" ... In any case what you appear to be saying is that a source represents absolute truth ..."

You know that's unwarranted. I am saying that you are talking about something completely different from what the literature says. You have picked up a bad habit from Pentcho Valev, of trying to fit naive opinions -- Procrustean style -- into places they don't fit, by picking up out-of-context quotations here and there.

Classical mechanics, including relativity, is well understood and well tested in its applicable domain. It is as true as any scientific theory can be. Get hold of Susskind/Hrabovsky, The Theoretical Minimum published recently. and Einstein/Infeld The Evolution of Physics published in 1938. These are accessible, clearly written introductions to classical physics.

Akinbo,

If I may offer a more consistent definition of 'local'; It is 'within' each inertial system, where 'inertial system' is defined by matter in a common rest frame. i.e Earth and our atmo/ionosphere orbit the sun as a coherent LOCAL inertial system with a group virial rest frame and centre of mass. Light propagates at c wrt Earth LOCALLY.

Similarly the sun and it's heliosphere are in a single common state of motion through the galactic arm with a 'group' centre of mass. Light propagates at c wrt the sun LOCALLY.

The galaxy has a similar but 'rotating' group rest frame with a coherent centre of mass, limited by it's halo (which orbits and moves through space WITH the galaxy.

At the smaller end of the scale 'LOCAL' is within Maxwell's 'near field'. His 'Far field' is in some other state of motion. Radio signals understandably change speed and wavelength at the near/far field TZ. Most radio antenna engineers consider theoretical physicists as complete dorks living in 'Wonderland' or on some other planet (with a different language) for not seeming able to rationalise basic EM! They certainly seem to have a point!

There is no other kinetic 'definition' for such inertial systems anyway, apart from the (otherwise etherial) 'inertial frames'. i.e. it is indeed Galilean relativity, but with the Lorentz factor applying to the boundary transition mechanism.

(In QM 'non-local' has a rather different definition, implying FTL influence).

Best wishes.

Peter

Thanks Peter,

Your definition of 'LOCAL' is much more coherent and makes lot of sense.

I agree fully the first three paragraphs.

To add for clarification, there should be a physical agency demarcating the Local from Global space and I think atmo/ionosphere, heliosphere, and so on do this just fine.

Tom,

You use causality to define your own Local. Fine. If you dial my number and you cause my phone to ring in this other side of the world, do you still say because of that the Earth space-time is flat? No need to compare me with Pentcho because I ask you a question that gives you headache and you cant answer coherently.

Regards,

Akinbo

All the sources Tom referred me to say Earth spacetime is not flat. So how can Minkowski spacetime physics be applied to interpret the experimental evidence on Earth surface?

"Since 1908 there has been no consensus on the reality of the absolute four dimensional world no matter whether it is the flat Minkowski spacetime or a curved spacetime since both spacetimes represent a four-dimensional world with time wholly given as the fourth dimension. What makes this issue truly unique in the history of science is that for over a hundred years not only has it remained an unresolved one, but for some it has been even a non-issue, whereas Minkowski had already provided the necessary evidence for the reality of spacetime in 1907 and 1908. He had fully realized the profound physical meaning of the relativity principle (reflecting the existing experimental evidence) - the impossibility to discover absolute motion experimentally unequivocally implies that observers in relative motion have different times and spaces, which in turn implies that which exists is an absolute four-dimensional world.", see p.30 here

Tom has accused me of "talking about something completely different from what the literature says..., of trying to fit naive opinions into places they don't fit, by picking up out-of-context quotations here and there". So what does this quotation mean to others to avoid Tom's accusation?

Steve Agnew posted an illustration that electromagnetic phenomena CAN be used to discover absolute motion UNLIKE the experimental evidence in quote above which is the Michelson-Morley experiment, where does this leave the four dimensional world and so-called block spacetime in physics?

Tom may or may not like this, I don't know...

"Minkowski's geometry is taken to be exact if there is no gravitational field - i.e. no space-time curvature. But when gravity is present, we regard Minkowski's geometry as only approximate - in the same way as a flat surface gives only an approximate description to the geometry of a curved surface. If we imagine that we take a more and more powerful microscope to examine a curved surface - so that the geometry of the surface appears stretched out to greater and greater dimensions - then the surface appears to be flatter and flatter. We say that a curved surface is locally like a Euclidean plane. In the same way, we can say that, in the presence of gravity, space-time is locally like Minkowski's geometry (which is flat space-time), but we allow some 'curviness' on a larger scale". - p.268, The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose (italics are Penrose's).

1. Penrose's analogy suggests 'local' is a question of size, such that at a larger size what falsely appears flat is curved. In this regard, it is necessary to know the size limit. Further, it is necessary to know if the spacetime in the Michelson-Morley interferometer was flat or curved depending on the size used. If size is agreed, and the interferometer is bigger than 'local', then again Minkowski spacetime fails as explanation for the 1887 finding.

2. According to Penrose's description, "Minkowski's geometry is taken to be exact if there is no gravitational field - i.e. no space-time curvature" and I agree. The only arena where this can be obtainable is at infinite position in the gravitational field. There the influence of gravity is almost zero. That is the true flat space-time, if it is desired to describe physics with Minkowski geometry. And I have a published peer-reviewed paper showing that the velocity of light there is different from that in our slightly curved Earth spacetime.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo, I appreciate your being scandalized by relativity, and I appreciate your rational approach in trying to assuage your differences with Einstein's result. So I take back what I said about following in Pentcho's footsteps.

Your fundamental error, however, is in failing to understand the geodesic of the light path in curved spacetime. At speeds and distances less than relativistic, we find that when an object traveling in a straight line enters a curve, it accelerates -- as when I set my Jeep's cruise control for exactly 70 mph on the freeway, and my speed edges upward just far enough for the vehicle's warning system to remind me of the speed limit.

The geodesic path of light in curved spacetime doesn't behave like that. Though spacetime curves, the light beam does not accelerate when it 'enters' the curve. The light is still following as straight a path as it can.

Were this not true, we could not observe Einstein's gravitational lensing effect. We do see this effect, though -- because if the light from a distant object accelerated through a strong gravity field, we would see the object's position as exactly where it originated, because we know light travels in a straight line. As it is, though, the difference between where we know the object is located -- and where it appears to be, to our observation -- differs by an angle exactly correspondent to the constant speed of light in a vacuum.

  • [deleted]

The description of a geodesic path presupposes that a path through space exists. Although space is a useful paradigm, we must be very careful with the lonely empty nothing that we call space.

We must also be careful in listening to much to the quotations of dead physicists. They did not unify force and so we must be very careful in how we interpret their contributions. Einstein make very many useful contibutions to science, but his approach to quantum action was deeply flawed.

We can use just matter, time, and action to describe the universe and in so doing, we do not deny space, but rather place it where it belongs. Space is a very useful whiteboard for many common actions, especially gravity actions. But space fails as a concept overall.

There does seem to be an absolute reference point with the CMB dipole and that is really cool...

" ... the lonely empty nothing that we call space."

If you think there exists a space empty of the field, describe its properties.

16 days later
  • [deleted]

wow .. thank you for your clarity. i'm not a math person, but as i read this at my desk .. my son (who sent this to me) standing beside me, and my cat, *ORION* Night Hunter of the Stars, watching from the hutch overhead .. i stopped reading and cried aloud, looking at one then the other, saying:

Of course! Now it all makes sense! You and I and *ORION* share various BRANES, and that is how our individual personal awareness singularity lifeforce actually share space .. but not necessarily time. my son, my cat, and myself share the space of this room; but our experience of time is of a non-commutative structure .. as H.sapiens my "time" passes in a totally different "sphere" from that of my cat, who as F.catus, has a life expectancy much shorter, and even in his sleep phase lives to the beat of a thousand juicy mousies scurrying across the horizon. I don't know if i'm a BRANE D43 or D613 .. but this non-communative analysis provides for the possibility that in those specific BRANES we three share, our realities cross paths and so we appear and act in each other's worlds .. but each of us is also experiencing a still unknown number of BRANES, which is why my son and i are in ways worlds apart .. and my cat and i belong to and live in totally different universes. How sweet it is to partake of this non-commutative cosmic dance. Thank you very much, mr. Stemp-Morlock, for this article.

9 months later

Can Physicists Save Dying Physics?

Physics is not just dying - it is already dead, but the majority of physicists behave like the pet shop owner in the following sketch:

Dead Parrot Sketch

Still there is a small minority that, although unable to resurrect physics, at least raise the alarm:

"Turok explains that the "large bandwagon" of the last 30 years has not found experimental support. The bandwagon in question is the Standard Model of particle physics established in the 1970s, which, he says, people have been elaborating ever since. "Grand unified theories, supersymmetry, string theory, M-theory, multiverse theory," he lists. "Each is not particularly radical, but is becoming ever more complex and arbitrary." To illustrate the lack of experimental support for these ideas, Turok describes how many people were hoping string theory would represent a radical development; but since string theory - as currently interpreted - leads to the multiverse, Turok describes it as the "least predictive theory ever". Indeed, experimental support has not been found for other extensions of the Standard Model either. "We have discovered the Higgs and nothing else," says Turok, "yet the vast majority of theorists had been confidently predicting WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles) and supersymmetric particles... Theorists are walking around in a bit of a stunned silence." He adds that it could turn out to be right that all sorts of other particles are needed along with the Higgs - but that thought seems to be misguided. "My view is that this has been a kind of catastrophe - we've lost our way," he says. "What we need are ideas as simple and radical as in the start of the 20th century with quantum mechanics."

George Ellis and Joe Silk: "This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."

Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser: "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics. Do physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories? You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple. (...) ...a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility."

Frank Close: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."

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."

Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

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."

"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..."

Peter Woit: "I don't think though that this will have any effect on multiverse mania and its use as an excuse for the failure of string theory unification. It seems to me that we're now ten years down the road from the point when discussion revolved around actual models and people thought maybe they could calculate something. As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."

Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

Pentcho Valev

a year later

With such a high level of confusion in physics, we are bound by a theory called relativity. Why we can not think of space as absolute empty but filled with an exotic fluid called ether or dark energy or even geavitoewthertons in certain pockets where universe exist. The total landscape may be infinite with patches of absolute nothing and patches of something. Scientists are getting signal from absolute void and how do we ignore that. Balloon inside balloon theory what we call parallel universes of opposites can be a fruitful theory to look into. Standard model prescribed some particles and we are comfortable with that. Standard model prescribed four fundamental forces but most from imagination and gravity is totally unknown except its presence in fall of apples etc . All forces as we know are electromagnetic origin and strong nuclear fore, weak nuclear force can be merged into quantum gravity by suitable manipulation of gravitons giving mass and a coupling. Quantum gravity is emergent force. Gravitons also act at molecular level..when we see apple fall . Simple calculation predicts M/R.R =CONSTANT for any molecule in classical molecular gravity theory. But quantum level action with quarks inside proton and neutron culminates into a residual color charge effect with quarks where graviton serve the purpose of force carrier in place of gluon and this quantum gravity is strong nuclear force. Similarly weak nuclear force come into play in big atoms from a residual increase in the repusion for decay in radio activity. We have to come out from the paradigm of Einstein ideas and assumed four fundamental forces. LHC will do the rest by fniding out a massive graviton soon. I am attaching paper for wide circulation and re thinking basis in physics . Kindly go through the paper even if not so convincing from present modern physics.Attachment #1: 6_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf

    Hi Durga,

    You have written "With such a high level of confusion in physics, we are bound by a theory called relativity. " You seem to be implying that confusion binds us to relativity. I don't think that is so but rather it can not be discarded because it is useful, fits experimental evidence and only suffers from the lack of general realization that there is an inherent category error in the theory.

    What do you mean by " We have to come out from the paradigm of Einstein ideas and assumed four fundamental forces."? I think we need only to see the theory in relation to the underlying ontology and alongside other models formed upon information rather than beables.

    4 years later
    Write a Reply...