a year later
  • [deleted]

Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics' shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi "show-biz" trending viral exacerbated by online social networks veritable diarrhea via proliferation of uncritical "pop-sci" science-writers where all is spectacle versus little is truth. Lacking Kant-Popper skepticism and falsification, lemming-like stampedes infect not only "pop-sci" science-writers to the abandonment of reality, quantitatively and much worse qualitatively qualified by adverbs: might, could, should, may,... rather than a simple factual is. Scientific societies and universities and government agencies/laboratories, motivated by their mutually-interdependent but greedy financial needs/wants, are swept up in their very own hype, routinely touting by claiming that whatever is "the next big thing", "cutting-edge" bombast... ad infinitum, ad nauseum!!! Allogorically an Indian tribe where all members are chiefs, with multi-feathered bonnets versus few braves with single-feather bonnets each. The result? Lots of angry naked birds freezing in the bushes. The result turns serious physics into a mere carney sideshow, full of fury but signifying absolutely nothing(except the latest trendiness)!!! Witness recent GIGO claims that string-theory holographic-universe affects high-Tc superconductors Drude-Lorentz optical conductivity. Witness failed Anderson resonating valence-bond(RVB) high-Tc superconductivity theory, at the time denuding the Brazilian rainforest with gazillions of papers published on a mere ego-driven double Nobel prize fantasy, versus Keimer experimental discovery that all cuprates dominant intermediate-coupling-bosons are "paramagnons" aka Overhauser(RIP) spin-density waves. Witness recent Overbye NYTimes article on holographic universe (rediscovery of duality of Stokes-theorem) so full of jargonial-obfuscation to prompt many frustrated comments, including one from emeritus APS journals editor-in-chief, as to its jargonial-obfuscation unintelligibility, full of fury but signifying absolutely nothing INTELLIGIBLE! Witness Bak/BNL/DOE self-organized-criticality(SOC) "tad late" rediscovery of Newton's F = ma mere algorithmic-renaming of Barkhausen-Tatro-Siegel burst acoustic-emission! Witness 2007 physics Nobel-prize Fert-Gruenberg decade-later rediscovery without prior attribution of 1970-1977 Siegel[JMMM 7, 312(1978); https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=GIANT-MAGNETORESISTANCE] granular-GMR. Each was the trendy "latest big thing" modulo either lack of prior attribution or "inadvertent", aka out and out bombastic chicanery!!! Siegel caveat emptor "Buzzwordism, Bandwagonism Sloganeering for Fun Profit Survival and Ego" extant is classic John Bradshaw[Healing the Shame That Binds You, Hazelden(1980s)]-Brian Martin jargonial-obfuscation exacerbated sociological-dysfunctionality!!!Attachment #1: 3_FULL_PAPER_COMPLEX_QUANTUM-STATISTICS_IN_FRACTAL-DIMENSIONS.pdf

9 months later

Tom,

Thanks, but I asked for bread but what you offered me is a stone! I have no dollars to get any info where you linked. I hope you don't mind my posting here...

Here is what some other sources say:

"In mathematical physics, Minkowski space or Minkowski spacetime (named after the mathematician Hermann Minkowski) is the mathematical space setting in which Einstein's theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated. In this setting the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined with a single dimension of time to form a four-dimensional manifold for representing a spacetime".

"In special relativity, the Minkowski spacetime is a four-dimensional manifold, created by Hermann Minkowski. It has four dimensions: three dimensions of space (x, y, z) and one dimension of time. Minkowski spacetime has a metric signature of (-+++) and is always flat. The convention in this article is to call Minkowski spacetime simply spacetime. (It should be noted, however, that Minkowski spacetime is only applicable in special relativity; general relativity used the notion of curved spacetime to describe the effects of gravity and accelerated motion)".

Other sources more or less say something similar. Are you comfortable with this definition? If you are kindly help resolve some of my headaches.

Since Minkowski space applies only to Special relativity, I assume it is part of this world and not the hereafter. This space is said to 1). Apply only to Special relativity. 2). Is said to be always flat.

My headache is that Minkowski space-time may not exist on Earth surface, since Earth surface is not flat space-time, even if only slightly curved by Earth's gravity. Even the moon's surface would be even flatter. The experiments used to support the postulates of Special relativity were done on same Earth surface, and same Minkowski space used to mathematically support the experimental findings, when it applies only to flat surfaces. How do you do the reconciliation?

In my innocence, what does not apply somewhere cannot be used as the foundation for what is said to obtain in that same place.

Thanks in advance for prescribing a right medicine for my headache.

Regards,

Akinbo

    Sorry, Akinbo, your thinking about physics and spacetime is so foreign to what I know that I can't help you.

    Dear Tom, that is why I asked you what you know about Minkowski spacetime and whether you agree with what I saw on the web about it. Is it too much to ask?

    Absolutely it's too much to ask, Akinbo. Internet quips and wikipedia do not a physics education make. There are fundamentals to get familiar with.

    Akinbo,

    Your point is a valid one, with no answer except in terms of the unsatisfactory 'domain limits' identified by Einstein. Tom's schema assumes Relativity as it's start point so can't really further address the issue.

    My co-author on a few papers is a Minkowski and we've looked at his antecedent's work in much detail. His view was mathematical, and his concepts are hardly truly reflected in the evolved 'interpretation' of Einstein's theory ("the postulates"). [Tom; You may prefer to stop reading here if 'locked in' as above].

    Some interesting quotes to give food for thought, including on "length contraction";

    Cologne 1908; "Then from here on, we would no longer have space in the world, but endlessly many spaces;" and "Not to leave a yawning void anywhere we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible...I will use...the word "substance".

    (Axiom;) "The substance at any world-point may always, with the appropriate determination of space and time, be looked upon as at rest."

    "...we may define this magnitude... (c) as the ratio of the electromagnetic to the electrostatic unit..."

    "...cases with a velocity greater than that of light will henceforth play only some such part as that of figures with imaginary co-ordinates in geometry."

    That bit is entirely consistent with the DFM's 2ND ('apparent') case of 'speed'. Of LT's length contraction he wrote; "This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether...but simply as a gift from above,"

    Again I agree. There's little there that can't be interpreted as Einstein's 1952 descriptions, distancing his theory from the "interpretive embellishments" so may think IS the theory! Discrete Fields are consistent with his 1952 descriptions, as well as Minkowski's; "endlessly many spaces" which may be in relative motion but within them the substance' is always locally 'at rest'. That's just like 7 'atmospheres' at rest locally but moving at different relative velocities within the solar system.

    Back to your original question, the 'curvature' in deep space equivalent to de-Sitter is well described by the LT, precisely equivalent to from diffuse medium refraction (if not then where the refraction DOES emerge needs identifying!)

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Peter,

      First, since you seem to agree with 'length contraction' and 'time dilation' as mechanisms that keep the arrival time of a wave to observer unaffected by observer motion both of which are mathematically based on Minkowski spacetime, what is your own definition of Minkowski spacetime?

      My proposal is that an earth-bound matter medium makes length contraction and time dilation unnecessary to explain the experimental finding that earth motion has no effect on arrival time of a wave on earth surface (either for sound or for light) completes the similarities of the analogy of the dynamics of light and sound. The 'plasma' as you prefer to call it, if bound to earth as it is therefore does not require LT, time dilation, etc to make light arrival arrival times unaffected by earth motion since it is a light-carrying medium. The dilemma with light is that such earth surface experiments have been done in a vacuum, but I propose that the vacuum secured with baryonic matter as the boundary of the instruments cannot exclude/ constrain dark matter from permeating the light path being not reactive electrically and so not easily repelled or constrained.

      Tom seems to admit that he may sometimes resist not answering honestly and it may be fun "hedging, hemming, hawing or bloviating"

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      I agree your description can be interpreted as true. It's capable of different interpretations and more precise specification is needed as it's far from 'complete'. (i.e. light 'arrival' from where? arrival time wrt which other scenario? and; "does not require the LT" ..at all as an observed effect? or just as 'interpreted'. The Lorentz Factor does of course consistently model real findings.

      The 'boundaries' of instruments aren't required to exclude 'dark matter' because the surface transition zones/plasmons/free electron fine structure is MADE OF the fermions (or 'dark matter') at rest in each frame, which do the job by scattering to the local c.

      Light transmitted across a vacuum chamber then does c wrt the emitter. If you blow a few particles around within it you'll find some 'scintillation'.

      If the detector is in motion through the vacuum; it's free surface electrons re-scatter the light to the local (detector) speed c ready to 'measure'.

      Minkowski space-time is simply a convenient mathematical 'short-cut' approximation. Nobody back then thought there was ANYTHING in space so it was a useful formulation. However to cling on to it as a precise model of nature's real mechanisms is quite delusional.

      If you and a pal await a light signal, and he starts moving forward, those clinging on to old myths will think he slows down the speed of light heading for him (not you) at infinite range! The DFM simply points out it doesn't need to change speed until it arrives and interacts!

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Thank you JRC and Tom for directing me to resources on Minkowski spacetime on the 'Why Quantum' blog. These have kept me busy. The 27-pages of I. What to Trust to Avoid Believing in Illusions written by Petkov was very well written and interesting, even if misleading.

      Quoting excerpts from there as well as from II. Space and Time: Minkowski's Papers on Relativity, a few deductions can be made.

      p.5 of I: "However, according to the modern theory of gravitation - general relativity -falling bodies move by inertia since their fall is not caused by a gravitational force, but is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime in the Earth's vicinity (induced by the Earth's mass)".MORAL: Spacetime is NOT flat on Earth surface.

      p.33 of II: "Another example of why special relativity (as we now call the physics of flat spacetime) would be impossible in a three-dimensional world is contained in Minkowski's four-dimensional explanation of the physical meaning of length contraction,..." MORAL: Special relativity and accompaniments like time dilation and length contraction belong to flat spacetime.

      p.4 of II: "Given the fact that it is only Minkowski's four-dimensional physics that provides the correct explanations of the relativistic effects (...), it is difficult to understand the reluctance and sometimes even resistance against explaining the kinematical relativistic effects as manifestations of the four-dimensionality of the world as Minkowski advocated". MORAL: Minkowski spacetime can therefore ONLY provide the correct explanation for experiments on Earth such as the Michelson-Morley results, IF, AND ONLY IF the spacetime in the Earth's vicinity were flat, UNFORTUNATELY it is not.

      Hence Einstein's lamentation, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the relativity theory, I do not understand it myself anymore". Therefore, if V. Petkov wants to be honest, he should realize that there is something in theory and science called 'domain of applicability'. Is it correct science to use what is not applicable in a particular domain to provide 'the correct explanation' for the experimental findings in that domain?

      Is it then a suprise, if physics is yet to recover from this faux pas?

      In Law, if you build an architectural masterpiece on someone else's landed property, you build in vain as what you built no matter how elegant does not still belong to you the builder. SR is a beauty but it is not built on Flat Land so whoever buys such property buys nothing.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

        "MORAL: Spacetime is NOT flat on Earth surface."

        Locally, yes it is. If you know Galilean relativity, you know that objects fall at the same rate in a gravity field, whether they follow a straight path or a curved path. Take, for example, an airplane dropping a bomb; assuming that the airplane continues on course without accelerating, the bomb will remain directly below the craft its entire journey to the Earth's surface. This can only happen in a flat plane, because there is no horizontal acceleration component -- all the acceleration is vertical, the dead weight of the bomb accelerated only by gravity.

        "MORAL: Special relativity and accompaniments like time dilation and length contraction belong to flat spacetime."

        Exactly right. See above.

        "MORAL: Minkowski spacetime can therefore ONLY provide the correct explanation for experiments on Earth such as the Michelson-Morley results, IF, AND ONLY IF the spacetime in the Earth's vicinity were flat, UNFORTUNATELY it is not."

        Um, yes it is. As Einstein relativity shows, the universe is Euclidean on the average. When laymen speak of "curved spacetime" they don't normally envision the actual mathematics, much less try to solve the equations -- they think of a picture, a curved line on a piece of paper. That isn't the case.

        Like Pentcho, you must actually learn what Einstein relativity is, before you can be an effective relativity-denier.

        To prevent me from "hedging, hemming, hawing or bloviating", firstly, what is the size of LOCAL and secondly, what does LOCAL mean mathematically and in physics?

        Then take note that I am not a relativity-denier. On the contrary, I support relativity, but the one in which in the coordinate system

        ct, x, y, z

        c is a vector quantity, while t, x, y, z are scalar, not the one in which

        c is a scalar, while t, x, y, z are vectors. There is a physical, observable and explainable difference, even if mathematicians want to reverse their properties and foist paradoxes and absurdities of time dilation and length contraction on us.

        There is claimed to be no role for gravity or acceleration in SR so no need to introduce it unless you want to propose a variant of SR.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        "what does LOCAL mean mathematically and in physics?"

        You need to go to primary sources for this, as I told you. You won't believe anything I say. Here is as easy as I can make it:

        Locality, mathematically, refers to the relation between a point of origin -- an initial condition, zero -- and another point or set of points differentiable from the origin.

        Locality, physically, refers to events within causal distance of one another.

        Akinbo, Minkowski space has the metric signature +++- or ---+. You have to understand what that means before you even begin to talk about vectors and scalars and how they relate.

        Go to the sources. Don't get your education in internet blogs.

        Yes Tom. I know Minkowski space is described with +++- or ---+.

        "You have to understand what that means before you even begin to talk about vectors and scalars and how they relate"

        In the good old days of physics, when truth was sacred before mathematicians invaded the temple you didn't have to understand the symbols +++- or ---+ before talking physics. Einstein never had to before proposing his theory. It was Minkowski his teacher who started all this and I am sure you are aware of Einstein's aversion to the +++- and ---+ methods of his old math teacher.

        Locality, mathematically, refers to the relation between a point of origin -- an initial condition, zero -- and another point or set of points differentiable from the origin. This appears to be going round in circles. What is the distance between the points?

        Locality, physically, refers to events within causal distance of one another.. Still hedging, hemming and hawing. Causal distance in Einstein's relativity implies that which is within the reach of an incoming light signal. On Earth surface, there are no events that are not within causal distance of one another by which definition therefore, Earth surface is LOCAL. Despite this Locality, Earth surface is NOT FLAT. So Locality does not translate to Flatness.

        "MORAL: Spacetime is NOT flat on Earth surface.". Locally, yes it is.. Same response as above.

        By the way, in this paper, it is said that Earth, like the Sun can deflect light. This supports that Earth spacetime is NOT flat. This is a Big headache for SR and Minkowski's prescription.

        You won't believe anything I say.. I really, really wish I could, but let's keep trying and thanks all the same.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        "You won't believe anything I say.. I really, really wish I could, but let's keep trying and thanks all the same."

        If I can't trust you to go to the sources, Akinbo, we can't have a dialogue.

        Tom,

        Okay, Minkowski sets his working limits and qualifies them such that measures will all be real not negative values within the parameter of light velocity as an absolute value, hence the metric of three like signs and one opposite. That qualification presupposes time asymmetry and it would be moot to speculate what might or might not come from an agreed upon rationale as to 'why' the asymmetry, it's not in the toolbox.

        It is clear from Petkov's intro that operating with two points of reference for any 'substantial point' in Minkowski's rationale provides a definite locality that isn't apparent in SR, though both methods should achieve the same end.

        Your brief comments on 6/30 include, "Applied to physics, the Minkowski formulation is conceptually easy and operationally hard," which hit me right off the bat (being a mathophobic), because in the teaser excerpts of the translation, Minkowski immediately dives into his arsenal of math. Kindly, sir, (I want some more porridge) do share your thoughts on why he starts with the hyberbola. What is assumed, or what did I not get to begin with?

        Sorry to barge in on this thread, the book price is modest to support the efforts but right now I need to budget for pre-winter vehicle maintenance. I think where conceptually there is resistance to 'inertial motion' along a worldline, is what seems to be contradictory with the acknowledgement by both Minkowski and Einstein that fields, or 'something(s) perceptible', exists throughout universal space//time. So What? I don't want to dance on the bar and start fights, but there would be a worldline of the magnetic equilibrium between simple macro-magnets which is experimentally interior to the domain of effect, also. And the same might be true of the neutral plane in electrical appliance. So why the hyberbola? Your thoughts are always appreciated. jrc

        If I can't trust you to go to the sources, Akinbo, we can't have a dialogue.

        Tom, I have gone to the sources. Going to sources is indispensable for doing science but relying solely on sources retards the progress of science.

        Galileo went to sources, but if he merely went to them we will not know till this day that the Earth moves round the Sun. As Newton is quoted to have written concerning sources, "Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my greatest friend is truth"1.

        I note here that you have yourself disagreed with sources particularly in your defense of Joy Christian's work. So much about sources.

        On this topic of space-time, on viewing the sources which you and JRC referred me to, I point out that Minkowski prescribed a very good medicine meant to cure patients suffering from flat spacetime to a patient suffering from curved spacetime. No wonder then that the patient remains sick despite taking the drug for more than 100 years! Do you advise we continue administering this medicine till the patient finally dies or to change the medicine?

        Finally, one reason why sources must be questioned is that new observations/ experiments previously unknown to the source may have come to light. Einstein for example says his position was based on "...unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium'...", but Steve Agnew just posted a beautiful picture of the CMB on the Why Quantum blog showing successful attempts that discover the motion of the Earth! The task then is to reconcile the correct but discordant findings of unsuccess and success.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        1. Newton, The Man by J.M. Keynes, p.22

        "I note here that you have yourself disagreed with sources particularly in your defense of Joy Christian's work. So much about sources."

        Absolutely untrue. Cite the example by which you support this.