affects their relative phase, shifting their interference pattern without degrading its visibility. General relativity, by contrast, predicts that a clock must 'tick' slower along the lower path; thus if the paths of a clock through an interferometer have different heights, a time differential between the paths will yield 'which path' information and degrade the visibility of the interference pattern (6). Consequently while standard interferometry may probe general relativity (7–9), clock interferometry probes the interplay of general relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, loss of visibility due to a proper time lag would be evidence that gravitational effects contribute to decoherence and the emergence of a classical world (10)."
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 17:53 GMT
Hello Steve,
Thanks. I expect Lawrence is still lurking. He pops in occasionally. My best wishes for your own health, too. :-)
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:14 GMT
Tom (et al),
Concerning; "For example, loss of visibility due to a proper time lag..." IF an experimental protocol could be so devised as to tell the difference. After all its already ambiguous as to what is meant by 'a photon', and the most recent researches I've read of ( at Maryland, if I recall correctly) have confidence of counting down to a level of about four photons. It seems ambitious, but worth trying. But are we dealing with a particle form or a waveform, and would it matter? And is light subject to entropy, or is it light because it is non-entropic?
But let's speculate some success, and a loss of visibility is attributable to gravitational effect. That would firstly corroborate Minkowski from the QM side, which taking the paradigm of absolute time would cast blocktime as a picture where 'everything happens at the same time'. So too, 'many spaces' would also be 'many times'; which I don't see as very different from Bohr holding that one thing can occupy more than one space at the same time. Just stated differently. Extending that to gravitational lensing, a proper time lag would also suggest that Olber's paradox is not so paradoxical. The light is 'there' in our space, just out of time sync. Perhaps the ticket to accounting for all that dark energy? It would open a can of worms, me thinks. Is cosmological inflation the reality or an illusion cast by a vast gravitational time warp? Was Hoyle half right? I'd like to think more real estate is still being made. Heretcally, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 08:22 GMT
Dear Tom,
i too wish you all the best for your health condition and that you continue to contribute to the fqxi community. We are all driven by curiosity about the fundamentals of existence and it was always a pleasure for me to exchange point of views with you.
Best wishes
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 10:44 GMT
That experiment is quite ingenious.
"Hence in standard interferometry [e.g., (5)], a difference in height between two paths merely affects their relative phase, shifting their interference pattern without degrading its visibility. General relativity, by contrast, predicts that a clock must 'tick' slower along the lower path; thus if the paths of a clock through an interferometer have different heights, a time differential between the paths will yield 'which path' information and degrade the visibility of the interference pattern"The result could demolish or strengthen the 'probability demons" in QM
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 13:40 GMT
Hello all,
Tom,thanks also :)hope that Lawrence will post.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 19:32 GMT
Stefan,
Thanks. Ditto to you. :-)
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 00:35 GMT
I have spent considerable time trying to understand nature. Some of intricacies of nature as they became known to me, created the fascination. One of the earliest one was - conservation of Energy, the next was special theory of relativity, the third was exploding universe. The complexity of nature grew more as I progressed though my education as carrier as engineer. But now, I consider myself to be Pico-Physicist. TO say more, In Pico-Physics, the wrinkles are result of presence of matter in space. Some corollary of Pico physics state, that if we compare a star which is hiding behind lot of matter in space and another with line of clear space between start and observer, the one with matter clusters will appear to recede faster.
We have lot of data now, may be some day, I my inquisitiveness will be satisfied.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 14:40 GMT
You do not have to try to understand visible nature. Just look at yourself. You have a real complete visible skin surface. Every real person place and thing has a real complete visible surface. Obviously, only visible surface is real. In order to be visible, surface must be illuminated by light. Obviously, light cannot have a surface. Reality is simplicity itself.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 01:07 GMT
Quantum Gravity - If we mean some thing like quantized radiations, Pico-Physics Negates this. To a Pico-Physicists gravitation is result of interaction of Space & Energy as per Unary Law "Space Contains Energy". The essential loop contemporary science is in on gravitation is due to basic understanding about potential energy (postulated to preserve law of conservation of energy) being misplaced. Refraction and Gravitation are two aspects of this interaction Space with Energy.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 14:49 GMT
Reality is visible infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality has nothing to do with invisible finite black holes, invisible finite atoms, invisible finite quantum particles, or invisible finite strings of energy. Please stop wasting your time with codswallop theories about the invisible.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 12, 2016 @ 14:00 GMT
Einsteinians (other than Sabine Hossenfelder) reject special relativity
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order –
A, then B, then C – someone moving
at a different velocity could have seen...
view entire post
Einsteinians (other than Sabine Hossenfelder) reject special relativity
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order –
A, then B, then C – someone moving
at a different velocity could have seen
it a different way – C, then B, then A.
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
"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 [Lee] Smolin."
"A conscientious cosmologist rejects Einstein’s notion that time is an illusion and the future is set. (...) In 1905, Einstein overturned Newton’s harmonious picture of a standard universal time. He replaced it with a discordant, relative view in which different people could disagree about the duration of events, and even the order in which they happened. The young Einstein came to the remarkable realization that time was, in fact, a fourth dimension, alongside the three dimensions of space that we see around us, creating what has become known as the “block universe” picture of reality. (...) [George] Ellis respected Einstein’s mathematical ingenuity, but he later balked at the philosophical implications of the block universe, in which the future stands on the same footing as the past."
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..."
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 12, 2016 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Pentcho Velev,
Although Einstein foolishly insisted that a finite amount of invisible energy was exactly equal to a finite amount of invisible mass multiplied by a finite beam of invisible light multiplied by its finite invisible self, this has absolutely nothing to do with observable reality. Only infinite surface is observable because it is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 14, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
Paul Davies (2003): "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In...
view entire post
Paul Davies (2003): "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
Is the "Great Revolution in Science" still around the corner? Yes it is. For the moment Einsteinians reject the consequence, spacetime, but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. However the gullible world is not infinitely gullible and will soon realize that when the "immediate consequence" is wrong and should be "retired", the underlying premise cannot be true:
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
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..."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 15, 2016 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Pentcho Valev,
In order for only infinite real surface to be visible, it must be illuminated by real light. Therefore, real light cannot have a real surface. We can see the real surface of real objects moving and it is only surface that moves at the same constant speed. As real surface is infinite, no part of it can be finitely measured. The surface of a fly hovering close to a person’s eyeball is immense. As it flies away, it gets quite smaller until it flies out of view. Einstein’s proposed formula for calculating the magnitude of invisible space/time is utterly preposterous.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Ellie wrote on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Dr. Hossenfelder,
My question is what in your opinion is your most significant contribution to scientific knowledge
report post as inappropriate
Ellie wrote on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 19:18 GMT
Joe Fisher - what do you mean by 'surface'?
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 18, 2016 @ 16:35 GMT
Spacetime Is Doomed, Therefore Einstein's Light Postulate Is False
According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand, (21:41) spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how they are moving. But since the consequence is nonexistent and doomed, the postulate from which it has been deduced is false, isn't it? Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence". See also this:
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
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..."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 19, 2016 @ 04:48 GMT
Pentcho,
Excessively high-pitched lessons like Arkani-Hamed's tend to indicate weak arguments. Einstein's split thinking is obvious to me: He took different points of view at a time and felt therefore forced to deny simultaneity.
Let me just tell you for pleasure what I was propagated to radio listeners: E's Relativity is not used by those who are designing experiments in cosmos, funningly - because the belonging equations are too difficult to solve -.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 19, 2016 @ 12:20 GMT
:) hello Mr Valev and Eckard,
:)(--)(--)(--)(--)
report post as inappropriate
Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Apr. 21, 2016 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Sabine Hossenfelder, I really admire that you're working on this. I think that deciding whether spacetime is discrete versus continuous is THE most important question in physics and will make it easier to find out how everything is brought together.
I think it must be because if you define a universe to be a set of discrete information with a nonzero chance of interacting, you really run into trouble with continuous spacetime which would be an infinite set.
Do you think it would be possible to use data from the black hole merger date from LIGO to deduce if a black hole is a 2D object with no interior as opposed to a 3d object? A 2d black hole could indicate that spacetime has broken down which again could indicate discrete spacetime.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 22, 2016 @ 14:34 GMT
Neil deGrasse Tyson (1:09): "If you are moving fast through space, your time will tick more slowly, as observed by others."
However special relativity predicts that, as observed by yourself, your time will tick FASTER than the time of others (who are not moving):
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."
So special relativity predicts no real difference in the clocks' readings and Einsteinians are forced to introduce the camouflage called, in the quotation above, "enough strangeness".
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 22, 2016 @ 15:19 GMT
Pentcho,
You win the prize for relativity ignorance. Understand why Einstein said 'all physics is local' and cure yourself.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 25, 2016 @ 15:35 GMT
Absurd Variation of the Speed of Light in General Relativity
The following texts horrify and paralyze Einsteinians:
Albert Einstein: "Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of...
view entire post
Absurd Variation of the Speed of Light in General Relativity
The following texts horrify and paralyze Einsteinians:
Albert Einstein: "Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable."
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."
Yes, according to Einstein's general relativity, the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is -2g). This is idiotic isn't it:
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 25, 2016 @ 18:17 GMT
I see nothing either horrifying nor paralyzing in the excerpted quotes of Einstein which Pentcho has just posted. GR is covariant and predicated on spherical geometry where change of volume is calculated from the curvature on a prescribed surface, not protracted from an assumed zero point center. SR is invariance between two gravitationally isolated gravitational domains and only enters GR in the terms of elapsed time on a curve, which via the Lorentz Transforms computes a length along a line of spatial curvature. But as in any measurement system, a result can only be expressed in terms where a choice of one parameter is taken as the benchmark against which all other parameters are relational. It is only in normalizing the time parameter across the entire gravitational domain in relation to an averaged mass density, when a result obtains that the speed of light is variable in relation to position and magnitude of gravitational field. So covariantly when expressed in terms of the compression of time in a spatial volume, the light has to traverse a greater amount of time in any given span of space relative to gravitational magnitude. Hence the clearly stated specification by Einstein that ", the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable." the key word *spatially* cannot be discounted. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 17:00 GMT
John Rennie: "The variation of the velocity of light with distance from the black hole looks like:
http://i.stack.imgur.com/XlKh0.gifAt large distances (large r) the velocity tends to 1 (i.e. c) but close to the black hole it decreases, and falls to zero at the event horizon." [end of quotation]
Idiotic isn't it? It can be shown that the absurd DECREASE of the speed of light as photons approach the source of gravity is a consequence of Einstein's 1911 equally absurd fabrication called gravitational time dilation.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 19:06 GMT
Banesh Hoffmann: No gravitational time dilation. The gravitational redshift "arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":
"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."
What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation, Einsteinians? Do they accelerate?
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 09:18 GMT
Hi all,
Dear John and Tom,Eckard,could you tell me more about the fine structure constant and the theory of perturbations please ,I learn a little the different mathematical methods for the creation of spherical algebras.I don't know well this constant but It is very relevant considering the harmonical oscillators.If the quantum gravitation is a different quantum of E,it is relevant it seems to me to insert the spherical volumes and motions,spinal, orbital and linear before encoding in nuclei.This standard model must insert the BH and dark matter relativelly speaking like our cosmological scale.The standard model seems encircled by BH and dark matter.The harmonical oscillators can perhaps answer.The bridge between the standard model and our irmpoved model is interesting to analyse.Regards
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 14:11 GMT
Steve,
There are a lot of interesting quotes from notables in physics about the fine structure constant, but nobody knows what its physical significance is. What can be said is that it consistently is observed as a simple numerical proportion in the spacing between elemental spectral lines, in particular the 'splitting' of a dominant line such as the yellow band distinctive of sodium. The problem is that those spectral lines are emitted or absorbed frequencies of light by elements, but when subject to Doppler shift measurement the frequency changes smoothly as would be evident of a continuous spectrum having a physical waveform. So while the emitted light behaves as a wave, the emission behaves as a particle. Its a puzzle. good luck with that - jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 17:07 GMT
I am thanking you John,it is nice.I am asking me how I can utilise the newtonian mechanic and the 3 motions of sphères and the harmonical oscillators.Quantum gravitation can perhaps be found with simple the quantity of movements.The différences is about the E of a spheron and so the planck constant is Under the stadard model, so a bridge is necessary simply with the newtonian mechanic more the spherical volumes.The primes can be inserted.We could insert this new constant intead of h for the fine structure constant considering the particlesof gravitation encoded.The elementary charge also socan be extrapolated for this gravity but differently than with our electromagnetism, it is there that the volumes and the 3 motions become relevant for the different stepsof stability.If the dark matter is also encoded but it is not baryonic, so it becomes relevant to consider if they are correct my humbleintuitive équations.That tends towards infinity this gravitation, it is logic because the central sphere produces the speedest and smallest spherons.The linear velocities of different spherons in function of their spherical quantum volumes and correlated BH.The method can be superimposed and sorted for the gravitation in inserting BH and dark matter even in our standard model.An other constant must appear like alpha the fine structure constant but not with e²/hc4piEo we insert instead of the fréquences of photons, the fréquences of spherons.The relevance is their paradoxal infinite number.The weakest force so is in the same time the strongest considering thecentral singularities.E=m²+ml² seems relevant if it is correct because we can calculate the entire entropy in evolution, increasing furthermore and paradoxally infinite due to this link physicality and infinity above the walls of thissaid physicality.A real puzzle John :)Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 26, 2016 @ 17:18 GMT
I am persuaded that a boson photon cannot pass c but a spheron yes.I don't see why this infinite entropy has created a physicality with a prison due to our relativity.It is just that we are still Young and that our technology is limited.In all case, fortunally that we do not check these particles, already that on earth, we are not able to harmonise globally this pale blue dot like said Carl Sagan.It is better like that for this moment.In the future it is necessary for thecivilisations to travel Inside the galaxies and even between the galaxies.But not with our relativity, it is not possible.The spherons permit to communicate also at a kind of present with extraterrestrial lifes.If a civilisation tries to communicate, it utilisees these waves , not our lectromagnetic waves Under our specialrelativity.The future is the gravitation,this universal natural equilibrium purelly correlated with rotating sphères.The centralcosmological BH is the secret of all in fact.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 30, 2016 @ 19:20 GMT
The dimensionless fine structure constant, alpha ~= 1/137, is indeed one of the important keys for unlocking the underlying nature of physical reality. Feynman's quantum field theory uses perturbation expansions based on factors of alpha and the gyromagnetic ratio calculated with such a QFE series is the most accurately known physical constant of nature.
The problem with alpha is not that there is no way to describe it...the problem is that there are any number of ways to describe alpha since it is dimensionless.
My favorites are as the product alpha x c is the average velocity of the electron for a hydrogen atom as well as alpha / c is the velocity of spin at the elementary charge radius of an electron or proton. That means that the charge velocity of the electron in hydrogen makes a magnet that interacts with the magnet that comes from the charge velocity of the electron spin. This spin-orbit coupling is what splits the s and p orbits of hydrogen, which have different average velocities, and that is what causes most of the spectral splitting of S and P states of hydrogen and other elements.
The constancy of alpha from spectral splittings in both distant galaxies and precision atomic clocks is the only argument for an expanding universe of unvarying constants. Any theory that supposes forces are different in distant galaxies must somehow explain why alpha appears to be constant for both distant galaxies as well as for precision atomic clocks.
In fact, it is not really alpha that appears to be constant, it is really alpha^2. In a shrinking universe, this key fact means that alpha does vary in distant galaxies and alpha^2 only varies as a second order. In fact, there are many reports of the second order variation of alpha^2 and atomic clocks are only now precise enough to begin showing these second order effects.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 30, 2016 @ 19:51 GMT
Hello Mr Agnew,I am thanking you very much.It is nice.It is a beautiful general explaination and Isee better now.I am going to learn more.mlosV if it is correct so can be relevant for the bridge with gravitation, dark matter(spherons.If l is the linear speed,so the samelogic can be made in superimposing the dark quantum matter and quantum BH.The standard model is encircled by BH and dark matter like our cosmological scale in logic.The same method can be made for spherons.An other alpha exists for this matter not baryonic it seems to me.What a puzzle:) Thanks still.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 30, 2016 @ 23:05 GMT
Oh blast it...c / alpha not alpha / c...
The dimensionless fine structure constant, alpha ~= 1/137, is indeed one of the important keys for unlocking the underlying nature of physical reality. Feynman's quantum field theory uses perturbation expansions based on factors of alpha and the gyromagnetic ratio calculated with such a QFE series is the most accurately known physical constant of nature.
The problem with alpha is not that there is no way to describe it...the problem is that there are any number of ways to describe alpha since it is dimensionless.
My favorites are as the product alpha x c (or c / 137) is the average velocity of the electron for a hydrogen atom as well as c / alpha (or 137c, 137 times the speed of light) is the velocity of spin at the elementary charge radius of an electron or proton. That means that the charge velocity of the electron in hydrogen makes a magnet that interacts with the magnet that comes from the superluminous charge velocity of the electron spin. This spin-orbit coupling is what splits the s and p orbits of hydrogen, which have different average velocities, and that is what causes most of the spectral splitting of S and P states of hydrogen and other elements.
The constancy of alpha from spectral splittings in both distant galaxies and precision atomic clocks is the only argument for an expanding universe of unvarying constants. Any theory that supposes forces are different in distant galaxies must somehow explain why alpha appears to be constant for both distant galaxies as well as for precision atomic clocks.
In fact, it is not really alpha that appears to be constant, it is really alpha^2. In a shrinking universe, this key fact means that alpha does vary in distant galaxies and alpha^2 only varies as a second order. In fact, there are many reports of the second order variation of alpha^2 and atomic clocks are only now precise enough to begin showing these second order effects.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 13:53 GMT
An expression for the fine structure constant contains constants that come from electromagnetic theory (e), relativity theory (c) and quantum theory (h).
That expression of the fine structure constant is:
a = (2*pi*k*e
2)/(h*C)
k is the proportionality constant from Coulomb's equation
The fine structure constant is also equal to v
e/C where v
e is the speed of the hydrogen electron in its lowest energy level.
How do theoretical physicists derive the equation,
(2*pi*k*e
2)/(h*C) = v
e/C
beginning with either expression and, after mathematical manipulation, ending with the other?
My reason for asking this question is that I think that they can't do it. Can they?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 14:48 GMT
James,
I think you have correctly identified the ambiguity that has pervaded attempts to account for the fine structure constant. The physical significance of the proportionate value cannot be found without a rational model of what constitutes matter and what constitutes the light which is displayed in the interaction between the two. It is only the response of the detection system that we can observe, no one has ever observed a photon. And to parameterize the velocity of an electron in the assumed ground state of a hydrogen atom is meaningless without answering the question Einstein posed; "I just want to know what an electron is." The Quantum model is non-realistic and we have literally no explanation of the Transition Zone and the peculiar measured proportionate rates of change of field strengths observed in the Near Field. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 15:31 GMT
Yet another way to express alpha is with the Rydberg energy, Ry. The Rydberg energy comes from the energies of the hydrogen lines and represents a very solid constant for mainstream science.
alpha^2 = Ry / (me c^2)
So, the mass of the electron, me, times c^2 is the electron's relativistic energy and somehow Ry, the energy of the light that hydrogen emits, is just some small fraction of the electron relativistic energy.
Guess what? That fraction is exactly alpha^2 ~= 1/137^2. Once again, it is not that there is no way to define alpha, the difficulty is that there are many ways to define the dimensionless alpha.
My proposition for aethertime is that there is a phase factor for alpha that is normally ignored and that phase factor means that alpha^2 does not appear to vary except in second order. This explains why neither galaxy light nor precision clocks show a variation in alpha^2 except to second order and yet alpha in first order does therefore vary along with c and it is c / alpha that is constant.
In a shrinking universe, both c and alpha vary together and that decoherence rate is what defines all force in aethertime.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 16:22 GMT
Hi Jonh,James,Mr Agnew,
That rocks :) thanks for all these informations and reasonings.It is relevant.Regards and don't stop dear thinkers to think of course....
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 18:12 GMT
John R. Cox,
Very good response! You addressed the problem directly. I don't presume that you agree with what I will now say. My opinion is that lack of complex knowledge prevents a scientifically sophisticated explanation for that equation. However, I am certain that on the Bohr model level, there should already be an elementary level explanation for converting between the two sides of the equation. There isn't and I suggest that that is pointing us to an error in the left side expression. I don't mean a mathematical error. I mean a theoretical error. I have addressed this problem concerning the fine structure constant in far more detail here in the past. It is one of several theoretical conundrums that are sidestepped with indirect responses or bypassed altogether with changes of subject by theoretical physicists. There is another similar to it that involves the force of gravity equation.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 30, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
Why Is Flat Earth Society Thriving?
"Our new website includes the Flat Earth Society forums (a thriving online community since 2004) as well as..."
The Flat Earth Society is a natural opposition in Einstein schizophrenic world, less insane than the science establishment. For instance, the flat-Earth idea sounds much less idiotic than this:
Introduction to Classical Mechanics...
view entire post
Why Is Flat Earth Society Thriving?
"Our new website includes the Flat Earth Society forums (a thriving online community since 2004) as well as..."
The Flat Earth Society is a natural opposition in Einstein schizophrenic world, less insane than the science establishment. For instance, the flat-Earth idea sounds much less idiotic than this:
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."
In moments of mental aberration, Einsteinians do admit that their world is schizophrenic:
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "La physique est schizophrène (...) ...relativiste le matin, quantique le soir... mais schizophrène lorsqu'il tente de concilier les deux visions. C'est là que réside le problème fondamental de la physique d'aujourd'hui."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 1, 2016 @ 05:26 GMT
Question to All .....
I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.
What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?
Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 08:18 GMT
Hello Gary,
You can learn the lagrangian and the Minkowski space time.In fact it is just model of evolutive metric to see the evolution in time.So time is considered like a relativistic tool which permits to class and analyse the intrinsic dynamics.You can also learn more about the maxwell's équations.The works of Lorentz are relevant also considering the time dilation and lenght contraction.The relevance is to link with the special and the general relativity.You can also see that general relativity islinked with sphères acting on the space time considering the curvature of our space time.The spherisation appears naturally due to this mass curving.They are just Tools to analyse our quantum scale and cosmological scale.It permits to have correct results considering the evolution and the encodings.Hope that helps.Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 15:52 GMT
Qunantum is relativistic, but not 4D in the same sense as GR...
Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 1, 2016 @ 05:26 GMT as "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions. What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"While GR is clearly 4D with time as a spatial dimension, Quantum uses mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2, and therefore an exchange particle, the photon, to make things relativistic.
In GR, things always happen along geodesics ever since the universe was set in motion from the big bang. In quantum, the universe moves by exchange of photons and so there are no completely certain geodesics. Since gravity and charge differ by 1e39 power, these differences can be ignored for most all objects and action.
The quantum phase coherence of photon exchange entangles objects throughout the universe with each other but GR has no such quantum phase coherence. While GR is a very good representation of most objects of the universe, GR utterly fails to represent objects inside of black holes and other event horizons. GR also fails to represent dark matter and dark energy, which are simply quantum exchange forces working at very large scale.
However, a quantum gravity will represent objects inside of event horizons as well as the quantum exchange forces called dark matter and dark energy...but mainstream science does not yet have a quantum gravity. I am glad that I do because it is silly not to have a quantum gravity in a quantum universe...
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 16:22 GMT
Steve D,
Thanks for the input. I am generally familiar with most of the major mathematical tools presently used. This includes the Lagrangian and Minkowski. But it does not explain why I should believe that dimension number 4 in GR (ict) is the same as dimension number 4 in QM (also ict sort of).
Steve A,
Thanks for the input also. So, if I read between the lines you are implying that QM and GR do not share the precise same 4'th dimension. The fourth dimension of each model is based upon time but is operated upon differently. I agree. If the next essay topic is agreeable, I will have some interesting mathematics to present. It might be of interest to you.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 16:32 GMT
You are welcome.the explaination of Mr Agnew permits to see the whole.I learn in the same time.I wait also your essays about mathematical plays.ps to both of you ....How can we consider time at these two different scales? Is it purelly correlated like the gravitation witht the rotations of sphères implying clocks? What are your points of vue please?Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 17:01 GMT
Gary,
Tom Ray is the one whom is best equipped to explain the distinctive difference of measurement space vis-à-vis QM and GR in terms of the general consensus among the practioners of both disciplines, and without prejudicing the discussion with preferrences to support an agenda promoting a presumed *discovery* in a theoretical hypothesis based on some personal equation. While he does champion Dr. Joy Christian's topological framework as a means of protracting a local realistic measurement space consistent with relativistic spacetime, and works towards a topological extrapolation of GR, he is one of the few whom holds fast to scientific discipline in respecting the professional conventions of limitation on definition of terms in both Quantum and Relativistic mechanics and is knowledgable and appreciative of the historical origin and evolution of the modern divergent theoretical regimes. He is my vote for Chief Quality Control Inspector. I just don't think he wants to be subjected to much more of the Chat Room Hazzards seeking fifteen minutes of fame whom cling to this blogspace like it was flypaper. He has taken down his own blogpage due to the common privacy problems these days, but if you care to risk posting your own email address if or when he posts a comment, he would probably appreciate your own strictly scholarly intents and engage in some private exchange. Onward through the fog!!! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 19:32 GMT
Steve D,
Thanks again. You ask how it might be possible to reconcile time at two different scales. I can offer some insight to that question. Take Euler's Equation and multiply it by the exponential form of a quaternion. I will reference "Quaternion Dynamics - Part 1" to give you a starting point. This is a paper posted to Dr Gibb's website viXra.org. If you do an author search on me (Gary D. Simpson) you can find the text.
The exponential form of the quaternion can be expressed as the exponential of a scalar multiplied by a quaternion. When that is multiplied by the complex form of Euler's Equation, it produces an 8 term expression that is a 5-D subset of the octonions.
I have Part 2 ready to post. I am waiting to post it because I plan to use it as my primary reference for the next essay contest and I might need to make some revisions depending upon the topic.
In any event, the exponential of the scalar term allows time to be introduced as a scalar. It is already present as a complex term.
Treating the problem as a 5-D geometry allows me to calculate the diameter of the proton as being 1.668E-15 meter. This is very close to the measured value. Unfortunately, it requires me to commit the heresy of motion with respect to a stationary vacuum. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.
John C,
Many thanks. I will keep my eyes open for such a post. In any case, I place my email address on the title page of the papers that I post to viXra ... I have had no problems to date.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2016 @ 20:03 GMT
Garreth Lisi has worked about E8 and Georgina has worked about theprime quanternion model.I discussed a lot in the pasts with my friend Ray about these extradimensions and the E12 of Ray,I asked me what are these dimensions.I didn't know well these algebras.Lies algebras,Clifford,Hopf,Magma...)all these Tools are relevant in fact and intresting when they are well utilised with the good récurrences,limits and domains.Thanks for the links,I am going to learn more.The fractalisation of a pure 3D can be made it seems tome if we consider the serie of spherical volumes,this serie is a finite serie for the stable primordial serie,quant and cosm.Several constants can appear between these volumes.We could even find the volume of the central BH of our universe.
:)How are your fingers ? Don't forget to repeat the gamuts and Hannon exerises .:)bEST Regards
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 15:44 GMT
John,
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
There's little respect for relativity -- among both FQXi members and forum participants -- in spite of overwhelming theoretical consistency and experimental validation. If you critically examine past essay winners you'll find they favor mystical concepts, incomplete concepts and ad hoc assumptions of quantum indeterminacy.
Relativity mathematics rests on a simple calculus theorem of continuity, ably expressed by Joy Christian as " ... product of limits = limits of products."
here The continuity of spacetime is not an easy thing to get one's mind around; however, what makes it easier to embrace probability? Quantum mechanics has so many interpretations because the theory allows them. The constraints of relativity are entirely within the postulates. Mathematically complete.
I predict that as understanding of LIGO results becomes stronger, so will the understanding of Minkowski space; i.e., spacetime. Then there will be no non-arbitrary boundary between quantum and classical domains.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 17:36 GMT
Tom,
my pleasure, for what its worth.
"The continuity of spacetime is not an easy thing to get one's mind around;" which must be some sort of truism if one accepts the Planck scale as the physical limit of size. Because while it might be incomprehensibly tiny to our human experience, in comparison to 'infinitely small' it is huge. So either granular non-locality exists down to the infinitely small, interior of a Planck scale particle; or, the same homogeneous, simply connected continuity of spacetime prescribed in field theory exists as the 'stuff' interior of that Planck scale volume. A not so fine a point that gets swept under the rug. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 19:34 GMT
John,
It's worth a lot. :-)
There's a different way to interpret the Planck limit. If one wishes, one can describe any measurement in terms of Planck units. There's nothing mysterious in this; one may always impose a unit of arbitrary length and count the units. The significance of the Planck length is that it's independent of any particular scale.
This does nothing to the
physical argument of spacetime continuity. If one tries to be so brash as separate space from time in ordinary measure space, the Planck time is simply self-referential to the Planck length. To me, this strongly suggests an extra-dimensional framework of simply connected points to some dimension limit -- based on the arithmetic theorem that a point can be mapped simultaneously to any set of points, provided it is far enough away. There is not 'enough' space to do this, without the added degree of freedom that an extra-dimensional structure provides, nor 'enough' time unless time is a property of spacetime.
Planck limits of all sorts are experimental boundaries that can't be explained until we have a theory of quantum gravity -- and a unitary one at that.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 09:52 GMT
Tom,
JRC has suggested that you might be able to elaborate upon the subtle distinction between dimension 4 in GR vs dimension 4 in QM. If so, please do. I have read the other recent posts here and you seem to be alluding to the answer but have not explicitly stated it. Also, JRC suggests that you might wish to correspond privately. If so, my email is gsim100887@aol.com.
Steve D.,
Actually, my hands and fingers are sore but I am improving. At least I can smoothly play 1/16'th notes now. Practice, Practice, Practice.
All,
I'm a little surprised that no one has challenged me regarding the claim of being able to calculate the size of the proton. In QED, this is almost impossible to do but I claim to have done so and I used a very simple equation.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 16:04 GMT
Gary,
I am actually quite curious about your proton determination. And what you have given as a diameter is in the ballpark of a base radius of a unitary field determination of my own. Is there a metaphysical model to your proton that would be something like 'a wrinkle of spacetime' that has curled up on itself?
Or; is it a material body separate and unequal in spacetime? I try not to go too far off the topic path but like everybody else can't resist pursuing tangent ideas. What's this proton of yours look like. In unitary (or unified) field metaphysics, its the neutron that poses the biggest problem. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 16:25 GMT
Try my équations with different mathematical methods by computing with the serie of spherical volumes for the diameters.Perhaps simply it exists a correlation with our sun and our protons.......More far,we have the BH.
ps:) Garry always indeed practice ,don't forget the words at the first page of the Hannon methos.1% of inspirations and 99% of transpiration :)
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 20:05 GMT
John C.,
I will direct you to three papers posted to viXra.org. These are "The Wave Medium, the Electron, and the Proton - Parts 1 and 2" and "Quaternion Dynamics - Part 1". The first two papers lay out the concepts and develop a simplified model. The third paper develops quaternions. The exponential form is of interest and will lead to octonions when multiplied by the complex form of Euler's Equation. Equation 13.4 of the second paper is the basis for the proton size calculation.
Steve D.,
I'm up to 3 hours of practice per day. I let my hands rest one day per week.
The quaternion expressions could easily be interpreted as spheres since they have the same mathematical form (i.e., the sum of squares equals a square). The above works might also be of interest to you.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 21:33 GMT
Gary,
thanks for the viXra directive, I'll see if I can follow it.
Steve,
As you write it, your equation says that: (E)nergy is equal to mc^2; plus the same initial mass quantity, squared. Is that correct? And in what way does that extra energy come about, what is a mass doing or interacting with that your equation refers to? What causes that m^2 to be added to mass:energy equivalence? Sorry, I do not understand. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 4, 2016 @ 07:47 GMT
Hello John and Gary,
Gary thanks ,I will learn more.
John,see simply that BH produce particles and they have like photons a linear speed before encoding.Forget the standard model and focus on dark matter and gravitation.Youknow the equation of Einstein is more suntil that you imagine.The mass encodes simply photonic informations.He had seen this encoding of evolution.I have inserted the linear speed of spherons before encoding like mc².We must rethought even our mass John.The ml² is the other step towards the entire entropy.I thought that you had understood my équations.But no apprently.See simply the generality and the project of God John with humility of course:) If you rest in the special relatiivity with simply stars and standardmodel, never you will found a road towards gravitation.It is a different quantum of E simply.It is logic in fact corrlated with rotating sphères and proportions.Hope that helps.Don't hesitate to ask questions, I will answer with pleasure.Don't forget John,see the generality and the sphères turning.Se that the central BH of our universal sphere produces the smallest andspeedest particles of gravitation implying the gravitational aether tending to infinity at this wall between physicality and infinity.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 4, 2016 @ 14:09 GMT
Gary.
Okay, I'll try to answer: "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.
What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"
QM is not a 4 dimension model.
Let's look at in the context of Bell's theorem. Even though the theorem claims to test local realism, the choice...
view entire post
Gary.
Okay, I'll try to answer: "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.
What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"
QM is not a 4 dimension model.
Let's look at in the context of Bell's theorem. Even though the theorem claims to test local realism, the choice function is invested in detector settings, an unrealistic proposal. After repeating random choices a statistically significant number of times, we count the number of times the choices correlate and normalize the results. Richard Gill says, "The physicist's correlation is just the probability of equal outcomes minus the probability of different outcomes."
Quantum theory confuses physics with physicist. Random choices yield random results. And the time parameter is non-existent. In other words, the theorem proves just what the theorem assumes (See Karl Hess,
Einstein was Right! ).
In an objective spacetime, simple connectedness is a theorem by existence -- the added degree of freedom that the time parameter provides assures objective outcomes without pinning an observation to a particular observer. It fulfills Einstein's requirement to complete an observation without disturbing the system. In other words, quantum mechanics can be derived from continuous spacetime in an objective manner, though the converse is not true. Quantum theorists make all kinds of
ad hoc assumptions -- Quantum Bayesian is the worst of them, as it imposes a measure of personal belief.
The time coordinate has a negative value in Minkowski spacetime. Time reversibility is an absolute requirement of general relativity -- it provides symmetry -- while special relativity, straight line motion, is asymmetric with regard to time. This is how quantum mechanics can claim compatibility with special relativity, and why QM and general relativity cannot both be foundational.
Special relativity requires time dilation, something QM ignores. Or rather, normalizes, and then is able to ignore. Since time is length 1 in one direction, it has to be length 1 in all directions. Fine. In what measure space? Quantum theorists are in a potential trap of logical contradiction: if the measure space is n-dimension Hilbert space, it has to be rigged for 3 dimensions, R^3. So it limits itself to a 3 coordinate system, xyz, though we know that a complete accounting for position requires a 4 coordinate system, xyzt. Because normalized time zeros out of an algebraic equation, continuity can never be built into a quantum theory; i.e., T = 0 in a linear equation.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 4, 2016 @ 16:15 GMT
Steve,
No one that I know of argues that mass as a unit of measure is a universal absolute. The Equivalence Principle derived from SR established what had only been accepted as an assumed operational equality between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And by necessity of measurement through motion, extends to time and space. Hence spacetime is a logical consequence of the Equivalence...
view entire post
Steve,
No one that I know of argues that mass as a unit of measure is a universal absolute. The Equivalence Principle derived from SR established what had only been accepted as an assumed operational equality between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And by necessity of measurement through motion, extends to time and space. Hence spacetime is a logical consequence of the Equivalence Principle.
The one thing that can be derived from our system of arbitrary value units of physical quantities as an absolute value, is light velocity. Yet as you write it: "m|" would utilize the vertical bar to denote "m" as an absolute value. While I recognize and agree that our definition of inertia is only operational (a mass in motion stays in motion : a mass at rest stays at rest), and would theoretically benefit from development of a general definition which would predictably identify what it is about inertia that is the same for any mass regardless of state of motion; it would be illogical to assume that could be had by assuming an absolute value for mass. Rather, a general definition of inertia would have to be a universal proportionality of light velocity in relation to any given mass value.
Secondly, there are as many arguments against the Big Bang as there are for it. Foremost in opposition is that GR is not a complete theory! Doesn't claim to be! Einstein wasn't playing God and the Big Bang wasn't his damned idea! And your central universal sphere is the second argument in opposition, which exposes the contradiction of spatial neutral centrality in Relativity with a reversibility timeline of the observed expansion of the universe. GR is not a complete theory, the BB might as well be a Bed and Breakfast for all I care. Sorry. I wish we could communicate better (no need to get paranoid about it) but what little I think I understand of what you are saying, I would disagree with as stated above. Best wishes, anyway. Hell, this is just something to do til they close the lid on me. I think its ridiculous they way some people are so certain of being right in any walk of life that they think its okay to trip up others. I can sympathize with parental loss and financial difficulty, take it a bit easier on yourself. :-) jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 4, 2016 @ 17:03 GMT
Tom and Gary,
"the added degree of freedom that the time parameter provides assures objective outcomes without pinning an observation to a particular observer."
Bingo!
and perhaps the easiest thing not to recognize oneself doing. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 00:58 GMT
Tom,
Many thanks for the reply. It will take me awhile to digest what you have presented. I've read it a few times already and it still does not compute.
My initial hang-up is that if time is a degree of freedom, then it is a dimension even if it lacks a definite direction.
Your statement almost sounds to me like saying it is always now. This is true but it ignores the fact that trajectories can be extrapolated into the past or the future.
I will nibble on your post a little bit at a time.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 08:31 GMT
Hello Jedis,
John,it is well explained,thanks for sharing.And Tom take care dear friend.We like your posts and knowledges.Best Reggards from Belgium.:)
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 12:17 GMT
Hi Gary,
Time is a scalar dimension. Magnitude without direction.
My
2007 ICCS conference powerpoint explains it in more detail.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 12:20 GMT
Aargh. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/T_H_Ray/contributions
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 16:32 GMT
Tom,
If time is a scalar dimension (I agree BTW), then why is QM not a 4-D model?
The link that you provided concerns Germain primes. I definitely do not see a connection with time or geometry in general.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 16:37 GMT
Gary,
You're looking at the wrong file. Look under 'contributions' and scroll down to the powerpoint.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
To answer your question, though, a scalar of measure zero is of no consequence to the coordinate system's dimensionality.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 22:31 GMT
Tom,
Re “Quantum theory confuses physics with physicist” (Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 4, 2016 @ 14:09 GMT):
Did you ever actually study physics at university? You seem to get confused about quantum physics, and you seem to confuse physics with mathematics i.e. idealized systems. Your pre-conceived view of how reality OUGHT to be is NOT how reality actually is, as verified by experimental physical outcomes.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 22:57 GMT
If I wanted to know how reality ACTUALLY is, I would have studied theology.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 5, 2016 @ 23:57 GMT
Tom,
"To answer your question, though, a scalar of measure zero is of no consequence to the coordinate system's dimensionality."
I do not understand the answer above. The scalar in question is time, and its value is not zero. It's value is the present age of the universe which is supposedly 13.8 billion years give or take a bit.
Ahhh ... now I've got the correct link for time. Thx ... I've read the paper and an initial reading does not make any sense to me. I'll continue to nibble on it. The bit about time having a random orientation is especially puzzling. The time axis must be perpendicular to the three special axes. Therefore, it is not random. It does not have a physical direction that we can perceive but it is not random.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 01:30 GMT
Gary,
"The time axis must be perpendicular to the three special axes"
General relativity is a coordinate free geometry. Every point of convergence in three spatial dimensions, is a four dimension flat spacetime.
Locally. That local geometry is the theater of all physics. We know, however, that spacetime is curved -- that the relation of time to space is a question of relativistic scale, and not linear.
Rigid transformations are only helpful in a Euclidean -- Newtonian -- context.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 02:06 GMT
Tom,
Regrettably, I think this is where we part company. Good Luck with that.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 02:12 GMT
Oops ... let me add a post-script.
It does at least appear that we agree that dimension 4 is not exactly the same between QM and GR. You argue it is a zero scalar for QM. I think time is scalar in both models but is only associated with the complex i in one model.
Thanks for the clarifications.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 02:53 GMT
Gary,
"You argue it is a zero scalar for QM."
No, I don't argue -- time is normalized to 1 in QM, which zeros it out of the equations.
"I think time is scalar in both models but is only associated with the complex i in one model."
Right. And imaginary time is indistinguishable from space.
Just one problem: Reversibility. A model of continuous functions must have it.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 03:12 GMT
Gary,
Coming from Chemical Engineering, which has incorporated a lot of Quantum Mechanical methods since WWII, the application probably begins with a given that t is scaled like moving the weight on a metronome. But theoretically, it is; [3D] + t. Normalized to 1 instead of numerically zero simply so all the arithmetic properties can be symmetrical. If it were numerically equivalent within [3D] it would be zero, but you can't divide by zero. t is not an element of the QM Spin co-ordinate space, it's put in by hand. Keep looking in :-)
yellow ones is uppers, reds are downers, and ...uuhhh the blue ones I dunno
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 04:21 GMT
Time is a scalar dimension in mainstream science, but there are really two dimensions to time: atomic time and decoherence time. While mainstream science considers these two time dimensions the same, they are not the same. Just like charge and gravity forces differ by 1e39 power and therefore are not considered the same force, atomic time is not the same as decoherence time.
That this makes the universe work so nicely seems to not impress very many...
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 04:47 GMT
Tom and John,
I thank you both for your patience and persistence.
What I am struggling with in the above thread is the idea of a "coordinate free geometry" ... that sounds like an oxymoron ... like jumbo shrimp for example or dehydrated water.
Normalizing time to be one in a coordinate system I can understand though. Although I don't see how that allows time to be removed from the governing equation ... unless it is present on both the left hand and right hand sides and is also normalized on both the LH and RH sides resulting in a scalar one on both sides which is then cancelled. If this is what is done then I have some relevant mathematics to present which will challenge the thinking.
I had not thought of space as being complex time but now that I think about it as such it makes quite a bit of sense. Thanks for the insight.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 15:47 GMT
Gary,
"Co-ordinate free geometry" isn't that abstract. Before industrialization made business interests politically powerful enough to impose 'Railroad Time' on everybody, Noon in every little town was when the sun was overhead. Our modern sophistication has made clockwatching the societal common denominator, and for 28+ years now you have been connected instantaneously to others in "real" time which has become so normal that if transmission delays exceed a narrow nanosecond window of synchronization, your screen stutters (oh! frown face). Yet if all computers operate on the same physical laws everywhere and are connected to each other synchronously at best, at light velocity; then just the distance differences have to be adjusted relative to the ubiquitous Normalized time increment. Not so difficult to understand, when the sun is overhead, it's noon. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 17:32 GMT
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 6, 2016 @ 23:06 GMT
Tom, Gary and others,
I studied physics at university. But I’m not suggesting for one moment that that gives me the right to comment, and that others who didn’t study physics at university don’t have the right, others who are concerned with different aspects of the nature of reality to me.
But I challenge those who take the philosophical stance that reality is like an idealized mathematical system to understand that they have in fact taken a philosophical stance.
They have chosen the philosophical stance that Vietnam was inevitable: none of the many millions of individual “choices” and outcomes could have ever been different. They have taken the philosophical stance that individuals don’t matter because they have no ability to make a skerrick of difference to this idealized mathematical system: the rigid mathematical structure has no structural opportunities or openings whereby individuals could ever make any difference to inevitable outcomes in physical reality.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 06:17 GMT
Hello ,
Dear Ms Ford,
It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the notoriety...
view entire post
Hello ,
Dear Ms Ford,
It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the notoriety also.Sciences are there to imrpove and to harmonise,we are catalysers of our environments.But apparently several prefer the false detials just to satisfy their own vanity.That has not meaning and sense.If this planet is in this state, it is just due to these parameters.Sciences are there to help the globality, not to ponder bizare things.A real scientis, universal and sterministic is general and global and must act for this planet with adapted solutions;I am suggesting that instead to focus on stupidities for this notoriety, they focus on sglobal solutions, if they are real scientists, passionated so they know maths, physics, chemistry,biology......The others aren't really globalist scientis, universal understanding entropy.It is rare to have these parameters;I am asking me how many persons understand really this relativity.It is ironical and the word is weak.You know Ms Ford, the world changes and the net is revolutionary.This planet will change with or without our approvements.You know sometimes I read the maths of some pappers and I say me, oh my god how is it possible that physicists can say these stupidities.Maths are a Tools permitting to physics to be explained.I class maths also and I am laughing because it is my passion also the maths.Like if they are going to give a course ,no but frankly??? I am waiting the essays, and this year the maths shall be anaysed in détails :) I have my books near me and my crazzy brain.I beleive simply that vanity is the problam and the fat to not critic the worksof friends with determinism.I have seen people agreeing even if they know that it is false??? The problem is very serious there.This planet is finished in these conditions.If now monney are given in the bad hands utilising this monney tool without globalisation, it is sad and serious.This pale blue dot cries and the sufferings is arrived at its paroxism.It is not acceptable.The responsabilities of entreprenors and scientists are so important at this moment.Altruism, universalism,humanism are essential and is the realmeaning of a scientist,a searcher,a thinker.This planet dies Ms Ford and money is bad utilised.Good or bad governances.Vanity or humility in front of this immensity.To be or not to be, that is the question! I prefer the calm and serenity of vegetals ...:)ps several can lie to a majority with maths, not to all! A minority sees the generality,the majority does not understand physics and maths.But it is the life.Sad in all case.But we evolve also Ms Ford :)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 13:37 GMT
Gary,
Proton Diameter. I agree that near values should not be dismissed as coincidental, but admit I have had trouble following your arguments. It is an essentially QM methodology and while we cannot fault success, it has to be noted that QM makes no real attempt to actually explain near values beginning with the near value of the mass of an electron as an even ratio of the chemical weight of a simple hydrogen atom. I find it interesting that in the same year Maxwell published, Walter Seimens solved the problem of deformation of field windings in electric motor/generator construction, making possible mechanical production of electrical current at greater than several horsepower. The reliance on sacrificial chemical cells had been cost prohibitive to development of electrical appliances, and Seimen's caged winding design opened the way for the age of electromagnetic experimentation and theoretical inquiry. Physics was no longer the poor cousin of chemistry. But the advances in physics led to the determination of mass in an atomic model that differed from the chemical weight. We have had a 'fudge factor' ever since. And Classical physics has not redressed that with a volumetric rationale of distribution in a spherical volume which can explain the electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields. So we are still stuck with the Standard (non-rationalized) Model.
I don't know if you have a viable quantum solution, or not. I don't know enough about QM to understand how it argues. I admit I am skeptical of zero point particles, but also the classical massless particles. Thanks for the papers, anyway, and good luck. jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 15:22 GMT
Tom,
Any wrinkle in spacetime would not be compatible with Newtonian space + time, of course. And not explicable by rationale in that regime. All should at least accept that Relativistic physics is not simply a different take on absolute space and time.
But for the sake of clarification, as your choice of words is often a challenge to others to learn a new thing, when you state that 'Rigid transformations are only helpful in a Euclidean --- Newtonian --- context.' an illustration would be helpful for those whom might except the challenge. Isn't a 'rigid transformation' more simply stated as a difference factor? The pedagogical role cannot assume a perfect reader. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 17:28 GMT
John,
You're thinking of the difference between Galilean transformation -- where time is the same for all observers -- and Lorentz transformation, where this is not necessarily true. Galilean transformation is an approximation of the Lorentz.
Because space is mostly Euclidean, length and time are preserved
under uniform motion. This is the case with special relativity:
Relative observers imply pairwise correlation. In relative uniform motion, two observers both see each other’s clock running slower, compared to their local time. According to special relativity, each is correct. Each frame is valid. And all physics is local.
For
accelerated frames (general relativity):
If one of the two observers leaves the inertial frame, and later comes to rest in the same frame as initially, her clock shows lost time compared to that of her partner, the relatively stationary observer. This shows (and is experimentally validated) that accelerated transformations do not preserve time.
Return to the source cannot be exact, however, because massive particles are prohibited from occupying the same space -- and the reverse metric cannot trace the exact path back, because it must decelerate in curved spacetime -- so the return path must either be a very wide circle or a very thin ellipse. In either case, length is preserved from the source, but time is dilated. This suggests to me that the presence of curved spacetime (caused by mass) and variable velocities argues for simply connected space and nonlinear time.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 18:33 GMT
Tom,
Thanks for that reply, that was what I was getting at. And yes most definitely as pertaining to invariance between inertial frames, and covariance within a single inertial frame. I'll have to read more closely the section specific to accelerated frames (GR) but couldn't help recognizing a similarity in geometric properties we see in conical sections. One doesn't even need to do any math to recognize that to rotate the parabolic plane onto a hyperbolic plane and be able to have the two couple through a circular base of a cone, the hyperbola would have to prescribe a larger base than the parabola. And on the parabola we find the acceleration of gravity and on the hyperbola we find the sinusoidal wave and the Lorentz curve. There has got to be that gravitation through change in spherical volume to unify electromagnetic wave:particle duality...somewhere.
I've got errands, and a lot of study of bureaucratic politics to see if I dare proceed trying to qualify for Medicaid. Ohio, you know. Oh Boy! balance the State budget and run for President, but never mind ripping off County and Municipal authorities whom administer Federally mandated programs to do it. JRC
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 19:10 GMT
John,
Thank you for the time and effort looking at hose papers. If nothing else, at least I have given you something to ponder.
I think that I have either found an alternate interpretation of the wave function, or found a second coincidence that is dependent upon the first coincidence. I do not presume to know which. I am really uncomfortable with coincidences though.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 20:31 GMT
Tom and Gary, I'll combine replies,
G. yeh, not to prejudice things but that coincident doublet nagged me, too. I'd go with seeking what the terms of the wavefunction come from. I think it was Feynman who said they came from Schrodinger's mind. I can't follow things like that, I see geometry first and math has to fit that. If you wonder about what's next, rest assured that the 'rubber sheet' illustration of GR is about as counter productive of comprehension as anything that 'pops' up, and deserves being stuck to the frig with one of those little magnets.
T. "This suggests to me that the presence of curved spacetime (caused by mass) and variable velocities argues for simply connected space and nonlinear time." That looks right to me. We are tracing velocities to witness change of time, and it might be arguable that it is that nonlinearity of changing time that keeps space connected.
Onward through the fog! :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 03:43 GMT
John,
" ... it might be arguable that it is that nonlinearity of changing time that keeps space connected."
And that's what I argued in my 2007 ICCS conference paper, "Time, Change and Self-Organization."
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Agnew wrote on May. 1, 2016 @ 19:11 GMT
Black holes represent singularities in space and time, but in aethertime, black holes are not singularities because that is no continuous space and time. There are lots of difficulties with the notions of continuous space and time and the black holes of mainstream science are simply a product of the limitations of these notions.
Presuming that the universe is not infinitely divisible means...
view entire post
Black holes represent singularities in space and time, but in aethertime, black holes are not singularities because that is no continuous space and time. There are lots of difficulties with the notions of continuous space and time and the black holes of mainstream science are simply a product of the limitations of these notions.
Presuming that the universe is not infinitely divisible means that the universe is made up of finite aether particles. However, the universe is not therefore made up of empty space that is filled with a finite aether, rather the universe is made up of a finite aether from which the notions of continuous space and time emerge.
A black hole is an object of matter that exists within continuous space and time and the logic of general relativity works only up until the space and time of the event horizon of a black hole, which is its surface.
In the logic of aethertime without continuous space and time, a black hole exists with a discrete mass, a discrete time delay, and an action or motion relative to an observer. Motion in this sense is a matter change that is equivalent to object velocity from which motion through space emerges. Without an empty space to begin with, there is no sense to an inside different from an outside since the entire black hole simply has the discrete property of a single time delay, a single mass relative to an observer, and a single matter change.
Phase coherence is what solves the further information paradox for a black hole that supposes that the information about the objects that make up the black hole simply disappears from the universe. In aethertime, there is a further property of black holes that has no meaning for general relativity. The black hole has the quantum property of phase coherence and it is the phase coherence of a black hole that preserves all of the information of all of the objects that accrete to form a black hole.
With the rather limited notions of continuous space and time, the way that a black hole spins is what captures all of the information of the objects it accretes along with black hole mass, time delay, and matter equivalent velocity.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 2, 2016 @ 18:58 GMT
I'm a little unclear as to how these experiments and theories expect to tell the difference between a defect in spacetime and a break in symmetry which might not reach parameters precipitating a virtual particle. Would that be considered a real defect, or recognizable as a simply 'less than limit' condition?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT
Your question is fuzzy. I get that 'defect in spacetime' = 'break in symmetry', yet what are 'parameters precipitating a virtual particle'? Do you mean black hole conditions? Do you mean 'parameter' as something other than an adjustable variable?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 20:50 GMT
Tom,
that Anon was me, I thought I was still logged in.
no, no... a break in symmetry precipitates a condensate of energy into matter, which you often refer to as diffeomorphis. The outstanding question of course being how do parameters of physical properties correspond to mathematical properties of geometry to result in that break in symmetry in a confluence of events. But also a confluence of events might not reach critical levels of proportion that would break with symmetry, and no discrete volume condition would form. My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime? The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2016 @ 22:41 GMT
Okay, I think I get it.
"My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime?"
They don't. The arguments for and against continuous and discrete spacetime are equally valid. One has to propose what a defect would look like -- perhaps an unexpected change in curvature. Then again, the existence of curvature itself suggests continuous spacetime.
"The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective."
I don't think Sabine hasn't gotten that far yet.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 02:09 GMT
Tom,
Okay, I'll puzzle over that some. It's all beyond my depth but I don't have a problem with a defective universe. Continuous spacetime isn't as much of a head warp for me as is discrete spacetime, what's that? How would spacetime be infinitely multi-connected? For me, energy and spacetime are inseperable and density is a function of velocity. Yet symmetrically, light velocity is an...
view entire post
Tom,
Okay, I'll puzzle over that some. It's all beyond my depth but I don't have a problem with a defective universe. Continuous spacetime isn't as much of a head warp for me as is discrete spacetime, what's that? How would spacetime be infinitely multi-connected? For me, energy and spacetime are inseperable and density is a function of velocity. Yet symmetrically, light velocity is an absolute limit because that is the natural limit of action in a time parameter. A zero boundary condition could exist as a minimum energy density where time exists at c and no spatial motion were therefore possible. So while connectivity of spacetime would still exist beyond that zero boundary, the inertial connectivity of the energy condensate would be dependent on a maximum density proportionate to the total energy content within the zero boundary. And that inertial connectivity is what we call gravity. Rather than being the weakest force, gravity is the manifestation of all the energy content inertially connected in that boundary and is exponentially greater by virtue of density at smaller scales. The strong nuclear force might be just that, gravity.
I'll stop blithering, I don't often try to express these notions though they work okay in some simple math, but I know its rather conjectural and conventionally heretical. Have you had a look at Gary Simpson's 'Quaternion Dynamics' paper? goto viXra.org; click: all submissions; then tab authors + go and a google search list appears with the title line. click that and then scroll down to the 'referrences' and click the viXra link and it should give you the html. Might have to hunt around a bit. It's over my level and presented mostly in matrix signage but you would follow it, and it is a precursor to a 5D rationale he is preparing. That I find intriguing, and while he sees it as failing by dependence on a fixed background, the fifth D could be fixed not to a background co-ordinate but to the notion of symmetry of c being the absolute time limit of my blither above. He's more on your level than I and you might enjoy some dialogue instead of diatribe for a change. :-) jr
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 16:20 GMT
Hello Tom and John,
Jonh,you say that gravity is just that the nuclear force.There are several problems in fact.Fisrt the gravitation is a different force than with our standard model.This gravity tends to infinity and it is the sweakest force.The nuclei encode, let's assume that simply protons encode bosons.Now imagine that more we go towards the central singularity for the stable primordial codes.So we have in logic an increasing of volumes.But not for the particles encoded.Now imagine that we have a kind of relative same system than our quantum serie with stars and B.So we see two aethers, at the two scales.So we see in fact that the standard model is encircled by the BH and particles of gravitation,the dark matter for me the spherons.At the two scales, relativelly speaking.It is theer that it becomes relevant considering my équations if they are correct.Gravitation must be different that our actual standard model with electromagnetic forces ,heat and thermo.Gravitons are not possible in this line of reasoning because they are bosons.The particles of gravitation aren't produced by stars simply but by an other thing not baryonic.That is why thr BH are sphères in logic implying a gravitational aether ,a sphere more important than our luminerous aether.The Nuclear forces are the more important spherical volumes for the electromagnetism, not gravitation.It is not possible.The central cosmol sphere is intriguing.Dimensions are just a fractal of volumes John.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 17:25 GMT
Dark energy for me is the push at the instant zero of the physicality.A spherical gravitational expansion instead of a BB.Dark matter is not baryonic and is in my model produced by BH.These particles of gravitation are encoded also in our nuclei like the bosons photons in our standard model but differently.That is why the quantum of gravitational energy is different than a photonic quantum of E.Space in my model does not exist because the gravitational aether implies the speedest linear speed but also the smallest spherons produced by the central singularity of the universal sphere.So space does not exist because the spherical volumes decrease from this central cosm sphere.
The standardmodel is encircled by BH and spherons like our cosmological scale relativelly speaking.E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant can help for the spherical volume and the 3 motions of sphères.encircles the standard model with one system of quantum BH gravitationally stable and primordial encoding the spherons produced by BH.The spherons are this weakest force.More a BH is important , more the particle produced is small and speed.That is why the universal sphere does not turn and the central BH turns the slowest.
I must test of course , but it seems rational.These BH are essential dark matter and gravitation also.We need to explain them.The special relativity is correct but gravitation is speeder and smaller considering the linear quantum sphères before encoding.This gravitation cannot be baryonic and Under our standard model, it is not possible considering an universal analyse for the future travel Inside this universal sphere.Best Regards dear Jedis of the SPHERE:)
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 17:43 GMT
Steve,
Believe it or not, I'm trying to steer towards the topic of 'Wrinkles in Spacetime' and what a 'defect' therein might be. So while I can recognize you have been wrestling with the topological paradigm in an effort to package the observable universe, and the simply connected 3sphere provides an expandable wrapper, I do have trouble understanding what you are trying to say. You have...
view entire post
Steve,
Believe it or not, I'm trying to steer towards the topic of 'Wrinkles in Spacetime' and what a 'defect' therein might be. So while I can recognize you have been wrestling with the topological paradigm in an effort to package the observable universe, and the simply connected 3sphere provides an expandable wrapper, I do have trouble understanding what you are trying to say. You have been able to overcome some of the language barrier to the rather sloppy English common these days and I am as guilty as anybody in being lazily monolingual.
But if I'm getting this correctly, you seem to subscribe to the idea that gravitation is a different kind of energy than electrostatic and magnetostatic fields, and hold with the idea that a gravitational field can extend to infinity without explaining how that could be possible without the finite quantity of energy in that field becoming so spread out as to become infinitesimally weak everywhere in that infinite volume of space.
What I've tried to say, is that just as time and space are intrinsically bound and indistinguishable at the foundational level, so is energy intrinsically bound up with spacetime. And that it is only due to the aggregate of vast numbers of self-gravitational material particles of energy condensed into matter that results in the apparent weakness of the gravitational field. Gravitation must be treated as a function of the time parameter, and where time is compressed into smaller volumes it operates more slowly. An object would have to traverse the same amount of time in a region of high energy density in a tiny volume, as that same object would traverse in a region of low energy density in a much larger volume. This does not mean there cannot be an empirically determined minimum density necessary to maintain connectivity of the physical energy. If we accept Mach's Principle in general without being too purist, the behavior of energy can range from inelastic to aetherial as a coefficient function of velocity determining density. And a greater energy density will exhibit and translate the characterists of a lower density but not vice versa. Gravity is observable in the magnetic behavior, the electrical behavior and the kinetic behavior of matter, but those characteristics are not observable at distances where the energy density only translates gravitational characteristics. And the lower the density of energy the more it melds one inertial domain with others expanding into the observed macroscopic domains.
I have long subscribed to a school of thought in Condensed Matter Physics that anything we might call particulate matter is A Wrinkle In Spacetime that curls up on itself. I like to quip it as Big Rock Candy Mountain. There is simply too much energy created by the stress of spacetime than there is room enough in the universe for it to exist at any given time at a density it seeks at light velocity. We live in a quantum universe because foundationally it is in an energy supersaturate state, and the 2.76 Kelvin CMB is the ambient level of compression which requires matter to condense from energy to conserve space.
That being said; a *defect* whether causally or probabilistically would be when something that could, should or would happen, simply doesn't. Or pops up when there's no reason against all probability. C'est la vie. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 3, 2016 @ 19:59 GMT
Hi John,
I will improve my English,I speak it like in french in fact , my grammar must be improved.I will do it in buying a book when I will have the loan soon due to debts of death of my mother.It is not a priority for me.I am a little sad that you have not understood my équations.I am going to make simple.Like said Einstein ,if you are not able to explain it simply to your...
view entire post
Hi John,
I will improve my English,I speak it like in french in fact , my grammar must be improved.I will do it in buying a book when I will have the loan soon due to debts of death of my mother.It is not a priority for me.I am a little sad that you have not understood my équations.I am going to make simple.Like said Einstein ,if you are not able to explain it simply to your grandmother,you don'tunderstand it really.The dark matter exists and is not baryonic.If this matter exists John,so there is a cause.They must be produced by something.Not the stars.BH are a reality and exist.We see that our standard model has a wall at this horizon between the two different model(Standard and gravitational.The supermassive BH are sphères, it islogic.If they are there, there are reasons.I say that these BH are also present at quantum scale.Protons are the secret but the standard model is not sufficient.See my équation E=mc²+ml² ,have youseen the relevance with l linear velocity of these particles coming from the main cenral cosmological BH, the biggest spherical volume after the universal sphere.See that we can superimpose the sphères !!!The quantum serie and its finite number(primes p adics numbers are relevant)is the same than the cosmological serie inlogic.The quantum stable serie is a relative photo ofour universalsphere.I hope than you see my theory ofspherisation now :) see that it explains gravitation and the link with infinite entropy at this central sphere.God is not far of us with this weakest force John.Imagine the number 1 for this singularity......BH in our universal sphere are less numerous than stars but the particles produced ? The standard model is encircled by BH and Dark matter.The gravitation is implied by this central cosmological sphere and its weak rotation and codes.It is simple when we see the generality of this universe.God does not play at dice and the sphere is the perfect equilibrium of sphere.The gravitation needs BH and dark matter and Inside the heat and thermo and electromagnetic forces are a kind of E.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 18:16 GMT
Hi Jedis,
John,it seems that the primes and the numbers are proportional with the spherical volumes.More the increasing mass on the entropical Arrow of time,the number increases towards bosons and spherons produced but decrzases towards the singularities.It is fascinating because gravitation is infinite at this cosmological singularity,the central biggest BH of the universe.I see that Tom...
view entire post
Hi Jedis,
John,it seems that the primes and the numbers are proportional with the spherical volumes.More the increasing mass on the entropical Arrow of time,the number increases towards bosons and spherons produced but decrzases towards the singularities.It is fascinating because gravitation is infinite at this cosmological singularity,the central biggest BH of the universe.I see that Tom had discussed about time.How can we analysr this time with the two systems, the photonic model and the spheronic model? If spherons breaks the special relativity because they aren't bosons?how can be consider this irreversible time with gravitation?It seems to me that the rotation spinal of the central BH implies the universal clock of evolution.How can we superimpose the two aethers,the two sphères with their aethertimes.The spherical volumes and the numbers are relevant.Tom If you superimpose the lunminerous aether with the gravitational aethers proportional with their BH and their spherical volumes.You could perhaps find the volume of the central BH in seeing the serie evolutive of spherical volumes.In logic more we go towards the central sphere, more the volumes increases.The correlated spherical gravitational aethers also increase proportionaly.You can make it Tom :) ps Big Bang is not really logic, the expansion is gravitational and spherical from thie singularity.Where is this centralsphere?at how many miles?What is its volume,what are the speed of spherons produced by this singularity?Infinite at this wall? what is the volume of the gravitational aether from this center? Is it in increasing ?The puzzle is complex but the generality is simple dear Jedis Mr Agnew, James, Lorraine, Gary ,John,Tom....Have you ideas for the serie of BH towards the center ?The quantum serie,primordial,is a relative foto of our universe but with scales and motions and volumes different simply it seems to me humbly.The geometrical methods and algebrical can be relevant if the numbers and volumes are found with the good récurrences.You can make it dear thinkers of the SPHERE.Be the force with you.:)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 16:24 GMT
If the main codes, gravitational correlated with the gravitational aether are from the central cosmological singularity.We can so imagine a serie of BH towards the supermassive BHs central to galaxies.The serie is between 1 and x.Now imagine simply that the informations go from this center to BH with a decreasing of spherical volumes of BH.So the BH are like coded system implying gravitation by encodings but also by primordial codes encoding if I can say.Now the spherons from this center are intriguing because they are the causes of our stars and our standard model to make simple.So it becomes relevant if we analyse the spherons having the potential to utilise or not their photons;I beleive that photons become photons when they pass in stars.They are spherons before.It is important because it explain thermo but also the wall between this thermo and this gravitation.The zero absolute seems the secret.All is spheronic and not photonic.Photons are just a comportment of gravitation in this line of reasoning.There it is more relevant still because standard model is encircled by gravitation.And this gravitation is the main chief orchestra.The special relativity is correct for bosons photons but not for spherons.The spherical volumes and the rotations spinal and orbital more the angles become interesting to analyse.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 7, 2016 @ 00:58 GMT
Lorraine,
I've copied your post and used it to start a new thread ... I'm pretty sure that was my choice:-) My question was simply about the difference between dimension 4 in QM vs dimension 4 in GR.
"Tom, Gary and others,
I studied physics at university. But I’m not suggesting for one moment that that gives me the right to comment, and that others who didn’t study physics...
view entire post
Lorraine,
I've copied your post and used it to start a new thread ... I'm pretty sure that was my choice:-) My question was simply about the difference between dimension 4 in QM vs dimension 4 in GR.
"Tom, Gary and others,
I studied physics at university. But I’m not suggesting for one moment that that gives me the right to comment, and that others who didn’t study physics at university don’t have the right, others who are concerned with different aspects of the nature of reality to me.
But I challenge those who take the philosophical stance that reality is like an idealized mathematical system to understand that they have in fact taken a philosophical stance.
They have chosen the philosophical stance that Vietnam was inevitable: none of the many millions of individual “choices” and outcomes could have ever been different. They have taken the philosophical stance that individuals don’t matter because they have no ability to make a skerrick of difference to this idealized mathematical system: the rigid mathematical structure has no structural opportunities or openings whereby individuals could ever make any difference to inevitable outcomes in physical reality"
My personal objectives at the moment are simply to understand better the geometry of Hamilton and if possible extend that geometry to physical reality. The issue that you present is quite a bit beyond that. I tend to avoid subjects wherein I consider myself to be not competent.
I will simply ask one question and give my interpretation. Is there an experiment that can be performed that will distinguish between determinism and free will? I don't think there is. Remember, we can only empirically prove that something is false by presenting contrary evidence
If determinism were true then it would always produce the same result that 'free will' produces since 'free will' would be an illusion. Is there any experiment that can prove that determinism is false? I think science does not have the methodology to falsify the hypothesis of determinism.
If free will were true, then a choice must have a measureable effect on the outcome of an experiment. Any experiment must still produce a result that is consistent with physical laws. So it would be necessary to conduct an experiment and make more than one choice. The difficulty is that we do experiments with inanimate things that don't make choices. So somehow the experimenter must become part of the experiment. And the experimental outcome must falsify the free will hypothesis. So basically, an experiment with random choices must produce the same result as an experiment where the experimenter uses his or her free will as a part of the experiment. If these two experiments produce the same result then the free will hypothesis would be false.
To me, any other approach is not science.
Also, keep in mind that sometimes it really does not matter what choices you make, the outcome will be the same irrespective of your choices. For example, if a high school football team plays the super bowl champion, it makes no difference what choices the high school team makes, the outcome will still be a defeat for them. This does not mean the high school team does not have free will. It simply means that their free will (if they have it) will not affect the outcome of the game.
That's my two cents ...
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 06:48 GMT
Hello ,
Thanks Gary.
Dear Ms Ford,
It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the...
view entire post
Hello ,
Thanks Gary.
Dear Ms Ford,
It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the notoriety also.Sciences are there to imrpove and to harmonise,we are catalysers of our environments.But apparently several prefer the false detials just to satisfy their own vanity.That has not meaning and sense.If this planet is in this state, it is just due to these parameters.Sciences are there to help the globality, not to ponder bizare things.A real scientis, universal and sterministic is general and global and must act for this planet with adapted solutions;I am suggesting that instead to focus on stupidities for this notoriety, they focus on sglobal solutions, if they are real scientists, passionated so they know maths, physics, chemistry,biology......The others aren't really globalist scientis, universal understanding entropy.It is rare to have these parameters;I am asking me how many persons understand really this relativity.It is ironical and the word is weak.You know Ms Ford, the world changes and the net is revolutionary.This planet will change with or without our approvements.You know sometimes I read the maths of some pappers and I say me, oh my god how is it possible that physicists can say these stupidities.Maths are a Tools permitting to physics to be explained.I class maths also and I am laughing because it is my passion also the maths.Like if they are going to give a course ,no but frankly??? I am waiting the essays, and this year the maths shall be anaysed in détails :) I have my books near me and my crazzy brain.I beleive simply that vanity is the problam and the fat to not critic the worksof friends with determinism.I have seen people agreeing even if they know that it is false??? The problem is very serious there.This planet is finished in these conditions.If now monney are given in the bad hands utilising this monney tool without globalisation, it is sad and serious.This pale blue dot cries and the sufferings is arrived at its paroxism.It is not acceptable.The responsabilities of entreprenors and scientists are so important at this moment.Altruism, universalism,humanism are essential and is the realmeaning of a scientist,a searcher,a thinker.This planet dies Ms Ford and money is bad utilised.Good or bad governances.Vanity or humility in front of this immensity.To be or not to be, that is the question! I prefer the calm and serenity of vegetals ...:)ps several can lie to a majority with maths, not to all! A minority sees the generality,the majority does not understand physics and maths.But it is the life.Sad in all case.But we evolve also Ms Ford :)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 09:22 GMT
You imagine dear thinkers if allthe scientists were focusedon global priorities.We must solve our global problems.Soon we shall be 10billions and the exponentials are at our doors in several foundamental centers of interest.If we don't change our global system, never we shall arrive to adapt us.The future is not really good if we continue like that.The earth can be harmonised and even we must...
view entire post
You imagine dear thinkers if allthe scientists were focusedon global priorities.We must solve our global problems.Soon we shall be 10billions and the exponentials are at our doors in several foundamental centers of interest.If we don't change our global system, never we shall arrive to adapt us.The future is not really good if we continue like that.The earth can be harmonised and even we must already think about Mars and the life in space.Perhaps that earth will be climatomogically chaotic soon furthermore.Water,food, soils,energy,ecosystems,jobs,number of humans..........that is why composting at big global scale and vegetal multiplication more increasing of mass of ecosystems andd harmonizations of these ecosystems are foundamentals on earth and on space and on mars also.The hour is very serious dear scientits, global and and universal and altruist.What are our jobs in fact dear thinkers? Have we a respinsability ? Yes because the solutions exist, the energy is not a probelm.We could nourrish our planet and colonisations with one water drop during the eternity.The problems are psychological and humans dear scientists.All must be rethought in fact for the well of all.The town and architecture also must be rethought,the walls must have this compost and vegetals and animals, if not we shall die all Jedis of the sphere.Can we accept the disorders and chaos knowing that universe is harmony in its pure entropical evolution, physical on this Arrow irreversible of time.We cannot accept that our planet, this pale blue dot ,this splendid blue sphere having created an ocean of lifes and diversity.The complemantarity is essential and foundamental,we are linked with these interactions between animals,minerals and vegetals.Since the beginning we are linked with these ecosystems.In a handle of compost, it exists a number so important of lifes.All is linked with this ecosystems , évolutifs.Darwin and Lamarck ....permit to see this evolution of mass and complexification.Without a correct global complemantarity between all animals and vegetals ,never we shall evolve in harmony.The chaotical sphères can appear soon and it is sd knowing that the solutions exist.The world needs to be reasured also, this planet is in depression.A global psychological depression due to an ocean of sufferings.It is not accptable for an universalist it seems tome.A small effort of the global sciences community is necessary.It is time to stop to play.The points of equimibrium can be reached.Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 23:29 GMT
There are many experiments that show that there is no completely deterministic outcome for an action. This is the nature of our quantum universe. So free will is then a result of that same quantum uncertainty.
"I will simply ask one question and give my interpretation. Is there an experiment that can be performed that will distinguish between determinism and free will? I don't think there is. Remember, we can only empirically prove that something is false by presenting contrary evidence."What this means for neural action is that it is our primitive mind that chooses action or inaction and that choice is a function of a lifetime of experience, the sensations of the moment, and a recursion or feedback that involves the choice. Since the choice that we make is entangled for some very short correlation time with the neural packets that are defining that choice, that self energy represents a fundamental uncertainty. In other words, given the same universe, a repeat does not result in the same outcome.
This does not mean that there are not more likely outcomes for choice, but it does mean that free will is part of a quantum universe. Note that the GR universe is deterministic and that is why we know that GR cannot represent all of reality.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 00:09 GMT
Gary,
Re “we can only empirically prove that something is false by presenting contrary evidence”:
There IS experimental evidence. See my reply below.
Steve D,
Re “But we evolve also”:
One can only hope! : )
Steve A,
Clearly our universe is mainly deterministic, but not 100% deterministic. It is the very small percentage of “freedom” in the parameters of physical outcomes that makes all the difference. Re “free will is then a result of that same quantum uncertainty”: I would say that free will/ choice/creativity is the CAUSE of that quantum uncertainty.
(See also my reply to Gary below.)
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 00:44 GMT
So Steve A,
What I am saying is that we individuals personally and actually make a small difference to the world: we are not merely 100% a product of deterministic laws plus quantum uncertainty. We are actually the CAUSE of (a small amount of) change: we are not helpless ragdolls moved around by laws-of-nature plus random uncertainty. What we choose to do DOES matter.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 02:07 GMT
Steve A,
P.S. What I am contending is that we are not pushed round by the universe. Instead, we
are (part of) the universe: what it is and what it does.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 17:46 GMT
We are in agreement about the nature of free will. You mention, though, that we are not quantum rag dolls and so you evidently do not like the idea of probability driving free will. Many people feel the same way about our quantum universe...kind of a love/hate relationship...but really more of a compassionate/selfish attitude about quantum feeling.
"We are actually the CAUSE of (a small amount of) change: we are not helpless ragdolls moved around by laws-of-nature plus random uncertainty. What we choose to do DOES matter."What makes sense to me is that most choices are fairly predictable based on our compassion for others versus the selfishness needed for survival. However we can choose to be more compassionate and thereby change the universe. When that choice depends on objective factors, it is predictable. When that choice is a toss-up, it ends up being probabilistic and so it is not clear why this is so derisive.
Neural free will is still subject to the coherence size of humanity and so that is why we are not just quantum rag dolls...we are quantum rag dolls entangled with humanity...our neural choices are entangled with the neural choices of the sentient lives that entangle us.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 7, 2016 @ 16:47 GMT
Hello dear friends,
I discussed with a professor on LinkedIn.Do you know the 1660 circles per second Tom,Gary,Mr Agnew...." Joseph Weber 1660 circles per second, as Max Planck calculated approximately 660 wavelength for constant in vacuum for the speed of light 3 multiply 10 of exponent 8 meter per second square. The absolute speed of light, is absolute because it is uniform in all colours of the Spectrum"
what is its meaning in deeper analyses?
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2016 @ 17:17 GMT
the fréquences of resonance in fact to detect the gravitational waves of weber.I have seen on wikipedia.LIGO has found with interferometry.The collusion of BH implying these waves.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 7, 2016 @ 23:20 GMT
Gary,
Re your reply 7 May 2016 @ 00:58 GMT:
A 2016 experimental test of the Conway and Kochen free will theorem reported that: “Our experiment is a test of the free will theorem since it implements the conditions under which axiom (i) applies, then checks axioms (ii) and (iii), and finally reveals an extreme violation of the predictions of theories in which elementary particles have no free will.”[1] Did you notice that FQXi referred to this paper, under the Tweets banner on the left of the Community page, about 5 days ago?
Mathematicians Conway and Kochen describe what they mean by free will: “To say that [experimenter] A’s choice of x, y, z is free means more precisely that it is not determined by (i.e., is not a function of) what has happened at earlier times (in any inertial frame).” [2]
If we have free will, then so do particles: “. . . ‘We’ve proved that if we have free will, then so do the particles.’ ” With this discovery, and this particular choice of words, Conway and Kochen created one of the most controversial theorems of their careers: The Freewill Theorem.” [1]
1. “Experimental test of the free will theorem”, Bi-Heng Liu et al, 27 March 2016, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08254v1.pdf
2. "The strong free will theorem", John Conway and Simon Kochen, 2009, https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3286.pdf
3. https://plus.maths.org/content/john-conway-discovering-free-
will-part-i
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 8, 2016 @ 14:37 GMT
Lorraine,
Many thanks. I will take a look at the links provided. I do not use Twitter.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 9, 2016 @ 08:18 GMT
Protons and their stability considering the time of desintegration are relevant to analyse in deeper calculations. .The spherical volumes can be correlated.What is the serie towards the singulartity, the biggest volume.That said it is paradoxal because we tends towards 10^-35m and more far even andthe spherical volumes increases towards the number 1 but the scale decreases.The bridge between the two quanta of E can be found.Dear Jedis ,let's utilise the good mathematical methods......
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on May. 13, 2016 @ 17:12 GMT
Space we measure with roads, time we measure with clocks. Space-time does not exist.
attachments:
Advanced_Relativity.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 13, 2016 @ 22:07 GMT
If space is measurable distance between material objects, space-time is measurable distance between the images of objects formed from received electromagnetic information. For example I could use a rod to measure the distance between two stars that I am seeing in the night sky. The information from which those images are formed will have had its origin at different times unless the star objects are exactly equidistant from my location. So it is not just a space measurement. Likewise astronomers can make space-time measurements between the images of objects obtained via their observational devices. There is no evidence that space-time is a part of the external environment.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 14, 2016 @ 12:03 GMT
Maybe I didn't say that very well. The images of objects are interpreted as the sources (that produced that information from which the images are produced). Images of the external environment are not necessarily formed from information of temporally homogeneous origin. The night sky is a good illustration of this because of the very large and very different distances of the sources of the images seen together. If the images are interpreted as their sources then the distance between them is a space-time interval. If the images are regarded only as images co-exiting Now then the distance between them is a spatial only distance.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 19:52 GMT
Space we measure with time delays between objects and time we measure as changes in objects.
"Space we measure with roads, time we measure with clocks. Space-time does not exist."Continuous space and time both emerge from measurements of objects and their changes or actions and so space and time do exist as very useful properties of objects. Just like color or texture or mass, time delay and object evolution exist as properties of objects.
Continuous space and time are both still very useful notions that allow us to keep track of objects, but continuous space and time both fail at very large and at very small scales.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 21:47 GMT
Hi Steve,
I agree with you that some properties have a aspect of change to them and they are useful. I have taken a quick look at the definition of "exist" and it isn't one simple concept but several grouped together under that term. Examples are: to have objective reality, being, to be recognized or understood. Being is different from the other two examples. An observation over time can be agreed upon and deemed objective and phenomena occurring overtime can be recognised and understood. Is there any evidence that anything has its material being co-existent across time? I think not. This ties in with the matter of not being able to simultaneously have properties of position and have properties of velocity (or momentum). The material object differs from observations of it over time in not having a time dimension, always being at just one time the Now ( not the variable observed present).
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 16:50 GMT
There is all kinds of evidence for the finite nature of a moment of time and a finite moment of time necessarily entangles some amount of what we call the future. In other words, what happens in the future does affect the present for some short coherence time.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 21:47 GMT as "Is there any evidence that anything has its material being...
view entire post
There is all kinds of evidence for the finite nature of a moment of time and a finite moment of time necessarily entangles some amount of what we call the future. In other words, what happens in the future does affect the present for some short coherence time.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 21:47 GMT as "Is there any evidence that anything has its material being co-existent across time? I think not."The past only exists in object fossil records, which are matter spectra and are objective properties that people can agree about. Science measures a great many different kinds of matter spectra specifically to quantify the nature of an object. For example, the color red is an objective matter spectrum. So objects exist as frozen fossil matter spectra that define how that object is put together.
However, objects also exist as pulses of matter in time and that is the crux of the uncertainty principle. An object as a pulse in time seems to have a knife edge existence of very high frequency oscillations of amplitude with well-defined phase. However, we can only measure the matter spectrum of an object as they evolve in time and from those finite and objective matter spectra, we can only subjectively deduce the instantaneous amplitude of an object pulse in time.
In order to make that deduction we need some kind of device that can process the matter spectra into a model of reality and make predictions based on that alogorithm. Typically we use a very handy neural algorithm called consciousness to make predictions, but each neural computer is slightly different and processes the matter spectra in slightly different ways. We call this our subjective reality since it depends on that nature of subjective qualia. For example, how we feel about a red object is subjective even though the matter spectrum of a red object is objective.
However, when we measure the next finite matter spectrum, we find that we can only predict the time evolution of the object time pulse within an uncertainty. Each matter spectrum takes a finite time to record and during that finite time, not only the object evolves, but the observer evolves as well. The spectrometer as observer is therefore part of the observation in an irreducible recursion.
Thus the spectrometer and object together define a finite moment of time and with our neural spectrometer that we call a mind, that moment of time is about a second. During a neural second, we choose a future based on how we feel and all of our possible futures recursively affect how we feel, which then affects which future we choose, and so on.
This uncertainty principle or recursion for neural matter has a correlation size that involves all of the sensient entanglements of our lifetime. We choose futures based not only on the matter spectra that we remember as our fossil past, but also based on all of the possible futures of all humanity and the planet and even of the universe. The uncertainty principle is not only a quantum rag doll, as has been so aptly put--the uncertainty principle entangles all of humanity and the planet and universe into choice as well.
This entanglement of the future and past along with uncertainty is what we call free will and this is what defines creativity as well. Creativity is a neural entanglement of many the possible futures of our own time pulse with the fossil matter spectra that define that our past as well as with the many possible futures of many other time pulses.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 21:14 GMT
Hi Steve,
you wrote:"a finite moment of time necessarily entangles some amount of what we call the future." I don't know what you mean by "what we call". Is it an assumption about a generally accepted concept, or an expression of your own opinion ( a "pseudo impersonal" expression that people seem to use often in science writing nowadays rather than using impersonal expression.)? My opinion is that the future(realm ) is a myth that has probably arisen from observation of determinism and fate ( as in the unchnageability of events that have occurred , news of which has not yet been received. That would have been more of an issue without the rapid communication we have nowadays) It isn't possible to be entangled with something that doesn't exist.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 21:21 GMT
Anonymous replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 21:14 GMT : That was me Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2016 @ 02:34 GMT
Hi Steve,
you have also written:"In other words, what happens in the future does affect the present for some short coherence time." If you are talking about the present as being what is formed from received EM, and it seems to me from your later writing that that is your intention, then I must disagree. The present is an output formed from received information ;an observation , measurement or experience that is qualitatively and categorically different from un-received EM potential information that is still undetected in the external environment. Though there can be continuity between un-received information produced over time that is lost when part of it is received by a detector or human observer and changed into the output that is identified. The output is not still the same thing as the input EM and EM still in the external environment. The output that is produced might be formed from information received over a time interval ( as occurs with organic sensory systems) but that is not the same as the future (not yet received information) affecting the present(output already formed).
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 25, 2016 @ 22:21 GMT
Steve,
I have re-read your long post and there is a lot in it that seems to make good sense to me. I'm sorry for just focusing on a few sentences at a time but there is a lot in there. I am now wondering, when you said ""In other words, what happens in the future does affect the present for some short coherence time." did you mean that thinking about possible futures can affect the choice a person makes causing a particular future to be actualized. If so that would make sense to me but the futures considered are only imaginary so not actually "the future" but neural activity occurring -Now and leading to perception of present thoughts.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 03:23 GMT
I love the way that you think...Yes, thinking about possible futures does affect the choice that a person makes and therefore affects the actualization of a possible future.
The key is entanglement. No matter what we do, we entangle a number of possible futures and those possible futures affect the future that that we choose...which then is not exactly the future that we chose, but pretty darn close...
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 05:16 GMT
Steve,
what do
you mean by "we entangle a number of different futures"? Re. your "those possible futures affect the future that that we choose...which then is not exactly the future that we chose, but pretty darn close..." Have you never found that what happens is nothing like what you imagined? Or even that what happens is something unimaginable to you until it has happened?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 22:37 GMT
Hi Steve,
they were not rhetorical questions. There may be an overestimation of control of the external environment by the self in stable, predictable environments, where predicted outcomes closely match what occurs (on the whole). This could even lead to a kind of magical thinking where a person believes it is their own will (with or without assistance of a higher power) that is controlling the external world to a greater extent than is the case. In unstable, unpredictable environments, such as an active earthquake zone, war zone or family situation with unpredictable volatile persons, there is far less of a sense of personal control over events. I think the idea that it is a person's choice that causes a particular future to come to be should be used with caution as it could lead to victim blaming. The choice and actions of a person do not happen in isolation from the external reality and many factors not under personal control. For comparison: you wrote "No matter what we do, we entangle a number of possible futures and those possible futures affect the future that that we choose...which then is not exactly the future that we chose, but pretty darn close... "Scenario: a boy decides he will ride his bike to his friends house tomorrow and they will play together- his house is hit by a rocket and as well as injuries many family possessions are destroyed including the bicycle.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Brian Balke wrote on May. 14, 2016 @ 18:46 GMT
One of the criteria for axion theory, which has three degrees of freedom, was the avoidance of topological defects that arise as the local ground states with inconsistent phase meet (a la grain boundaries in solid-state physics).
If we consider this as an analogy for the formation of a spatial lattice manifested as "dark energy", then we don't need to avoid the defects: they actually serve to explain the existence of quasars, the super-massive black holes at the center of galaxies, and the large voids in the distribution of visible matter.
These concepts are explored in more depth here: https://everdeepening.com/toward-a-new-physics/
Of course, this might also arise in purely quantum theories of gravitation, but I tend to doubt that: the mathematical formalism seems unlikely to support the formation of rigid grain boundaries.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 20, 2016 @ 13:45 GMT
Pentcho,
I started a new thread here just for you.
You frequently refer to the schizophrenia of Relativity ... i.e., the requirement of simultaneously keeping apparently mutually contradictory concepts inside one's brain.
I won't attempt to alter your opinion on this but I will offer an additional thought ... At the age of 56, I am learning to play piano. After two months of lessons and many hours of practice, I have learned to play simple versions of Sonatina by Clementi, Fur Elise by Beethoven, and Hungarian Rhapsody No 2 by Liszt. Why do I mention this? Because in each of these pieces, my left hand and my right hand must do different things and they must do so in a way that is synchronized with each other. This is a little like the schizophrenia you describe.
Perhaps the way to resolve these apparent contradictions is to find a way for the left hand and right hand to work in unison. The first problem is to figure out what physics uses as 'hands' and then figure out how many hands it has.
Just a thought ...
Good Luck and Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 14:32 GMT
Gary,
The contradictions Einsteinians keep in their heads are not apparent - they are of the type "both A and not-A are true". For instance, Lee Smolin rejects Einstein's relative time but continues to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate (from which the relative time has been deduced). In logic, as you know, the combination "true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden.
Another example is the speed of light falling in a gravitational field. Some Einsteinians teach it is constant (zero acceleration), others that it DECREASES (the acceleration is NEGATIVE). There is even a third (small) group that teaches that the speed of falling photons varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies (the Newtonian view). The groups never contradict one another so here Orwell's "doublethink" should be replaced by "triplethink".
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 21:52 GMT
Gary,
nice try, but what both you and Pentcho describe is not what constitutes clinical schizophrenia. Actually diagnosis is not only inexact, it is highly subjective and there are no objective tests by which to categorize behavior which might resemble symptoms. It can be easily confused with hypervigilance associated with post traumatic stress, and unfortunately environmental conditions producing traumatic stress are also precursory of schizophrenia. If you are interested, there was an experiment done by David Rosenhan published in the journal Science in 1973 titled 'On Being Sane in Insane Places', which was the result of his own studies of how schizophrenia was being perceived and treated by the psychological norms of the time. In that experiment, volunteers with legal professionals proactive as safeguard, feigned auditory hallucination and were admitted to hospital wards diagnosed as schizophrenic. They then acted normally while concealing flushing the prescribed medications down the commode, and responded to staff they felt fine and weren't experiencing any symptoms. Not surprisingly, none of the staff on the wards or psychological professionals recognized any as faking it, but a lot of the other patients did. It led to a revision of protocols in diagnosis and treatment, including removing the long held belief that the condition was incurable. It currently is estimated to afflict only about half a per cent of world population, and in Pentcho's case is simply a handy prejorative against what he disagrees with. There isn't anything clinically insane about Relativity. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 20, 2016 @ 23:58 GMT
Pentcho & John,
I don't actually think piano is a form of schizophrenia ... it is multi-tasking that requires good coordination. Sometimes I find it useful to think of things in entirely different ways or from a new perspective. Sometimes someone else can trigger a new or useful thought for me ...
Regarding Relativity, to me the objective is to have a perspective that resolves the contradictions if properly understood. The perspective must also make predictions and allow calculations:-)
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 02:40 GMT
There are cases of clinical schizophrenia due to awareness of obvious logical schizophrenia of own thinking. Georg Cantor got repeatedly insane and died in a madhouse. When he failed to provide a proof that he had already announced he even claimed having got his insight directly from God.
A more than infinite quantity is self-contradictory, and Cantor's naive set theory has not at all proven useful up to now, not even after it was seemingly rescued into tho axioms of ZFC. The basic mistake was already made e.g. by Albert from Saxony and Bolzano who ascribed a number of points to a length.
When Weierstrass spoke of infinite numbers, he ignored Archimedes. He and Dirichlet came not from an academic background. Even Kronecker was doomed to fail because he intended the impossible: making the continuum algebraic, i.e. composed of numbers.
Among those who more or less got ill or committed suicide were more mathematicians like Minkowski, Hausdorff, Goedel, Turing, and Grotendieck than physicists like Boltzmann.
Einstein was not just more robust but for him seeming success and recognition up to huge admiration were sufficient.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 07:58 GMT
Hello ,
You know I have been in psychiatry also and in the coma also.Crazyness is the begining of the wisdom,but it is necessary to stop at time, I have not success to stop at time.I speak to God and I listen the universallove in evolution of matter energy.The sphere in spherisation:) I have lost my mother more than two years ago and my gogfather, the brother of my mother has committed a suicide 1 year ago.I am against the suicide;in the past It was just for me,I was very sad in my depression.I have fought this death and I like the life now.Of course I am tired and weak due to a lot of personal problems but I have faith in God and the spherisation of sphères Inside the sphere.We were, we are , we shall be ....dear Jedis of the SPHERE;take care and be theforce with you and love life ,see int he fly of a bee the universal altruistic love simply,the rest is vain after all,let's contemplate, let's improve, let's catalyse, let's plant theflowers of eternity after all.To be or not to be ,that is the question!regards
(--)(--)(--)(--)
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 08:45 GMT
I beleive simply that when you are aware of this universal reality,you are deceived by this planet truning in opposite sense.Schizo and parano are results of depression more others parameters.Psychology is became a main global parameter.Itis even an very very important parameter.Freud(I have read severl works from him.It is the father of psychanalysis.I beleive strngly that in fact the depression is global because we loose our foundamentals, universal.We loose our contemplations,we loose our innocence of child,we live in a bizare individualist globality.We have in fact taken a bad boat and we recolt the seeds of our ironical unconsciousness.This planet needs to be reasured, the humans need to be comforted and reasured by a global government.It is time to act correctly for the globality by harmonisation of chaotical systems.We cannot continue like that, it is not possibel,we must nourrish all, ...water,food, energy, jobs,soils,ecology,.....soon 10 billions and also soon this planet will be different climatologically speaking.And still I forget the other paramters like economies, corruptions, politics, ideologies, religions.....Oh my God , oh father of sphères and its hopes, help us, we have destroyed the universal foundamentals ,this planet cries, dies............and the prayers dancing and turning towards this gravitationalcosmological singularity......
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 17:01 GMT
Eckard,
You are right about a lot of famous mathematicians being self righteous mudslingers.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Agnew wrote on May. 21, 2016 @ 20:23 GMT
Basically, each atom today is bound by photon exchanges between electrons and nuclei. These atom's bonding photons remain entangled with the complementary photons these same atoms emitted billions of years ago at the CMB emission. Quantum gravity is then a result of those pairs of photons, called biphotons.
The CMB was our creation event since it is where all matter condensed from a primordial soup. The subsequent entanglement of bonding charge photons with their complementary emitted CMB photons represents a irreducible biphoton quadrupole that has the quadrupole strength scaled by the time of the universe as tB/2Tu x e. The ratio of the Bohr atom period, tB = 8.1e-21 s, to the universe time, Tu = 13.4 Byrs, is 9.5 e-39, times electron charge is then the strength of gravity force.
Sweet.
So quantum gravity is really moderated by a version of the same photons that moderate quantum charge and there is no need for a separate graviton particle to form quantum gravity and gravity waves.
To first order, the deflection of starlight by the sun's QG is the same as GR and so is the perihelion shift of Mercury, the Hulse-Taylor pulsar decay, and gravity lensing of distant galaxies as well.
However, event horizons and black holes as well as the primordial soup beyond the CMB, the Hubble red shift, dark matter, and dark energy all have different interpretations. It is possible that Hossenfelder's defects in spacetime could turn into a discrete aether whose further decoherence defines both quantum charge and gravity in the universe...or it might not...
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 17:14 GMT
Hello Mr Agnew,
It is a relevant general analysis.That said I have really difficulties to accept that gravitons are a reality and are correlated with gravitational waves.
I see humbly (and I can make errors like all of course :))that gravitons are bosons photons and so cannot explain quantum gravitation.But it is just my opinion of course.The gravitation implies a real problem...
view entire post
Hello Mr Agnew,
It is a relevant general analysis.That said I have really difficulties to accept that gravitons are a reality and are correlated with gravitational waves.
I see humbly (and I can make errors like all of course :))that gravitons are bosons photons and so cannot explain quantum gravitation.But it is just my opinion of course.The gravitation implies a real problem considering that this gravitation tends to infinity.The standard model needs really to analyse this weakest force with a different road.The gravitational waves them are corrects and respect the special and general relativity,these waves afect theluminerous aether in fact simply.Now gravitation seems not bosonic.Te natural universal gravitation seems correlated with the natural rotation of sphères.Gravity is a natural force probably proportional also with these roattions of these quantum and cosmological sphericalvolumes.We cannot consider these gravitational waves correlated with gravitation.It is just an effect of our special and general relativity.If gravitons exist , they are simply photons with a specific rotations and fréquences and waves.They aren't the solutions for this gravitation.BH and Dark matter must be analysed differently than withour actual relativistic logic.If we consider the gravitational aethers ,we can see that the main informations are from the main central cosmologicalBH implying the biggest gravitationalaether.If these informations imply all, it is so relevant that the spherons in fact possess all the properties with photons Inside perhaps.It is so the gravitation the main chief orchestra implying the comportments of photons.If the number decreases towards the central singularity,the number increase for particles produced and encoded.The spherical volumes seem correlated.The primordial soap at this zero instant was spheronic and gravitational implying the spherical coded expansion of singularities.The time permit the increasing of matter energy with irreversibility.The gravitation tending toinfinity is logic if we insert these central sphères for the singularties with this central BH where all comes from.God created a sphere from a sphere with sphères but what is this central sphere exactly possessing all the properties and codes of becoming .?It is above our simple human understanding but in this weakest force, in this lightest gravitation ,this infinite entropy is near us in this instantaneity, intriguing is a weak word.We are babies in evolution.....Best Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 17:22 GMT
It is a wonderful coincidence of models that the biphoton that is a basis for a quantum gravity also is a basis for a pilot wave for the classical gravity of general relativity. Essentially the photon pair that makes up a biphoton entangles the very short time photon bond of an atom today with the very long time photon emission over 13.4 Byrs ago.
In a sense, the CMB photon emissions of creation represent the pilot waves of today's photon bonds. The notion of a pilot wave is one way to make general relativity compatible with the coherence of quantum phase, the so-called superdeterminism of Bohmian quantum theory. Instead of there being an uncertainty, Bohm suggested that there is simply a lack of knowledge about the pilot wave and so biphoton quadrupoles provide determinant geodesics.
Each photon path in the present then has a pilot wave photon at the CMB and as long as those two waves remain coherent, measurements show quantum uncertainty. As soon as those waves are no longer coherent, then they show classical GR. Thus, up until the diffeomorphic limits of GR, biphoton QG can coexist with pilot wave GR. Near the event horizons of very large and very small matter, QG provides the only valid predictions of action.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 17:50 GMT
Thanks frosharing,The wave pilot and Bohm's works?I don't know ,I am going to learn more ,perhaps we can find a method for the gravitational aether and that in fact the wave pilot is gravitational.The correlated linear speed before encoding implying this gravitationalaether seems having the main frequence.The luminerous aether is in fact a state of the spheronic aether it seems to me humbly.Of course it is intuitive like my équation but we need centers and singularities.The standard model seems simply a state due to main gravitational codes more far in our protons,nuclei.The standard model like our universe seems really encircled by gravitation, so BH and dark matter not baryonic.These gravitational codes encodes so fermions, bosons and spherons(the smallest and speedest before encoding with the linear velocity.If we nalyse spiritually and philosophically speaking, I don't see why God has created a sphere in imrpovement spherisation with a limit of special relativity.That has no sense for the future travels between planets and solar systems and even galaxies Inside this sphère and its galaxies.We are just limited actually technologically speaking.In all case it is better like that for the moment, already that we have difficulties to harmonise ourplanet,I don't see a reason to colonise other solar systems.So the special relativity is well made by God, this infinite entropy above our physicality.Even at c we cannot travel in our milky way, we are al 27000 AL of the central supermassive BH so c is a problem.The gravitational aethers them become relevant with my equation,we could pass c but with spherons, not photons.But in logic a photon can pass c if it becomes a spheron but it is an other story:)
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 19:40 GMT
Charge force is due to photon dipole exchange and gravity is due to biphoton quadrupole exchange and it makes no difference what words describe them, but it graviton or spheron. In fact, both photons and biphotons are made up of same aether particles as is all matter.
Particle exchange drives all action and so there are no singularities since force is action-centered and not body-centered. Singularities are an artifact of the notions of continuous space and time and do not actually exist. In fact, notions of continuous space and time both emerge from the discrete actions of aether. Infinity and infinitesimals are both very useful notions, but are also just artifacts of the notions of continuous space and time.
The universe is composed of discrete aether particles that are very small, but finite, so ~1e-68 kg bounds the infinitesimal. The universe also has a very large and finite number of aether particles that bound infinity to about ~1e126 or so. The matter-scaled Planck's constant bounds the quantum action of each aether particle to ~1e-51 kg s.
Notions of continuous time energe from the discrete action of electrons bound to nuclei with times on the order of the quantum Bohr atom period, 1e-21s. Notions of continuous space likewise emerge from the discrete action of the quantum spin of electron and proton surface charge , which is 4.1e10 m/s.
A sphere is a 1D object defined by only a single dimension; its radius. In aether, there are matter spheres and action spheres and time spheres and a phase relationship among them. If your spheron model behaves like this, you are good to go...
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 20:10 GMT
Both of us affirm about gravity but we cannot really affirmMr Agnew,we have just models.My theory of spherisation is in 3D and it is important.The quantumspheres are like incompressible gravitationalliquid.The quantum sphères are in 3D and the unievrsal sphere also like the cosmol sphères.The gravitational newtonian 3S mechanics is essentail.The metric of course is in 4D but it is a tool.We...
view entire post
Both of us affirm about gravity but we cannot really affirmMr Agnew,we have just models.My theory of spherisation is in 3D and it is important.The quantumspheres are like incompressible gravitationalliquid.The quantum sphères are in 3D and the unievrsal sphere also like the cosmol sphères.The gravitational newtonian 3S mechanics is essentail.The metric of course is in 4D but it is a tool.We cannot consider gravity with a 5D for example or others dimensions.All is in 3D for the respect of all proportions, newtonian.The aethers seem gravitational Mr Agnew.We search the truth after all,but we have just models.But frankly I am persuaded that it is necessary to anaylse the standard model differntly.Our special relativity and photons aren't the only one foundamebtal of our universe.Gravity is the real light and it exists several graviational aethers.It is always in 3D Mr agnew,we have just difficulties to analyse these particles at this moment speeder and smlaller than photons.BH and dark matter needs really to be inserted at the two scales.Gravitation appears in 3D with simply the rotations and properties of these sphères.See that the universal 3D sphere needs an universal central BH.The informations are from this BH and its is not photons which come from this singularity.The photons in fact are Inside in logic these spherons, encircled.The nuclei also and it encodes this gravitation.Photons and thermo are like a fuel permitting to see, to give heat and work and newtonian proportions.Gravitation has nothing to dowith thermo and standard model it seem to me always with humility and of course my model has hypothesis but in fact it seems logic.If BH exist, there are reasons like dark matter and if we have not still explained gravitation, there are reasons also.You make me crazy Mr Agnew :) but I learn also in the same time others models and ideas and extrapolations.But I don't understand why people rests in this relativity.It is time to go more far than our actual analyses.The 3D Universal sphere is in spherisation of matter energy and we must explain this dark matter and gravity.I beleive that I found but it must be tested by experiments.I am not an engineer ,so I don't see how we can make an experiment to see these spherons correlated with this dark matter not baryonic.It is far and they are black and so speed and so small these particles and furtheremore it exists many different due to correlated BH where they are produced.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 20:46 GMT
The reason that you use spherons is because spheres have only one dimension that is important. Supposing that you need two more dimensions is simply a notion of spacetime and is not necessary for primitive action of aether matter.
Just matter and action are all that is necessary for time and space to emerge as long as there is a phase relationship between matter and action.
Thermo...
view entire post
The reason that you use spherons is because spheres have only one dimension that is important. Supposing that you need two more dimensions is simply a notion of spacetime and is not necessary for primitive action of aether matter.
Just matter and action are all that is necessary for time and space to emerge as long as there is a phase relationship between matter and action.
Thermo has to do with all of the forces of particles including gravity. Gravity compression, densification, and adiabatic heating of matter are the founding principles of the thermo of stars and planets.
I am sorry that I make you crazy, but black holes do exist...but are really more like boson stars. The quantum gravity of biphotons works just fine in the boson stars that mainstream science calls black holes. There is no information lost in the phase transition from fermion matter accretion to the action matter of a boson star.
Dark matter and dark energy for that matter are both simply manifestations of the exchange properties of quantum gravity. Quantum exchange at the microscopic scale is very well known but since until now, there has not been quantum exchange at the galaxy or larger scale.
Quantum gravity results in an exchange interaction among stars due to their mass loss rates. That exchange coupling between inner and outer galaxy stars is what keeps galaxies rotation constant, not dark matter. Angular momentum is simply exchanged from inner to outer star, inner stars then slow and outer stars speed up. There is no such thing as dark matter.
The same for dark energy. The universe seems to accelerate despite mass density decreasing by careful measurement of supernovas of distant galaxies. This is the argument for dark energy. But aethertime has a very different cosmology that fits the universe the way that it is without any new dimensions or constants. So, no dark energy either.
You presume a universal and central black hole and it is true that there is a universal and central surface; it is called the CMB. Everywhere in the universe the CMB provides a reference surface and for aethertime, the CMB persists for all time. There are no event horizons except that of the edge of the universe just beyond the CMB.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 07:32 GMT
I am sorry but you must see the sphere in 3D and not 1;It is important and the dimensions are not a play of maths Mr Agnew.So the confusions about dimensions are not game.It exists only 3D dimensions Mr Agnew.I like the works of Hawking but he is false about the BH in the system of stars.Furthermore he does need god and entropy in hismodel.The relevance is the wall at the events horizons where relativity and gravitation are at this wall.
For the expansion, indeed it accélérâtes but don't forget that we see our past and so we can see the correct expansion contraction due to increasing mass.The dark energy is the gravitational push and it accélérâtes and after will decellerate towards the maximum volume, after we shall have in logic an acceleration towards the minimum spherical volume and after a decceleration in this min volume.It is just a newtonian effect and gravitational.Aether time is gravitational, forget the relativity a little Mr Agnew.Forget your chains.....Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 07:43 GMT
3D SPHERES are essential for the respect of our quantizations of matter.If we make a fractal of the serie of uniquenes, cosmol or quant,we have a finite number from the number 1 for the central singularity;If we make for example a fractalisation with lie algebras, we are always in 3D.The 4d is just a meric.The gravitation is not a different dimension, it is an effetc newtonian with rotations proportional with many things.We need to find the correct seri in 3D.Physics are rational in 3D and it is important.The universal 3D sphere is in spherisation of matter energy in 3D.It is essential.Gravity is proportional and is in 3D.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 07:54 GMT
You know Mr Agnew,this universal 3D sphere is not a relativistic prison.God ,this entropy has not created only stars.It is not possible for the future intearctions between lifes.The supermassive BH are not big stars ,that has no sense.It is more than this simple analyse.The real light is gravitation Mr Agnew,.The photons are just a tool.Gravity is the rotating 3D sphères in fact simply and PV=nRT is relevant if we find the bridge with temperature at this zero absolute probably.God does not play at dices Mr Agnew.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 08:19 GMT
It is intriguing about the gravitationalaethertime.When a star dies and a BH appears, it is intriguing considering the main gravitational codes in fact.The codes rest for gravity.It is gravity which implies the comportments of stars.They die and continue their rules.The aethertime luminerous is a metric, specific with a periodicity , precise about births and deaths.The main relevance is about the aethergravitational time towards this eternity if Ican say.Hope that helps for the generality about entropical Arrow of time irreversible of evolution spherisation of the 3D sphere.The BH and dark matter permits these births and deaths of our standard model simply with a duration implying rules andproperties with +and - ,gravity perhaps turns simply in opposite sense and the spherical volumes and motions make the rest of encodings.Gravity attracts and gives the standard model.It isa general analyse in fact necessary for a correct understanding of what is eternity, gravitation and births and deaths due to our special relativity and encodings.But gravitation is more than this.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 13:57 GMT
I saw the CMB model with different waves correlated with our standard model.It is a relevant relativistic tool.That said we analyse just after this hypothetical BB.The temperature like a tool of calculations of evolution of our space time.That said can we affirm that this expansion is photonic.Of course we have a cooling but how can we interpret it.I see really a gravitational spherical expansion from the central 3D sphere implying an universal 3D spherewith its photons andspherons.The most impressing for me in this lineof reasoning is that this central sphere possesses all the properties of all kinds of particles of matter.Fascinating in fact.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 14:08 GMT
In fact it is very important because photons are not the main foundamentals of our universal 3D sphere but just a simple property of thengravitation.The gravitation governs photons.A spheron can become a photon but a photon cannot become a spheron in this line of reasoning.They are encircled by dark matter and BH these photons.In nuclei,at quantum scales like at cosmological scale.The gravitation is in fact the main force and this force can have all the others sorts of forces in fact simply.The relevance is that all possesses the entire infinite entropy at these singularities but we cannot appraoch them ,never even ,it is not necessary, too much energy.The gravitation is themain chief orchestra.It is there that the number of the serie, finite becomes interesting to analyse.This number seems finite for this gravitational serie,cosm or quant considering the singularities the number 1.Gravitation governs the fuel ,this light,it permits to see and to utilise the thermod énergies and correlated works.We cannot imply so gravitation with photons, that said we can check it with spherons.:)
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 23, 2016 @ 14:42 GMT
I beleive strongly that this subtil difference between quantum 3D sphères are important to encircle really that photons are encircled by this gravitation, this dark matter and correlated BH.See simply that our quantum model is like a relative foto of our universal sphere and its 3D cosmological sphèreS for BH.I am asking me what is really the numbers of supermassive BH turning around this central cosm singularity.How many BH between these number x of supermasive BH and the number 1 the central BH,the biggest volume.The real question is there , where is this central sphere,at how many miles,how can we consider the aethergravitational time?In fact we are still nowhere we know nothing about our universal 3D sphere.We are just at the more simple knowledges of our special and general relativity.We understand only a small part of the puzzle.Like if the standard model was complete,it is not really .Gravitation is the secret.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 25, 2016 @ 07:53 GMT
Hello Mr Agnew,
I learnt a little the Debroglie Bohm interpretation and the interpretation of Copenaghen.My humble model of spherisation is in the copenaghian ways.We search the determinism in fact for a correct quantizations of matter energy.The duality waves particles is of course a logic when we consider that the evolution , the gravitation encodes informations.The hidden variables are...
view entire post
Hello Mr Agnew,
I learnt a little the Debroglie Bohm interpretation and the interpretation of Copenaghen.My humble model of spherisation is in the copenaghian ways.We search the determinism in fact for a correct quantizations of matter energy.The duality waves particles is of course a logic when we consider that the evolution , the gravitation encodes informations.The hidden variables are rational.I beleive that I found where is the problem.It is the standard model and the special and general relativity considering the encodings of photons in nuclei.Heisenberg and Borh should agree :)If we rest in the standard model with hidden variables for gravitation , never we could have the good roads towards our singularities, the central main gravitational codes.The quantum scale has a kind of bridge between baryons and gravitation.The dark matter is very relavant when we consider that this matter not baryonic is produced by BH and is also encoded in nuclei but differently that our actula 3 main forces, strong, weak and electromagnetic.This weakest force does not really need of hidden variables Under c.The parameters towards these main central codes, gravitation for these singularities are newtonian and in 3D.The photons are checked by this gravity implied by BH and dark matter.If my équations are correct, it becomes newtonially and copenaghian speaking very relevant considering the matter energy evolution.We need to have proportions and pure quantum corrélations.It is not possible to rest in our actual standardmodel ,we must go more far and think differently in respecting the empirism of course.The 3D sphere and its quantum and cosmological 3D sphers have so many secrets still to show us.....But these paraeters are rational ,newtonian and dterministic.The mesures,our apparatus for these calculations must insert new paramters for a realunderstanding of steps of gravitational energy.The fields towards singularities tend to ifinity like the gravity.It is why the spherical volumes of BH Inside the universal sphere can be approached with the good récurrences and mathematical methods.Bohm has made an error about the wave function.It is not Under the special relativity and furthermore it exists a main wave pilot for the gravitation correlated with dark matter coming from the central BH.It tends to infinity paradoxally but it exists others waves pilot when we consider the different gravitationalaethers due to spherical vol of BH.So we have a superimposing of gravitational aethers nside the main and also the lminerous aether the smallest sphere,photonic.The interpretation of Copenaghen can permit to calculate the roads towards the singularities and can explain gravitation with intrinsic properties.The debroglie bohm interpretation rests in the relativity and search hidden variables which aren't Under c but are gravitational and deterministic furthermore.Best Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on May. 26, 2016 @ 13:13 GMT
What typifies all objections to the dichotomies inherent to relativity, is the assumption that physics today is operating with a full set of physical laws.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 16:14 GMT
Anonymous,
Is what you are saying mean that while anyone can see that if its this moment here, then its also the same moment 'there', but we can't verify that instantly because any verification of measurement can only occur at light velocity? And that if we do verify it by Special Relativity we end up with such physical results as 'infinite mass'. And without SR, linear momentum would not compute at near light velocity in agreement with what is experimentally observed in high energy accelerators? So by 'dichotomy' you mean that neither instantaneous measurement or infinite mass are physically possible?
So we must be missing a fundamental physical law? (that I'd buy) jrc
by the way; Microsoft took over my machine earlier today and spent an hour+ installing an upgrade to windows10 without my consent. I was able to decline the upgrade and have the previous version reinstalled but now my 'scroll' won't work unless I left click on the narrow slide bar at far screen right. Anybody had similar corporate raiding of their files (?) and any fix to get my touchpad scroll back? thanks
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 21:49 GMT
What is missing is correct categorization of the different aspects of physics.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 26, 2016 @ 20:05 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder: "How can we test quantum gravity? One testable consequence of quantum gravity might be, for example, the violation of the symmetry of special and general relativity, known as Lorentz-invariance. [...] No evidence for violations of Lorentz-invariance have been found."
On the contrary, the Doppler effect unequivocally shows that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of...
view entire post
Sabine Hossenfelder: "How can we test quantum gravity? One testable consequence of quantum gravity might be, for example, the violation of the symmetry of special and general relativity, known as Lorentz-invariance. [...] No evidence for violations of Lorentz-invariance have been found."
On the contrary, the Doppler effect unequivocally shows that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer, which is tantamount to saying that the Lorentz-invariance is violated:
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
stationary receivermoving receiverBy observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]
Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 20:15 GMT
Pentcho,
Those whom don't know how Doppler Shift of light differs from sound, and how it is technologically possible to observe Doppler shift of light at all, may be fooled by your claims. So Right here, right now; How is Doppler Shift in the visible spectrum actually observed? HOW and BY WHAT MEANS is WHAT change in the spectrum observed? I'd bet you don't know! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 22:38 GMT
"fooled by your claims"
The Albert Einstein Institute's claims. They say that
"four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses"
which is tantamount to saying that the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 23:22 GMT
So Pentcho doesn't know what the visual spectrum looks like when Doppler Shift is detected. Won't even look it up and cut and paste it, let alone deduce from it what it says of constancy of light velocity. He doesn't know and doesn't want to know.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 23:45 GMT
and that statement helps him / the community how? Would have preferred it if you'd cut and pasted intending to be helpful.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 00:50 GMT
Georgi,
Start with Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchoff. The discovery of emission and absorption lines in spectral analysis. It is only the position of those lines in the otherwise continuous spectrum which shifts; ergo the red shift just makes shorter wavelengths arriving later, appear as longer wavelength color, and the extreme long end of the visible range disappear into the infrared. So...
view entire post
Georgi,
Start with Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchoff. The discovery of emission and absorption lines in spectral analysis. It is only the position of those lines in the otherwise continuous spectrum which shifts; ergo the red shift just makes shorter wavelengths arriving later, appear as longer wavelength color, and the extreme long end of the visible range disappear into the infrared. So the image reality of the visible spectrum doesn't change BUT the object reality of the emitted frequencies shift position from say, the prominent yellow band of sodium, of a stationary source, into the orangish range of the image from a source moving away from the spectrograph. Every elemental isotope has been long known to emit only specific narrow bands of near frequencies and there is a distinctive separation between those specific bands. It is foundational to the Quantum Jump of the QM Bohr atom model which interprets those band wavelengths as emissions from change of an electron to a different energy level. But it also one of the various independent experimental results from which it is deduced that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source.
When Pentcho excerpts Sabine saying that 'popular explanations' of invariance of speed of light are on historical grounds rather than technical reasons, doesn't mean there aren't technical reasons for Einstein to wrap them all up in a postulate. She's simply pointing out that many people read popular science without studying the technical details, but formulating SR could call on them separately in argument. And personally I really enjoy those details because they all presage modern quantum and relativistic physics and being in the Classical norm, are much easier to comprehend and visualize.
I seldom read anything Pentcho posts because its like going to a Donald Trump rally. Simplistic baiting rhetoric. And it dissuades discussion on topics in which others do have some real acumen. Incidentally, your post on the 25th in the 'Microscope' blog shows a sophistication you were struggling for in earlier postings. Kudos, yes the category of a universal time scale is what in SR is relative simultaneity, and invariance is between two objects either one of which can be taken as 'stationary' but only relative to the other, not an external observer looking first to one then the other. Its mathematically complete but physically approximate in that there are unphysical properties that require a covariant rationale to resolve. Newtonian momentum computes as mv, which would mean at Cern light velocity could be achieved with a resultant energy equivalent of momentum of mc^3. But it's well known that energy input and resultant momentum at high energies follows the exponential non-linear function of Lorentz, not the linear Newtonian function. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 01:24 GMT
John C,
Your rhetoric might be a bit too simplistic. Kirchhoff refers to Kirch = church and Hoff. I also dislike your many distracting words.
++++
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 01:58 GMT
Eckard,
And in America, N.E.C. = National Electrical Code. Tell them that the first postulate is false and try to get certified.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 07:59 GMT
John C,
Does N.E.C. need Einstein's first postulate at all? I was member of AWS and AAAS, and I wrote my last noticed paper for an IEEE conference. I know that Americans tend to have opinions that are not much different from those of Germans.
Well, the first postulate seems to be so natural that nobody is inclined to question it. Why shouldn't for B apply the same laws as for A?
You may vote A for president or B for president. However if you vote for Trump and Clinton or someone else at a time, then your vote is invalid.
The lacking reference point in space and in ordinary time requires you too to arbitrarily choose something, a reference.
That lacking reference allows to elegantly shift phase in time domain via an exponent in complex representation. Such arbitrary shift even across zero is not allowed in the corresponding frequency domain. Why? Because obviously, frequency is conceptualized as something that must not change sign. Frequency originally corresponds to elapsed time, not to ordinary time.
Dependency of inertia on motion is a slightly different topic; it doesn't justify Relativity. Notice, God and Relativity are capitalized. We should add Set Theory and Spacetime.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 09:07 GMT
Hello everyone,
Einstein himself said this in his own handwriting: "… according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, (Lorentz-invariance) which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity (...) CANNOT claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light CAN ONLY take place when the velocity of propagation of light VARIES with position {this we all know from high school days as refraction - bending of light due to change in speed}. (...) We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity CANNOT claim an unlimited domain of validity;...".
So when Sabine Hossenfelder says Lorentz-invariance applies to both special and general relativity, probably she does not agree with Einstein's statement that it is the variation in light speed that makes it to curve and that Lorentz-invariance doesn't apply to general relativity.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 13:57 GMT
Eckard,
You state; "The lacking reference point in space and in ordinary time requires you to arbitrarily choose something, a reference."
Which is precisely the point of the two little fishies! The mathematics of Lorentz Invariance restrict a choice of reference to only one of those fishes. To alter that restriction by attempting to explain it as a Galiliean covariant relativity, is the very source of the contradiction you then accuse Einstein of. And you don't stop there, you and Pentcho have repeatedly called anyone whom maintains that restriction of applicability, and makes the effort to study it, 'Schizophrenics'! You stigmatize a known psychological disorder, and one which is all too commonly misdiagnosed and misunderstood by the public at large, for no other reason than, in your own words, you "don't like the idea of time and space being malleable". What? the NASA, CERN, every high energy particle physics lab in the world. the whole field of cosmology; all Relativistic Physics is one big global conspiracy of schizophrenics?! Pentcho even calls it that! On FQXI! That's insane! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 14:48 GMT
Hello Mr Ojo ,
John :),you are surprising.About the psychological disorder.I have a little problem.I see little fairies on little sphères in my small garden between my acer palmatums and fuchsias.And it is not all,I have seen also a little alien Jedi on a little spaceship near an abutilon and a passiflora caerulea.They said me that in fact there are not a conspiracy.But that this planet...
view entire post
Hello Mr Ojo ,
John :),you are surprising.About the psychological disorder.I have a little problem.I see little fairies on little sphères in my small garden between my acer palmatums and fuchsias.And it is not all,I have seen also a little alien Jedi on a little spaceship near an abutilon and a passiflora caerulea.They said me that in fact there are not a conspiracy.But that this planet cries and dies .....John,Eckard,Mr Ojo,Georgina,Mr Agnew,Tomand all fqxi friends,.... BE THE FORCE WITH YOU JEDIS OF THE SPHERE.....And don't forget that Feynman said "one day we shall see all the truth ......and that Einstein said God does not play at dices and that the pale blue dot like said Carl Sagan needs help there.What is the responsability of general thinkers at a moment so important where an ocean of chaotical exponentials are at our door? And if we found these global solutions here on FQXi.We could nourrish our planet with water drop during eternity considering this gravitationa correlated with the central BH and the gravitational primordial aether.So what is the problem in fact ?the human nature?the lack of altruism?the vanity and opulences more unconsciousness?What are the reasons having implied our global reality on this 3D sphere? I beleive strongly that we are arrived at a time where even our latin name homo sapiens sapiens is not sufficient.Let's add Homo sapien sapien universalensis.It is more logic.So let's adapt our altruist and universal comportments at this simple reality.Let's imrpove this earth in regrouping all the altruist and universalist ,scientists because we must change our globality now simply.We cannot accept this reality.We are dedicated to travelinside this universal sphere, first our solar system ,after the others solar systems of our galaxy the milky way and even between galaxies in a very long future.We are dedicated toharmonise planets and spaceships.We have not probelms about matter and energy.We have problems due to our human globality.We loose our ecosystems, we destoy the micro meso and macro fauna and flora.So many créations, humans and animals have so suffered on this planet in the past and now also,it is not acceptable for real universalists because the solutions exst.Why for example the big countries does not reasure the world ? Why china and Europa more USA and others does not take this responsability? Soon 10 billions, it is not possible with our actual parameters to arrive at points of equilibrium.Why a global earthian governments do not reasure all humans? Why these persons aren't centralised ? We are going all in a wall.It is now that we must change our planet,after it will be too late.Even in the future this planet will be perhaps not possible to live due to climate and others parametrs of our solar system.can we accept this ?Knowing that this future is not possible for all the future humans and anaimals and vegetals ? We are catalysers of our environments, we have the possiblilities to check matter and energy and between cosmological sphere like planets ,there are a lot of space so there are not problems in fact.We create our own prison dear jedis and it is time to reasure this planet because it is not acceptable simply.Scientists have a big responsability.The relativity is still more than you can imagine, we were, we are, we shall be dear homo sapiens sapiens universalensis :)take care dear all
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 16:26 GMT
John C,
I learned from you the word malleable which means impressionable, plastic, or the like. Anyway, because this word was unknown to me, your assertion -in your own words, you "don't like the idea of time and space being malleable"- cannot be correct. Also, I spoke of schizophrenia as the so called split thinking, thinking in self-contradictory manner. I never blamed Einstein for insanity. Only Georg Cantor died in a madhouse.
The revealed self-contradictions by the two Germans were and have still been glorified as extraordinarily genial because they seemingly proved useful. There is no conspiracy. I don't advocate for a "Galiliean covariant relativity". Galilean transformation applies for DEQs of first order. Maxwell's DEQs are of second order.
I abstained from dealing with your fishes because I am not sure about your implicit assumptions and conclusions.
Mathematics and Physics are of course not seriously wrong just because of mistakes by C&E.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 16:36 GMT
Akinbo,
Constant velocity of light is rather an upper limit. I wonder if gravitational lensing accelerates light in excess of c like a convex lens. Refraction is always based on smaller than c velocities. Let me as layman speculate that it is somehow related on a kind of gravitation in the proximity of microscopic structures.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 16:56 GMT
Steve D,
Indeed, we old scientists are responsible for stopping and reversing the growth of the globe's population and excessive consumer behavior. Alan Kadin's 2014 essay and my essay Peace via Discoveries and Inventions are relevant.
Presently the number of young people grows much faster than the number of available job perspectives in particular in most Arab and African Muslim countries with four or more children per woman and large families responsible for elderly people. The population did indeed roughly double from one generation to the next one over decades since 1900.
As Klingholz of Berlin-Institut also pointed out, this does necessarily imply conflicts up to wars, attentats, and mass immigrations into public social systems worldwide.
++++
++++
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 23:04 GMT
Hi Pentcho,
I do have sympathy your basic point, relativity is non-sense. However, you do present your point of view over and over again to the point of .... let's use the French term of a "fixed idea".
Here is an idea about how relativity can come about without being non-sense. Since your are so firm in your beliefs Pentcho, I would not recommend it to you.
However, for the curious few who may like a different point of view please check out:
http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/25_Light_and_the_Tw
ins_Paradox.html
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 27, 2016 @ 17:11 GMT
Sabine Hossenfelder: "If you haven’t read his [Joao Magueijo's] book “Faster Than the Speed of Light”, I assure you you won’t regret it."
There is a short text in the book that could be very regrettable for any Einsteinian:
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
However Sabine Hossenfelder and her brothers Einsteinians live a happy life because they don't know that the text exists - any related thoughts in their heads are automatically blocked by crimestop:
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Jun. 15, 2016 @ 12:44 GMT
gravity and electromagnetism have the same source which is quantum vacuum
attachments:
Fiscaletti-sorli-UJP.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 15, 2016 @ 17:43 GMT
Hi Amrit,
Nice to see you again on FQXi.I liked this work.It is a beautiful essay towards what is this accelerating entropical foce.I have seen a relevance considering the sense of rotation.The 3D is essential indeed.Congratulations to both of you for this papper.PS I ampersuaded that this gravitation is a natural force correlated with rotatig quantum andcosmological sphères.The electromagnetism does not seem thesolution due to our problme of equivalence tending to infinity.That said the sense of rotation can be imrpoved with the spherical volumes also and the good seri for the stable gravitation quantum serie and its finite number.Where is this bridge between our actual standard model and this gravitation,this weakest force still weaker than higgs bosons which are not the particles of God in fact.Gravitons also are not rational because they are bosons simply.The formalisation can be made.Try also my équations if they are correct of course.I will correct them if I made errors.We cannot pass c with photons bosons but with particles of gravitation, yes.We cannot see these quantum BH and these particles encoded also so we must utilise a good mathematical method for the correct formalisation of this gravity.I liked your work.The vaccum seems in fact this stable serie of our nuclei encoding.Indeed we have a serie ravitational and this serie encode photons but also spherons produce not by stars.So this gravity cannot be bosonic nor baryonic even.The quantum vaccum seems relevant considering an other sense of rotation that linear particles.That said we don't know if they are synchronised in turning in the same sense or if they turn in opposite sense.Perhaps even that we must insert the volumes and the angles.The volumes ,spherical increase towards the singularity of this quantum vaccuum like you say.E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant try them:) Regards from Belgium jedis of the SPHERE.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 07:53 GMT
These photons are not really the foundamental particles in fact, these photons seem encircled by gravitation giving the real properties of photonic codes correlated with thermo and heat.These photons are a tool in fact for the créations of complexification of minerals, vegetals and animals.The stars in fact produce and permit to create all these planets and lifes...The quantum uniqueness is in the same relative logic,the gravitation seems encircling our standard model.The primordial codes and informations are gravitational and not photonic.The BH and dark matter are our other steps towards this entire entropy considering the roads towards the siingularities quant,and the singularity cosmological.These quantum singularities turn around this cosmol singularity.The spherical volumes are important respecting the newtonian mechanic.The aether is gravitational and it exists several superimposed aethers due to these volumes.What a big puzzle.Regards
report post as inappropriate
DURGADAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 05:48 GMT
Newton described gravity as force of attraction. But why neutral mass will attract each other is not explained. Einstein described gravity as the effect of curved space-time around matter . But why and how space-time curves with a suitable mechanism was never discussed. Standard model prescribes an unidentified particle graviton as gravity field carrier with zero mass and spin2. Gravity is fundamental force and infinite range. All these assumptions of space potential and gravitational field concept is not very much acceptable even from considerations of GR. Emergent directional push coupling local molecular action by massive graviton is a new theory. It suggests from calculation that gravitons must be around 750 proton mass and spin2. Also to justify Avogadro law and chemical reaction, we must have M/R.R of any molecule is constant. M is mass and R is radius of any molecule. So gravitons are flowing like arrows towards center of earth and as such force of gravity gradually increasing by a factor 1/r.r where r is distance from center of earth. So strictly speaking , acceleration due to gravity gradually increasing , though very small while falling. But all matter light or heavy will fall side by side equally. As such by simple calculation, we can deduce that as all molecules fall equally, then we must have a constant M/R.R for any molecule. Doubts about equivalence principle now seen and Einstein in formulating SR and GR made mistakes in assumptions. Gravity being emergent force, and no potential or field , we can surely say that gravitational waves of Einstein is wrong idea. LIGO simply found some ripples in the gravitoetherton super fluid due to collission of black holes and relativists are beating their drums as prediction of Einstein.
attachments:
New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism._1.doc,
New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 06:54 GMT
Hi ,welcome and happy to see you on FQXi,Regards
report post as inappropriate
DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jul. 6, 2016 @ 12:08 GMT
Thank you, Sir. Gravity is due to gravitons and we have so far discussed at molecular level from observation that all molecules fall equally due to M/R.R is constant. This is classical gravity we observe is fall of an apple due to flow of gravitons like arrows towards center of earth. But planets rotate in orbits due to swirling of gravitoetherton super fluid and by directional tangential push of gravitons. This is what Einstein described as following space-time curvature. Again gravitons play a vital role in providing a quantum /Planck scale effect on color charge quarks in side protons and neutrons due to a residual coupling . This is quantum gravity but we unnecessarily assume gluons as force carrier of an assumed strong nuclear force. Strong nuclear force may not exist. Bigger atoms with many protons and neutrons suffer due an unbalance residual force of disintegration , we named weak nuclear force. This is also extension of quantume gravity/strong nuclear force effect . I have been working on it and some exact datas from LHC and the nature of new 750 proton mass particle and some description of pentaquark properties may help me in calculation.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 6, 2016 @ 12:22 GMT
Hello,theproblem isthat gravitons are bosons.And that we have a problem of equivalence.This weakest quantum force cannot be bosonic.That is not really dterministic universally speaking.You think really that if an infinite entropy above our simple human understanding ,above our physicality,has created an universewith intrisic laws.I am doubting that the special relativity ,heat and thermo and standard model are the only one Tools.it is not really logic philosophically speaking, nor gravitationally speaking.Photons are not the ultim particle.This forceis not emmergent due to electromagnetic forces.It is more than thissimple analyse.Gravitation has so many secrets still to show us with determinism respecting the steps and scales.We know sofew still about our nuclei and this matter not baryonic.Gravitons are bosons and so cannot answer to gravity it seems tome humbly.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Quantum Antigravity wrote on Apr. 17, 2017 @ 23:16 GMT
EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity — https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com
I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific discovery
of quantum gravity and quantum antigravity.
Present day quantum gravity theories suffer from
too many mathematical space dimensions, and from
too few conclusive experimental results.
My hypothesis is simple, clear,
and subject to easy empirical verification :
https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com
Should you have any questions or need clarification,
I am more than happy to answer.
report post as inappropriate
Wayne wrote on May. 8, 2018 @ 02:36 GMT
It is good that FQXi is supporting work to find detectable signatures of these 3D+t defects. Any better ways to observe and usually exclude hypotheses is beneficial, especially if they are inconsistent or allow infinities or, conversely, singularities. These are the bane of physical theories anyway, and since the community demands experimental disproof, well so be it.
I'd also accept that a comprehensive theory must meet necessary conditions, such as consistency across all physical scales. Truth by the process of elimination is rather expensive!!
WRL
Oddly, I hear that Ms Hossenfelder managed to publish a paper on a new MOND theory.. so perhaps this grant will actually result in more un-testable or (hopefully merely) un-disproven hypotheses?
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.