Faster than Light

Thomas Ray

"What you say is our objective reality exists just in your imagination."

Demonstrably, it exists in the correspondence between my (and everyone's) imagination and the results of physical experiments. That's what objective reality means.

Thomas Ray

(reposted in correct thread)

"What you say is our objective reality exists just in your imagination."

Demonstrably, it exists in the correspondence between my (and everyone's) imagination and the results of physical experiments. That's what objective reality means.

Thomas Ray

Dang it. I think I flagged for deletion my post that answered "I half agree, John ..." when I meant to flag only a post to Steve Agnew that I placed in the wrong thread. I don't have a copy and I don't want to write it again ... so hopefully Brendan will restore it in time.

Steve Agnew

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2014 @ 18:15 GMT

"We simply cannot take time or space separately as being emergent. If there is space, there is time. Light velocity is an observable phenomenon, we have no clue why it exists as a preferred limit. None! That's what we have to work with."

This is very true...if there is space, there is time and if there is time, there is space. In this sense, time and space represent the same action of an object and so we should separate space and time and just use one or the other and not both to describe action. This will decouple the four-space of GR and provide a method to incorporate quantum gravity with just matter and time.

Then, if it is convenient, science can always recouple space and time. However, with a quantum gravity, science can use the powerful tools of quantum action to predict many of the actions of gravity that science is now confused about.

Thomas Ray

I didn't write that.

Steve Agnew

oops...sorry...it was

John R. Cox replied on Aug. 2, 2014 @ 17:40 GMT

"...We simply cannot take time or space separately as being emergent. If there is space, there is time. Light velocity is an observable phenomenon, we have no clue why it exists as a preferred limit. None! That's what we have to work with..."

Akinbo Ojo

I concur, 'If there is space, there is time', by which is to say our appreciation of space is because there is time and duration of activity, and our appreciation of time is because there is space.

Is there a smallest possible space? If there is, what sort of activity or 'olympic' game can it be engaged in all by itself, so that its existence can be appreciated?

Akinbo

John Cox

Steve,

As Quants go, you are pretty easy to talk with, it's appreciated. The problem I see with the search for a 'gravity quantum', is that the standard model of the electromagnetic spectrum provides the energy quantity of the Quantum, but rests on Lorentz' prohibition of it exhibiting any mass and consequently there is no gravitational component associated with EMR, only the electrostatic and magneto-static. The 'particle' form is likewise prohibited other than the contradictory 'massless particle'.

I do not see unification of quantum and relativistic mechanics without a reset and reformulization of the respective paradigms. The Standard Model has become reminiscent of the geocentric geared contraptions of Ptolemic piety.

QM has the valid point that there exists naturally, to the best we can ascertain, a true probability in statistical averages of large numbers. It must be recognized, however, that we invent those numbers in the first place, and they are no more reliable than our intuition that instructs our classical method. Given the bald assumption that we have the capacity intellectually to be close enough to grasping reality, let's consider the mathematic property of 'average'. Einstein used it for the total mass of the solar observable diameter, despite the known macroscopic electrical separation of nuclear centers, and his own assertion that no region of space was without any sort of field (of energy). 'Average' is not the same as 'constant', an average value can be a proportionate constant.

To rationalize the quantum gravitationally in a manner consistent with QM methodology of 'averaging', I think first requires that we recognize that the definition of 'Photon' is not about a fundamental particle-like quantity, rather it is an arbitrary time dependent value derived from e = hv. Nor does the standard model provide a rationale of the transition from a spherical wave emission into a linear projection. What we have is the quantity of energy expressed by the Planck Constant exhibited by each and every wavelength ( in the far field ) regardless of variation of wavelength. What part of that does not suggest that the 'quantum' is an average value, constant as a proportion across the classically continuous spectrum. QM is as limited by the assumption that the quantum is indivisible, as Classical Mechanics is by the Lorentz transforms of Fitzgerald's Contraction. jrc

Steve Agnew

Quantumology, to be precise, is first of all a belief. I find it more useful to specify that it is a belief and recognize that it is still far from a perfect representation of the universe...but it is a very useful one for predicting action.

Gravitology, correspondingly, is a belief that all reality works like macroscopic and ballistic objects of our intuition and common experience, gravity action. There is no role for matter amplitude and phase as far as gravitology is concerned. Gravity action has also been very successful in many predictions but it is clear that these two theorets are fundamentally incompatible as you so rightly point out.

I agree that there will be a fundamental reset needed for a quantum gravity to emerge and there are ways out of this box. Note that photons do have momentum, just no rest mass, but motion is one of those things that is a gimme...so maybe it is we who are moving at the speed of light and photons are really standing still. Photons would then get their momentum from us and exist as the static points of the universe.

Truly understanding space is the key to the conundrum of gravity action. Space, it would seem, it just not what it seems and science is in a perpetual flummox with the Gordian knot of spacetime.

Quantum gravity will be all about matter exchange just like quantum charge is all about matter exchange. While the hope is for a graviton particle of some sort to carry gravity force, gravity force could be due to the exchange of large numbers of photon pairs and so gravity force could be due to the same photon bonding of charge. But coherent pairs of photons mean that gravity is a neutral force with spin = 2.

The heat of gravitational collapse is often thought of as the result of gravity compression of matter. What if it were the other way around? What if the integral of the heat emitted as photons from gravitational compression, an energy, resulted in the differential of energy that we call gravity force?

Just as you suggest, it is clear that what we experience is some kind of an average reality, but that experience only exists in our Cartesian mind. We as objects are embedded in a relational universe of objects and we exchange matter amplitude and phase with those objects. Quantum action provides us a glimpse of that underlying reality and improves predictions of the futures of objects, but our intuition locks us into certain limitations of the machine of our consciousness.

John Cox

Steve,

I think you are one of a new breed of Quant, and I also think it promising to approach the subject of gravitational effects from a perspective that an exchange particle may be a methodical convenience. We do need a manageable material point that can be called a 'center of gravity' in the time it may take for a quantum unit of action to occur across a distance.

From a purely mathematical platform, QM seeks probabilities in the arithmetic properties and applies empirical results onto that schematic. The quantity value of the Quantum is an empirical result, but so is the Gravitational Constant. Of the two I think it a safer bet to assume 'G' to be indivisible as a fundamental value, though maybe it also is a composite. Both Newton and Einstein gravity formulations utilize 'G' without there being any causal relation known, nor is there a causal hypothesis for 'c' and 'h'. So quantum gravitational action if successful should be expected to produce mathematically some rationale of equivalence to the Gravitational Constant.

Conversely, it would be arguable that in keeping with strict QM methodology, that 'G' rather than 'h' could be used as the foundational benchmark, and a similar systematic probability regimen could be constructed as was evolved from the assumption of the instantaneous 'quantum leap'. Whether quantum or classical, statistics and probabilities extend from a benchmark. Just like a survey of land boundaries, the trajectory commences from a point of reference that is deemed fundamental in registry of laws as being a constant value. The only difference being in a land survey the benchmark is deemed an immovable 'place', non-relative. So in statistical surveys the bench is an energy relational, constant value, that can be plotted transiting time and space. (Which is why an optical 'transit-level' is called that.) jrc

Georgina Woodward

Quote "We simply cannot take time or space separately as being emergent. If there is space, there is time. Light velocity is an observable phenomenon, we have no clue why it exists as a preferred limit. None! That's what we have to work with."John R. Cox

Time can be emergent if it consists of the sequence of change in configuration of the uni-temporal Object universe. Space and time are inseparable within the emergent space-time Image reality formed from received sensory data.All of the potential sensory data in the external environment exists at the uni-temporal Now, no other time. That's what I think.

If something is travelling at near the speed of light it would not be possible to form an image of it unless the observer is travelling with comparable speed. Ignoring the transmission time of light signal from object to observer,by which time the object is far away - just the duration of input necessary to achieve cognition is 13 milliseconds. MIT News,In the blink of an eye. In that time alone the object will have moved a little under 3897.302km. The 'would be image' is stretched out over that distance and the number of photons arriving from any one position may be too low to overcome the optical threshold necessary for vision.

Optical systems require an exposure time to allow enough photons to enter the system for an image to be produced. (From very brief internet search) The fastest shutter speed digital camera I found has a speed of 0.125s or 125 milisecondss. So in the time it takes for that one exposure the object will have moved 37474.06km. From a brief internet search the fastest frame rate camera is around 17,000 frames per second or 17, per millisecond. From one frame to the next the object would have traveled about 17.635 km. I don't think that even that would allow resolution into a discernible image of the object.

I have previously said that (for the stationary observer) at near light speed the calculated appearance due to SR will suffer motion blur but thinking about it now it seems to me that not even a blur will register and it is only the persisting effects of the motion such as disturbance of the surrounding atmosphere that might be seen. We can't build an emergent Image reality from objects travelling faster then the speed of light, so they are not part of that reality it seems to me.

Then there is the problem of inertia but there may be ways to overcome it.

Georgina Woodward

I should have said even if they (FTL objects or phenomena) do exist they are not a part of that emergent Image reality.

Georgina Woodward

The inertia is a whole different kettle of fish, that's in the Object reality.

Georgina Woodward

Regarding Inertia ( Einstein reasoned, it causes the maximum speed limit as it increases with acceleration increasing the mass of the accelerated object, as there is energy mass equivalence.)Einstein says that velocity causes time dilation and so does a gravitational field. So at higher altitude the clock runs faster and at higher velocity it runs slower. (So supposedly the travelling twin ages more slowly.)

The satellites GPS, Galilleo, GLONASS are all below geostationary orbit and adjusted for time dilation. The aeroplanes on which the tests of relativity using atomic clocks were conducted circumnavigated the Earth. All of these vehicles, satellites and planes are/were undergoing acceleration as they are in circular motion around the Earth.

Using Einstein's thought path, that acceleration should increase the inertia of the ion that is used to give the time keeping oscillation. That should make the ion have more mass and so oscillate more slowly. Which would mean the clock is not showing that time itself is slower when undergoing velocity but that there has been an effect on the time keeper making it run slower. The same principle would work for both atomic and pendulum clocks. I should think that both velocity and acceleration have that effect.The faster the object is moving the greater its interaction with the resistance to its movement. More so with acceleration, the greater the resistance because it is easier to travel at the same speed and to travel in a straight line than change velocity or direction (Newton's first law)

Using Einstein's own thought path re inertia and Newton's first law. This approach gives a different explanation for the slowing of clocks than time dilation (slowing of time). For the clocks undergoing circular motion it could be due to resistance to change of trajectory from the straight path by that ubiquitous resistance that gives some subatomic particles their mass. This explanation fits the explanatory framework I have proposed because the clock is a material thing made of atoms and fermion particles, so exists in Object reality. Object reality has no time dimension and so time can not be dilated there but clocks can run slow meaning there is smaller change occurring with new iteration of the Object universe.

Was increase in inertia taken into account in addition to time dilation in the clock experiments or was there just an assumption of time dilation? Is it taken into account in addition to time dilation when correcting the clocks of the global positioning satellites? Or is it a viable alternative explanation to the appearance of time dilation?

John Cox

Steve,

whooaa, "...exists only in our imagination."

So does 'quantum action'! The first thing that finally got decided in the quest for discovery of whether we could really know if we are thinking correctly, was rule number one in the theory of knowledge; we really can't be too sure, but we have to start somewhere with a bald-faced assumption. jrc

pjackson

JC,

" Light velocity is an observable phenomenon, we have no clue why it exists as a preferred limit. None!"

With respect that's not entirely true beyond some non-zero hints. OK we're often not good at picking up clues, but all postulates should be equally valid if corresponding with findings so lets try;

Lets say we have a very common 'quanta' that spins at a constant speed and couples strongly with EM radiation. We may call them condensed 'fermions' for instance. As their energy is greater than that of each wave it's may be their spin/wavelength/ 'frequency' which dominates the (quantized 'photon') re-emission velocity, which then becomes a 'certain' speed 'c' only in the (local) centre of mass rest frame of each electron.

Now sprinkle these fermions across the surface of all matter (more densely when in 'motion' through the ambient frame) and anything made of matter will find light speed at it's own local c.

That's a very rough outline of central tenet of the discrete field model (the same one that predicts a cosine^2 interaction OAM distribution). Ridiculous? Give it a test run, you may find it's performance surprising.

Steve,

That's quantum action wrt EM but not gravity, which does seem to emerge but as a result of the condensation mechanism itself not an actual 'action of' the condensed quanta.

So may that just be 'crazy enough to be correct'?

Best wishes

Peter

Steve Agnew

Ohhh, what chaos...

Rule one in the theory of knowledge in that there are two complementary representations for reality, what we call subjective and one that we all objective...what we call mind and body...what we call wave and particle.

My point was just that there is an inherent dualism in our reality that we must just accept. There is the reality that we imagine and there is the reality as it actually exists. We use our objective reality to predict action, but we are exchanging matter with the universe even as we imagine an objective reality as objects on time trajectories. As long as we do a good job at predicting action, it doesn't really matter what is real and what is not really true.

This is the problem that we have with quantum action. We dearly want all action to conform to the simplistic objective reality that we imagine, but that approximation only works for limited scale. When we need to predict microscopic action or cosmic action, we must use quantum action and forgo our innate desire for a simpler reality.

Thomas Ray

"So does 'quantum action'!"

For which there exists an exact, objective, mathematical representation to be tested against physical experiment. When we are capable of imagining the same testable phenomenon, we acquire objective knowledge.

Georgina Woodward

Thanks for asking Steve.

If there is a time dimension along which objects are spread then there is the possibility of paradoxical time travel. With the alternative I proposed, space without a time dimension, (and passage of time through continual rearrangement of the configuration of matter and particles in space), there is no material (made of objects and atoms) past or future and so absolutely no chance of time travel as there is no other time to travel to and no paradox.

An imaginary time line along which the sequence of iterations of the Object universe are spread can be considered, but its important to remember that only the youngest iteration in the sequence exists.There is conservation of energy through continual recycling.

It could be the other way around but I think the paradox is showing that there is something not quite right about that model.Same as for time travel in space-time. In that case it is mistaking the emergent Image reality fabrication, (the manifestation formed from received sensory data or signals) for the external Object reality made of objects and particles. That is the persistent illusion not passage of time.

Akinbo Ojo

Steve et al.

Can you be clear what you mean by "quantum action". To remove all ambiguity in your response, can you be concise what 'quantum' means, then what 'action' means before your final answer. So much falsehood and error sometimes lie beneath the definitions, that is why I ask.

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Quantum action is very simply the change of matter in time as a result of the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is a proportionality between the differential in time of a matter wave and itself and so defines all action as quantum.

The quantum action principle means is that there is an exchange of matter amplitude and phase between all objects and that exchange represents a quantum bond. Quantum action works quite well for microscopic matter and so is well accepted by science, but science has not yet figured out how to derive a quantum gravity that is consistent with GR.

Some think that it is hopeless, but I am much more sanguine and believe that science is closer than it realizes.

« Previous Page Next Page »