Faster than Light

pjackson

Akinbo,

If both 'at and 'on' mean rotating with the globe surface then I don't understand what the difference is between scenario's 1 and 2. Please clarify.

You also didn't read my comment about frames properly. You say "all offices are already within the atmosphere" but in your scenario of a globe in your office there are TWO intertial frames involved. You must then distinguish between them and specify one or the other. The observer' is either AT REST in your office watching the spinning globe go round, or at rest ON the globe surface (so watching your office spinning round!)

I did give you 'clear answers' which resolved that question by giving both cases. Maybe best you read again more slowly and rationalise it for yourself or ask if not clear.

The same error of 'mixing up' frames was made by Lodge at a very critical time in 1893 with his spinning discs, falsely suggesting inconsistencies with the Stokes/Fresnel 'dragged ether' hypothesis. Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration..2010.

The problem is OVER simplification. Einstein specified 'Propagation speed' for VERY good reason. It's essential to understand and apply. The foolishness of ignoring that propagates confusion.

It's like explaining to a 5 year old about cars going past at 30mph being measured at 60mph if we drive the other way at 30mph. There are then always TWO cases, with different results. A 5 year old can understand that. Apparently many adults can't due either to embedded prior assumptions getting in the way or over-simplification!

SO; If you ask, "how fast will we find approaching traffic moving"? A simple answer is meaningless. If you specify if WE are moving or at rest in the background rest frame the answers (relative K-K's) become meaningful and coherent.

So drop assumptions and rebuild from simple logic. My telescope tells me the Lunar Rover is moving at 760kps. Is that valid from all frames!? or as a speed through the local dust storm?

Best wishes

Peter

P.S. You do need to understand absorption as you've yet to catch up to only 60 years out of date with 'superabsorption' and 'superradiance'! ('Dicke states', from particle 'rings'). http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1483.

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,

This reply hasty due to electricity shortage...

"If both 'at and 'on' mean rotating with the globe surface then I don't understand what the difference is between scenario's 1 and 2. Please clarify".

Let us use Receptor-Source-Receptor because of conceptual problems that can arise with synchronization. Only ONE observer.

In the office stationary and at rest.

On earth globe, at rest wrt to earth.

Assignment measure arrival times to the equidistant receptors. Leave out speed measurement for now.

Is the scenario clear enough to now give a Yes/No answer to:

1) Will there be a DIFFERENCE in light arrival times for the spinning office globe set spinning by you from its initial rest in your office?

2) Will there be a DIFFERENCE in light arrival times for the Earth globe, which is already spinning naturally?

Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,

Tricky stuff electrikery. Hope they send more. Your descriptions still leave something to be desired, one problem being ignoring the unignorable fact that 'Receptors' are 'Observers'. However I see your intent to overcome confusions, so will answer on your terms, but your assumption misses real insight into actual mechanisms so I'll also clarify (as requested).

If you 'observe' the spinning globe and system from your office rest frame there are TWO possible cases, but we'll stick with yours; It's the same as Einstein's train/lightning gedanken with you on the embankment; There is NO DIFFERENCE. i.e. YOU will observe the flashes simultaneously.

The caveat is that if the globe has an 'atmosphere', then the signal will be 'dragged' while propagating within it, so the 'advancing' flash will be seen by you first.

Now we consider the case where you are at mid point (source position) at rest ON the Earth (with atmosphere, all 'in the rotating frame') watching the flashes reach the receptors, and thus the light returning to you. Again there will be NO DIFFERENCE in timing.

There are again TWO cases as there may be NO atmosphere, so light would NOT then propagate in the rotating frame but in the background frame, in which case you will be in motion during transit so there WILL be an observed time difference.

The poorly recognised solution to all the paradoxes here is that the observer on the train (Earth) is in a DIFFERENT LATERAL SPATIAL POSITION to the observer in the office (embankment) by the time the signals reach him, because ALL SIGNALS PROPAGATE AT c LOCALLY! Which means c in the medium frame they are IN, not any others they are NOT in!!

Once comprehended the clear logic shines through. It's difficult to grasp and assimilate, but just keep reading it and the dawn will arrive. Ask any questions. Reading the DFM's logical 'light clock' analysis in my 2020 vision essay may also help.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Thanks Peter,

I think it has been worthwhile clearing some of the important cobwebs. We can deal later with 'real insight into actual mechanisms'. I also agree the unignorable fact that 'Receptors' are 'Observers', but this is sometimes used to introduce confusion in relativity discussions.This song is composed to celebrate vision 2020.

Your analysis makes PERFECT SENSE, even if the first NO DIFFERENCE answer got it wrong but was made up for in the latter part of your post that: "...NO atmosphere, so light would NOT then propagate in the rotating frame but in the background frame, in which case you will be in motion during transit so there WILL be an observed time difference".

The office globe has NO atmosphere so there WILL BE be an observed time difference as you now rightly stated.

In summary the differentiating participant in the proceedings whether or not there will be travel time differences is: the presence or absence of an 'atmosphere'. So when there is NO atmosphere there will be travel time differences. BUT when THERE IS, there will be no travel time differences.

The postulate of Special relativity was invented to explain and make sure that WHETHER OR NOT there is an atmosphere, there WILL BE NO TRAVEL TIME DIFFERENCES. It is on this that the validity of Special relativity rests and Einstein staked his theory's validity on this point. He has a quote somewhere buttressing that.

Experimentally, no travel time differences were found by Michelson & Morley type experiments. The explanation uses time dilation and FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction. As there remained the contention whether any 'atmosphere' played a role, since such experiments have been carried out in vacuum with SAME result.

Experimentally, travel time differences were found by Sagnac type experiments for his 'office globe', using a turn-table.

Ordinarily, this would have forced a re-examination of the SR tools of time-dilation and length contraction since these did not come to the rescue in this case, but the horse had escaped from the barn and is still on the loose 100 years on. Sagnac's experiment remained in French (till recently translated) and was virtually suppressed till let out of the bag by the Global Positioning System's findings. Einstein's 1905 German paper was translated to English and disseminated world-wide with time-dilation and length contraction becoming new participants in physics.

These discordant findings should have forced a search for a possible 'atmosphere' candidate remaining present even in vacuum. However, in 1905 and 1913, there was no viable candidate. But now in 2014, I think there is (but I don't think there is any need stating this again, haven said so earlier).

Please note that the commonly used and stated cliche, 'light speed is always constant' irrespective of the motion of the observer/receptor arises from this finding and is not really about Propagation speed at c. It is about resultant speed being always c, irrespective of what v is.

But Einsteiniana has succeeded in using words to muddle up the various speeds to cause confusion where it was not existing, viz. 'relative speed', 'propagation speed', 'resultant speed', 'absolute speed', 'coordinate speed', etc, all sometimes used interchangeably. Hence my requesting we leave them out so the cobwebs can be reduced.

Finally, I think we are reaching a point of convergence in realizing Vision 2020 as you call it. If you agree, we can now look at those atmospheric effects.

Low battery signalling...

Goodbye,

Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,

I agree. I forgot there's one more journey for the light than Einstein's train -lightning gedanken, so if NO atmosphere then the first journeys source-'receiver' vary so there IS a difference.

But you can't simplify that for all cases. i.e. "when there is NO atmosphere there will be travel time differences. BUT when THERE IS, there will be no travel time differences." both because an observer at rest ON the globe finds the converse, AND because there are TWO journeys (the 2nd to your eye).

We agree there is ALWAYS a 'medium', but it can be in VARIOUS kinetic states. It also varies in a) density, and b) refractive index. There are then also various OBSERVER kinetic states possible wrt the two mediums, so we must take care to apply consistent rules to a number of cases.

I also agree Sagnac was suppressed and ignored as it falsified the INTERPRETATION of the postulates, but it's still been long and widely cited by dissidents. But we must also be careful with Sagnac experiments as some employ the different conditions.

Regarding the 'meaning' of the postulates you are reading your own assumptions into them by saying they're not really about 'propagation at 'c'. They're certainly about speed 'observed', but Einstein used certain words for good reason. No he didn't find the full solution, but his error was assuming 'no medium' in space for the 'Relativity of Simultaneity', when 'moving media' (DFM) did the same job. However, this all means we must have TWO cases for speed. One just an arbitrary 'closing' speed c+v. Einstein was perhaps less confused than you think about 'Propagation' speed and the difference between 'Proper' and 'Co-ordinate' time. He was very close. TOO MUCH simplification is over-simplistic!!

The interpretation I've described agrees verbatim with the postulates wording, and also with his (suppressed) 1952 paper. This brings a massive hidden advantage. Rather than just throw stones and shout at the citadel wall like other dissidents it provides a large peace gift for the (sic) 'Trogan's' within! (note the subtle positioning of 'sic' and 'g' not 'j'.) Arguing about the gift is fighting over our secret weapon. You need to 'converge' over here if you wish to win. Help me push this big horse, then wait till nightfall..!

The 'atmospheric effects and boundary mechanism are well described in the papers. It's a 'two-fluid' plasma, or electrons at rest in BOTH frames continually propagating, meeting and annihilating. It's a well known phenomena but only previously thought of in the 'shear surface' case, not the linear case found concentrated at Bow shock transition zones. Those who study the shocks translate the change as 'electron heating' to try to fit doctrine, but know it doesn't work.

The electrons BOTH 'sides' of the Transition Zone re-emit at c in their own rest frame. That's the DFM in a nutshell, also allowing unified SR and 'QM' descriptions without spooks (each electron implements Copenhagen!) as my essay. It's a speed change to maintain LOCAL PROPAGATION AT 'c', exactly as the postulates specify.

Einstein said SR 'doesn't have unlimited domain' and also 'nothing is infinite', so all we're really doing is limiting the domain of his space-time transition to Maxwell's NEAR FIELD limit, rather than infinity! The LT emerges as a power curve as wavelength approaches the minimum limit gamma; Reading through them again now should shed more light. Sa tart with the LT mechanism here;Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,

I have browsed through your two-plasma paper. It does not say anything new or different from the other papers you have told me to see. The model is useful but is incomplete as Tom would say.

Firstly, as I have said before you are trying too hard to please proponents of Lorentz contraction, thereby inventing mechanisms some of which are not needed. I have lost count of many of your 'mechanisms'.

A second aspect is the issue of whether plasma refractive index which you give an approximate value, 1 can be affected by its density, temperature, etc. You suggest it cannot, a pill I am finding difficult to swallow. I am however not expert in nor too interested in plasmas. I am interested in dark matter, which you a;so say is a form of plasma. You had told me earlier that plasma can be hot or cold.

Lastly, it appears inconsistent for you to say: "The plasma refractive index has long been established as ~n = 1 or slightly lower". Do you know what it means to say, slightly lower? That is, light will travel faster in plasma than it will in space completely devoid of matter. I beg to disagree.

Akinbo

PS. I don't see why you always insist that one must read your paper before they can understand what it is you want to put across.

pjackson

Akinbo,

If you wish to question effects invoked you should really do your own checking and use the references I provide. You can't be too lazy to do so than say you 'disagree' as that'll only be due to your ignorance of the subject! You'll have learned I only use well founded effects, and only will. In this case I'll take the time to cite and explain, but I have no time to be your personal professor.

You're wrong about plasma n, which is strictly ~0.9998 but it's a complex and interesting effect not implying FTL. To learn the subtleties of dielectric constants you'll need to read many papers (including 'between the lines') I have one free access paper which explains it quite well, and some related links;

"...Notice that for w< wp the dielectric constant is negative..."

A Broadband Negative Index Metamaterial at Optical Frequencies,

Transparency of an instantaneously created electron-positron-photon plasma. 2014,

Cosmic ray driven outflows.. (using a 2 fluid model).

Barkov et al;..two-fluid relativistic magnetohydrodynamics.

Comptonization of photons near the photosphere of relativistic outflows.

Optical signatures of the charge of a dielectric particle in a plasma.

Construction of a scale hierarchy by adiabatic invariants of magnetized particles.

But let's just dumb it down for now and call it 'c'.

"you are trying too hard to please proponents of Lorentz contraction," You didn't read my response, so completely misunderstand my objective approach. I don't 'TRY' do to anything! I only honestly report what emerges. It "is what it is." I don't agree Lorentz contraction or 'try to please' it's proponents. There are some REAL EFFECTS (misunderstood as 'contraction') that need the REAL EXPLANATION that logically emerged. You or I don't have to "like" it, that's unscientific!

"I don't see why you always insist that one must read your paper before they can understand what it is you want to put across."

It seems it's not so much a case of 'understanding' but of the false expectation to 'know' about things, so being able to 'agree' or 'disagree', before bothering to learn about them. That's why I research so many papers. I wrote recently that man's condition is as a darkened room. We expect to see and understand what's around us without bothering to look for the light switch. I did look, found it, and it is indeed enlightening. I recommend you try it.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, I have a question for you that just occurred to me and decided to do here instead of opening another thread, if you don't mind.

On your post elsewhere, "As the ban on 'preferred frames' is lifted by making them discrete nested fields we can make light change speed to local c within each local rest frame (as SR's postulates!)", which is consistent with your quote of Einstein 'small space s within bigger space S' or 'bracket within bracket'.

My Question: If by some coincidence, all the spaces or brackets were for a moment stationary with respect to each other as a light signal traversed them, will there still be "change speed to local c within each local rest frame (as SR's postulates!)"?

Regards,

Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,

No. As each set of brackets represent the boundaries between different states of motion (i.e. (K') within K) the brackets disappear if K' accelerates to become K. No 'change' of speed is then required to maintain local propagation at c. (as SR's postulates).

Thought of in terms of Einstein's; 'small space s in relative motion within bigger space S', if 'small space s' is not 'in motion' it becomes part of larger space S. (i.e. frame K).

On the other hand; A train at rest at a station is as much part of the planetary surface ('rotating') rest frame as one made of stone, or the platform (K). But the instant it accelerates it takes on a new (changing) state of motion. Once it's stopped 'acceleration' it will have a new 'rest' frame (K'), as will the passengers sitting within it. Any walking through the train have their own frame. All propagating fluctuations only change speed on arrival.'/b] Not before!

As I've explained before, anyone unfamiliar with the concepts needs to think through, visualise, internally rationalise and 'rehearse' (practice) that fundamental set of relationships to be able to remember and consistently apply them to unravel confused understanding. Did the above help?

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Yes, I agree with your No answer. Galilean relativity, which also admits of different states of motion also gives a No answer. So next is to differentiate between the two, i.e. DFM and Galilean relativity.
Talking of "each set of brackets represent the boundaries between different states of motion", "'small space s in relative motion within bigger space S', if 'small space s' is not 'in motion' it becomes part of larger space S.", it is helpful to realize two things. First is that a space or bracket devoid of matter of any sort cannot move. Thus what appears to move is a space or bracket consisting of matter. Second is that matter like space devoid of matter can transmit light waves.
So the operational mechanism for modulating change of light speed is matter-based. And if it is matter-based its refractive index must count in changing the light speed.
Although you give prominence to the role of matter, this prominence appears to me inadequate, your attempt to separate into two independent effects as you do earlier on this thread should be further scrutinized. As you said "There are two entirely independent effects. The 'make up' of the medium, which dictates refractive index n, and the relative kinetic state of the medium; K.". What I am saying is that space, s without matter cannot have a relative kinetic state. Space, s whatever or whichever way you define it requires matter to have any semblance of a kinetic state. I don't know if I am coherent?
If you give more prominence to the role of matter, you may find there is no need to use Lorentz transformation (length contraction and time dilation) to obtain the SR postulates. Galilean relativity is adequate.
Do you have a mechanism for Pound-Rebka's finding of difference in frequency at the Top of tower and below, both of which are within the "same bracket" since there is no relative motion between them? I suggest the difference again is a matter-based mechanism.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Galilean relativity is only given 'reality' and a non-linear boundary mechanism when the 'real' entities relative speed nears c. No 'differentiation' is need as it's all about more consistent interpretation.
You'll note that the same is true of SR because that 'non linearity' is what the Lorentz factor describes. (I refer to Einstein's postulated SR, NOT the 'interpretation' added afterwards - incomplete as each frame had infinite limits, so paradoxical). The LT is a natural and essential process which is experimentally irrefutable and needs explaining physically. I don't use the rather 'head in the sand' approach you seem to propose! No solution can be valid if it doesn't address all empirical findings. That one emerges naturally.
"So the operational mechanism for modulating change of light speed is matter-based. And if it is matter-based its refractive index must count in changing the light speed."
Absolutely, but some important caveats; the refractive index (n) effect MUST be distinguished from the additional 'kinetic' effect from the medium's relative motion. n is frame invariant. e.g. all dense clouds in relative motion (at v) can have the same index n, but when viewed from the background rest frame each will ALSO change the speed by v. I don't 'attempt' to separate those Akinbo, logic and nature do that. I've just identified it as the only consistent logic.
Physics also needs to overcome it's fear of the background 'dark energy/ condensate' rest frame enabled by these 'discrete field' dynamics. I suspect that may be the hardest bit. Below gamma and the Planck length there is a 'sub matter' energy pool flowing around, which condenses 'matter' as spin vortices when disturbed (compressed, so at shear planes), which modulates local c.
People use Maxwell's equations yet still deny the essential 'ether' frames each side of his near/far field TZ.
I can't believe you've already forgotten our long conversation about Pound Rebka from earlier in the year! I went to great effort to explain to you precisely how it emerged from the kinetics and thinning ambient density - and you seem to have forgotten! (except perhaps subconsciously as you do now see it's 'matter based' atmospheric refraction). I hope that means I'm not totally wasting the time spent answering your questions!

Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, I think we are reaching a convergence of ideas from different directions...
Can you please clarify,
"Galilean relativity is only given 'reality' and a non-linear boundary mechanism when the 'real' entities relative speed nears c." What do you imply by non-linear and the 'real' entities?
Also, I agree "Physics also needs to overcome it's fear of the background 'dark energy/ condensate' rest frame enabled by these 'discrete field' dynamics", but for now I will personally leave out 'dark energy condensate from the statement.
On "Pound Rebka from earlier in the year! I went to great effort to explain to you precisely how it emerged from the kinetics and thinning ambient density - ...as you do now see it's 'matter based' atmospheric refraction". Ambient density of what? Air?
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Good. By 'reality' I mean real matter with a 'state of motion', or systems of bodies with such an assignable group common centre of mass state (frame).
By 'non-linear' I mean a density distribution gradient producing a non-liner function or curve. Rather like a cosine curve or ellipse for instance as opposed to a circle.
Air will do fine, but the whole column of gases and electrons has a vertical density gradient, thinning out far more rapidly than we realize!
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Okay your definition 'reality' and 'non-linear' sounds fine, with some addition which I leave for now.
ON "Air will do fine, but the whole column of gases and electrons has a vertical density gradient, thinning out far more rapidly than we realize!"
In the absence of Air the findings will remain the same due to the presence of 'ponderable matter' as an Einstein quote says. You call this DFM plasma, I prefer dark matter. But there is something you said sometime ago which you may want to review. You said the density of Plasma has no effect on its refractive index so I don't see how 'thinning out' can now have an effect on electromagnetic propagation through a column. By the way the gradient has to be a consequence of gravity, denser nearer source of gravity and thinner further up.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Nice to find agreement, and well spotted re-pure plasma and the Pound-Rebka column gradient. You'll find there's no evidence of so called 'gravitational redshift' in a near perfect vacuum column (or I couldn't, but please do look).
In reality pure the plasma (free electrons, positrons and protons,) which doesn't annihilate quickly evolves to basic ions, CO and bound molecular gas (i.e. check out the AMS findings) the 'PMD delay' is always non-zero. (And yes, it perfectly performs the functions of 'dark matter') I also strongly suspect the dark energy (Casimir) 'condensate' is simply a smaller gauge fluid 'vortex foam' which has tiny non detectable (yet!) effects.
I'm glad you seem to have rationalised the key differentiation required between the 'charge delay' and 'kinetic' (reverse) lensing effects. However you've a long way to go in exploring the consequences, requiring the 'new way of looking' an many familiar things to complete the big puzzle. Hopefully a new pair of eyes will also see additional things.
i.e. Saying; "a consequence of gravity" is only one way to view it. What we call 'gravity' is also, and may prove even more, a consequence of the matter distribution we're discussing!
How much of the QM application did you penetrate? (proving quasi causality with no FTL) I'm currently in discussion with a Nobel Laureate on the new dynamics trying to simplify the explanation (I may try it on you if you understand the so called 'quantum non-local state reduction' fundamentals) and may hopefully move on to a new joint publication soon. Indeed I must get back to that now.
Best wishes
Peter

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 Polygon Conundrum
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, by A. Einstein, June 30, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide."
Let us imagine that the ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY clocks. According to Einstein, if a single moving clock travels along the polygonal line and is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary clocks, it will show less and less time elapsed than them.
Let us reverse the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.
Will the single stationary clock show LESS AND LESS time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks, or will it show MORE AND MORE time elapsed than them?
Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Getting Rid of Space-Time (Goodbye Einstein)
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."
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..."
Space-time is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
"When Einstein developed the theory of special relativity in 1905, it undid Newton's notions of a clockwork universe, in which objects in an absolute space followed the beat of a heavenly timepiece. Space and time are intertwined into one four-dimensional fabric called space-time."
This means that, in accordance with the rules of logic, the only way to "retire" space-time is to reject, as false, the postulate - the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. The falsehood of this assumption was unequivocally proved in 1887:
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
Pentcho Valev

Steve Agnew

Arkani-Hamed's talk was a real chore to get through...he definitely is no Feynman. I liked his units discussion where he reduces time and length to the proton mass. I did not like his fondness for stringy things. Where is the clarity that we so desperately need to get out of the spacetime box?
His rhetorical device was the "doom of spacetime", but he really did not make it clear what doom really meant during his talk. Basically he repeated the failure of QM at large scale and low energy and the failure of gravity at high energy and small scale. At high energies and small scale, physics makes black holes and so QM does not work because of black holes, which is a GR concept. But even GR does not work inside of a black hole. Why this is revealing anything is beyond me.
Why that is revealing was not revealed very well and his rabbit seemed to be a stringy thing. He states that any new theory must explain the results of two hypothetical gravitons colliding...but that assumes gravitons exist, which is not the case, at least not yet. He challenges his new theory with a collision of hypothetical particles like a graviton, what does that even mean?
I just did not find this talk very illuminating and my hope is that the universe will not end up as complex as this guy thinks it is.

Pentcho Valev

Why Einstein disfigured space and time into the absurd space-time:
Brian Greene 11:48 : "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour."
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

Einstein or Newton ?
"Who do you consider the greatest of all physicists? When people think physics, they often think of Einstein, but Brian Greene has a different person in mind for the greatest of all physicists."
Brian Greene seems to have deciphered the message in the following text (written by perhaps the cleverest ever Einsteinian):
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev

« Previous Page Next Page »