Faster than Light

Steve Agnew

It is true that Einstein's general relativity has some flaws. However, the mass-energy equivalence (MEE) principle is not a flaw. Lorentz invariance follows from MEE and therefore is also not a flaw. It also follows from MEE that clocks change with both velocity and acceleration and that is also not a flaw.

These are all things in GR that work quite well. Where general relativity goes wrong is in the a priori distortion of space by gravity. Space is not distorted by gravity, the distortion of space emerges from the action of matter in time.

Although GR shows the sun's gravity well represents an excellent prediction for the future path of the earth, the earth also has many other possible quantum futures. Thus the error of GR is in its singular prediction of a determinant future for gravity action when there are actually many possible futures for any gravity action, not just one.

Action in GR involves a norm of time called proper time. Proper time in GR depends on a rest or action time as well as a spatial coordinate, the direction of the action. If instead of distorting space as a time dimension, you instead simply use the moving frame's own time as a second time dimension, proper time is now the norm of these two dimensions of time; a moving clock and a rest clock.

The two dimensions of time along with the two dimensions for matter provide a basis for calculating a proper time and it is from the integration of proper time that space emerges. Space in not then actually distorted by gravity. Rather it is time and matter that change as a result of a universal force and space simply emerges from those changes in time and matter.

The proper time calculation provides a nice clean link between the norms of gravity force and the amplitudes and phases of quantum force as a Schrödinger metric for proper time. Instead of beginning a gravity action with rest and moving frames, every gravity action actually begins with the quantum excitation of complementary rest and moving matter waves from a stationary ground state. Every quantum action already begins from the same stationary state.

Since gravity excitations most commonly involve complementary charge states, gravity predictions are largely based on time norms and not on amplitudes and phases. Thus the edifice of GR works quite well for what it works quite well for.

Georgina Woodward

Interesting Eckard, I had not heard of the man. Have found him Otto von Guerricke, Wikipedia

From that web site: Quote "Von Guericke sidestepped the vexed question of the meaning of "nothing" by asserting that all objective reality fell into one of two categories - the created and the uncreated. Space and Time were objectively real but were uncreated, whereas matter was created. In this way he created a new fundamental category alongside Aristotle's category of substance, that of the uncreated. His understanding of Space is theological and similar to that expressed by Newton in the Scholium to the Principia."

To me it seems time is not a substance of any kind but part of the output of sensory data processing (the time dimension of space-time)and emergent from perception of the continual change of the Object universe (passage of time).

Considering space: Space time (output reality) has nothingness because of the lack of sensory data to form an Image reality, but that doesn't mean the space, that was the "source" of the observed nothingness, is itself empty of substance.It would be easier to account for action at a distance if there was substance filling the apparently empty space. Though in Object reality it wouldn't be action at a distance, only observed to be action at a distance due to the lack of sensory data.

Quote:According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action at a distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information, Wikipedia."

Quote "This problem has been resolved by Einstein's theory of general relativity in which gravitational interaction is mediated by deformation of space-time geometry, Wikipedia"

But space-time is the output of the processing received data. So it isn't matter deforming it. Something is affecting the light paths carrying the sensory data that will be intercepted and processed into curved space-time. It is not unthinkable that there is an unseeable medium in Object reality, that is affected by the motion of the planet. Its deformation being the cause of the light paths that are takem as the light passes through it. Giving the impression that space-time is curved, and causal, rather than resultant. It would not be action at a distance in Object reality, so would not be violating Einstein's speed limit.

This sort of thinking could lead to reconsideration of the idea of fields.

"That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."-Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692" Wikipedia

Quotes takem from Wikipedia, Action at a distance

Georgina Woodward

Put this post Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 2, 2014 @ 07:22 GMT in the wrong place and have re posted it in the correct place as a reply to Eckard's previous post. I am only allowed to edit posts occasionally and not tonight, so please remove from this position.

Georgina Woodward

Steve, All,

There are many possible futures for the unobserved material universe as those futures are unwritten, IE don't yet exist. If proper time is the uni-temporal Now ie the time shown on the clock minus the time taken to observe it, then that is the time at the causality front when new arrangements of matter and particles are coming into being. Proper time isn't another time dimension because when we are dealing with what IS prior to observation we are dealing with the material universe that is, (not the visible universe fabricated from received EM data, that does incorporate temporal spread). There is no temporal spread there/then but recycling,only one material universe at one time, iteration by iteration. What is Now becomes the new what is Now giving passage of time.

In contrast what is observed is the output of sensory data processing. The sensory data distributed within the environment exists prior to fabrication into an observable output. So it is a pre-writen future, existing prior to present experience of it. Gravity can affect the distribution of the potential sensory data giving the apparent distortion of space-time as it affects when/where the data can be received, that is made into space time output. There are thus two different kinds of universe to consider: the material universe not observed that is always coming into being anew and the visible universe made from sensory data persisting in the environment after events have occurred. Being both a record of what has past and, until received, the pre-written future that might become an observer's present experience of the universe.

It seems to me Einstein only considered one universe, the visible one and thus mistook what is observed to exist, fabricated image reality, for what exists without observation, object reality-( home of the "beables, atoms and fermion particles)". While that does not affect his theory it is still a shortcoming of his interpretation leading to the barn pole and grandfather paradoxes, mistaking what happens to images for what happens to "really real" material things. Images can be distorted by alteration of the distribution of the data, when /where sensory data is received, but that distortion does not happen to the objects that were the origin of the data. What IS, is coexisting within the material Object universe with the data to produce images of what was, the visible universe.

Also while images of things past can be resurrected by receipt and processing of sensory data the material counterparts may no longer exist. The material past does not exist, what remains is within uni-temporal Now,along with everything else that is existing, as relics and potential sensory data that can be used to produce images of what was. What happens (uni-temporal Now) becomes what has happened (no longer existing) and it generates what might be be observed (potential sensory data in the environment/ the pre-written future) that becomes what is observed (present), becomes what has been observed (past).

Steve Agnew

I agree that there are many possible futures and Einstein's fallacy was that GR only considered one future as possible. The future in GR is determined by the gravity distortion of space, i.e., what is observed to exist. That actually is a shortcoming of GR.

The duality of existence lies in the two distinctions that you make for things in themselves, your material universe, and things as we imagine them to be, your visible universe. Proper time is the time that we experience and is the norm of two orthogonal time dimensions, rest frame time and moving frame time.

We can only imagine rest and moving frames and that is what Einstein did, as part of the material universe. We only experience the norms of time and matter, the visible universe, but that experience leaves out much of the primitive quantum nature of time and matter.

So it does appear that an improved calculation of proper time can actually bring gravity and quantum futures by allowing the many more possible futures of our quantum reality into our gravity reality as well. We can still use the proper time norm of GR for most predictions and it is only for certain limits that we need to consider proper quantum time.

Georgina Woodward

The future in GR and SR already exists because the EM data, in the environment, from which a present experience can be produced already exists. The future for the fermions and matter beables does not yet exist and so there are many different possible futures, from which one will be actualised (made real). So the term "the future" is being used for two non identical state of affairs, one with physical existence and one without. Hence the necessary differentiation into pre-written future and un-written future. This allows QM many worlds and singular space-time continuum concepts to be reconciled.

Steve Agnew

Yes, you have gotten it. This simple realization means that there is no need to change the very nice and mature approach of GR with its distortion of space and singular futures for most common astrophysical problems.

When we get to event horizons or the Planck limit or even with dark matter and dark energy, we need to use the quantum version of proper time that incorporates the coherence and interference effects of amplitude and phase and therefore allows multiple futures beyond those of GR. Quantum proper time begins a step before the proper time norm of GR and that itty-bitty moment makes all the difference.

Fundamentally there is a term in the mass-energy equivalence that only becomes apparent at very large and very small scales. It appears that dark matter and dark energy are effects due to star and galaxy decay that only become apparent when gravity gets quite weak. So far there is no correction in MEE for star decay. Event horizons are more like phase transitions from one kind of time to another, and everything in the universe is made of the same very small boson particle.

It is hard to believe that something so simple as an adjustment in proper time can take care of unification when so many really smart people have not found this out already. So it really does need some kind of critical review, which it will get if there is any value to the proposition.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians Leave the Sinking Ship

Brian Greene Feb 26, 2014: "As a physicist to me he [Einstein] is the greatest most insightful intellect that our species has ever produced."

Nov 20, 2014: "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."

There is a difference between Feb 26, 2014 and Nov 20, 2014 isn't it? No sane person can read the following text (written by perhaps the cleverest ever Einsteinian) and remain a true believer in the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

"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

Akinbo Ojo

Yes, I agree with Brian Greene Nov 20, 2014, Newton remains the greatest. His work is not finished. It is for us to continue in his tradition.

"I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to that or some truer method of philosophy" - Sir Isaac Newton.

I shall soon post on an appropriate thread using 'the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles' evidence supporting the existence of a force to do the 'repelling and receding', since that cannot be attributable to gravity, which is responsible for the 'impelling towards each other'. This has been partly motivated by John Prytz insistence that Space is a Nothing.

Akinbo

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

Even a Hoffmann wrote "if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws". Notice the IF. However he didn't explain why we should expect a massless particle obeying Newton's law. Einstein first denied the aether and then he reintroduced it with his GR.

I would like to know who distinguished between a light carrying medium with and without a point of reference.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Eckard,

"he didn't explain why we should expect a massless particle obeying Newton's law"

Who says photons are massless? Einsteinians? If photons fall in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling objects, then they do have mass.

Pentcho Valev

Georgina Woodward

Eckard,

as space-time is generated by the processing of received em data into an output, that output does not contain ether, or representation of the ether. The ether, if it exists, transmits light rather than scattering and or absorbing it providing no sensory data whereby to detect it and build it into the output Image reality. That does not disprove the possibility that it exists in foundational space,IE in the Object reality. That would, it seems to me, account for inertia and Mass.Ie. why it is difficult to change the trajectory of moving objects, including the ones that appear stationary to a co-moving observer. Something is resisting the change whatever it is called. A nothing or complete vacuum would not do that.

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon tries to answer your question. You might check yourself whether "gravitational lensing" and Pound Rebka experiment are consistent with the measured upper limit of possible electron mass: 10^-18 eV/c^2.

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

Already Gericke (whose name was written in French de Guericke for his merits) demonstrated not just the empty of air space but he also performed experiments with the electric field that fills the vacuum too.

Michelson in 1881 failed to confirm the idea of what he correctly called a fixed aether. This let room for alternative explanations:

- a dragged with earth aether

- Einstein's monster SR as Michelson called it.

- an endless medium without preferred point of reference.

I wonder if the latter is to be found within the "100 authors against Einstein".

Waves are propagating in a medium. Pentcho's inertia does perhaps not need a medium.

Eckard

Georgina Woodward

Interesting Eckard, I had not heard of the man. Have found him Otto von Guerricke, Wikipedia

Quote "This problem has been resolved by Einstein's theory of general relativity in which gravitational interaction is mediated by deformation of space-time geometry, Wikipedia"

This sort of thinking could lead to reconsideration of the idea of fields.

Quotes takem from Wikipedia, Action at a distance

Georgina Woodward

Last post was my reply to Eckard in its correct position.

Pentcho Valev

Variable Speed of Light (Einstein Wrong in 1905)

The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the light source, contrary to what Einstein postulated in 1905. This is evident from the following quotes:

Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

Did you check whether 10^-18 eV/c^2 is larger than the photon mass that you consider responsible for Pound/Rebka and gravitational lensing?

Stop just quoting repetitiously what might be questionable.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Variable Speed of Light II

When the observer (receiver) starts moving with (small) speed v towards the light source, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength:

stationary observer

moving observer

Question: Why does the the frequency shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L?

Answer: Because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

I reiterate my question: Did you check whether 10^-18 eV/c^2 is larger than the photon mass that you consider responsible for Pound/Rebka and gravitational lensing?

Please stop just quoting repetitiously what might be questionable.

Eckard

« Previous Page Next Page »