The Modified Special Relativity Theory and the Meaning of Time: The Interpretation of Quantum Tunneling, Quantum Entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, and SN 1987a by Azzam K AlMosallami

Azzam

Time

The analogy of reality and a film is correct. Reality is a sequence of physically existent states, each of which, by definition, exists for a point in time (as in timing). This is so because any alteration in any given physically existent state constitutes a different reality (physically existent state). Only one state can exist at a time. Or put another way, that state was the present (existent) as at that point in time. So, 'time', as such, does not exist. 'Things' (technical term!) exist, and change occurs. That change occurs at a rate. That is the physically existent phenomena which corresponds with the concept of time, ie rate of change. The quantification of this (known as timing) involves the comparison of these rates, either directly, or with respect to a common denominator. We use devices for this known as clocks/watches. If it is a quartz watch, for example, what is actually being measured is that X occurred whilst a crystal oscillated n times. Movement/motion (which is comparative alteration in spatial position) is but one example of change. There may be other primary properties, which, for some reason(s) are caused to alter.

Observer

The processing is irrelevant, in that it is what is received by the observer, or indeed any organism effecting any form of sensing, that needs to be identified. What is received is physically existent, and is the result of an interaction between the reality (a physically existent state) and one of a number of physically existent phenomena (which was in a particular existent state as at the point of interaction). The observer, or hearer, or feeler, etc is, in physics, no different from a brick wall. That which is physically existent and is received by the organism is only 'information' because organisms have developed sensory detection systems which can process it, brick walls have not. Obviously (unfortunately!) we only have the output of this processing from which to discern what physically occurred. And that has two components:1) that which occurred (was physically existent at a point in time), 2) that which occurred as a result of an interaction with the latter, which while undergoing alteration (ie its physically existent state changes), from the perspective of sensory systems, it retains certain physical features. These exist in multiple numbers and over considerable durations, even though they only 'represent' (in the context of sensing) one existent state of the reality under consideration. These phenomena are commonly referred to as light, noise, vibration, heat, etc.

The above then explains all that follows. In very simple language: there is a physical occurrence, this interacts at the point in time of this occurrence with other physically occurring phenomena, thereby creating other physically existent phenomena, which, if an organism is in the line of travel, will subsequently be received. The recipient can have no effect on anything, because it is receiving, ie existence has occurred. And indeed, what it is receiving is not the reality.

Light

As I have already said in other posts, light is just a physically existent entity which is moving. Calibrating its speed is purely a matter of comparing change in spatial poison. The fact that it enables organisms to 'see' is irrelevant. The word 'frame' is concerned with reference. There has to be one in order to effect a comparison and thereby calibrate the attribute. Any frame is valid. However, having chosen a frame that must be used consistently. Light just has a constancy in that it always initiated at the same speed, will continue at that speed unless impeded in some way, and is independent of 'observer'. Their hypothesis was that matter actually altered in one dimension. SR involved no altering form of motion, and there was no dimension change in it.

Paul

Paul,

Thank you very much for reading my article. I agree with you with many points. Please read my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002

according to my paper, time is related to present, and since we are existed in a material world which owns mass, it is existed the definition of reality, and the knowledge of the reality, because at the present the material system can't receive more than one information element at the present, from that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from. Present and the wave-function in quantum is the same thing. In my theory it must existed a state in which the reality and the knowledge of the reality must be the same. At this state it is exited a present only, there is no future and past. This state I called it "infinity state", and at this state the system owns a pure energy and its rest mass is equal to zero. Light system is located at the infinity state, because its rest mass is equal to zero. If I'm a system located at the infinity state, I'll live all the information of my life at the same present, there is no future or past. and at this state the meaning of reality and the knowledge of the reality is the same. But, since I'm a system owns a mass greater than zero, less than infinity, it is existed what is called past and future, and I can't catch the present. I'm very interested by your thought regarded to light. Light is an entity, located at infinity state with mass equals to zero, But I'm a system owns mass greater than zero, because of that I measure the light speed to be c (light speed in vacuum), but for the light beam as it is a system located at infinity state, every thing for it happens at the same present and there is no past or future. In the infinity state the light beam transforms from point to the farthest point at a zero time separation and it is existed at infinity number of points at the same time. So the meaning of space is meaningless in the infinity state, because I can present at any point in space at the same time, and that is equivalent according to our knowledge in physics to moving with speed equals to infinity. So according to my knowledge in physics I can say the light beam at the infinity state is moving with speed equals to infinity. but Since I'm a system located at the mass world, I measure it to be c. This is answering the question of Einstein, How can I see the world if I'm riding a light beam. The right question, how can I see the world if all of my mass transformed to energy and became at the infinity state same as the light beam. This also proposing the beginning of the universe is not coming from small point of dense mass, and then this small point is exploded (the big bang). We can say, the origin of the universe comes from the pure energy (infinity state), and from this energy it is formed the mass and time (Planck time).

Paul,

The infinity state, which I proposed in my previous paper,is existed also in the philosophy of Hegel and and Plato. they talked about the comprehensive consciousness in their philosophy. My paper is considered as a translation of this philosophy into physics, depending on quantum theory (Copenhagen school), quantum field theory, and the modified relativity. In my paper the light is an entity same as the neutrino, electron, and proton. The speed of light is the speed in which the information element is transmitted from the infinity state to our material world, because the information element is existed in the infinity state and the light is exited also in the infinity state. So the light speed is a method to measure the speed of transmitting the information elements, same as by the ruler you measure the length. information is transformed by the light speed, not by the light itself.

Paul,

There is a good question for Stephen Hawking, he asked " which came first the chicken or the egg". Before and after are existed in our material world, But if I returned to my authentic state " the infinity state" I'll find the chicken and the egg existed at the same present, and there is no past or future, I'll find myself with my grandfather existed at the same present. We can't decide if the chicken came before the egg or the egg came before the chicken, or I came before or after my grandfather, we all existed at the same present, and we will remain at this present.

Azzam

Re your paper, I do not agree with the fundamental presumptions.

We can only pursue a scientific analysis of reality, as it is manifested to us. Whether there are alternatives is irrelevant because they are not of our existence and therefore unknowable. Or put the other way round, can only be beliefs. 'As manifest', involves the closed system of sensory detection. Which, while being a closed system (ie in one sense a 'perspective'), it is valid as such, and unavoidable. [Note: this is different from being unable to know because of practical difficulties, ie something is potentially knowable (experienceable), there is just a problem in effecting this].

So, within that confine, which is a function of our very 'existence', physical reality occurs independently of us. And indeed, what we (and all organisms) receive (ie is impeded by in its travel), which is then processed by the sensory system, is not the reality as such, but an effect (which is physically existent and therefore a reality in itself). That effect results from the interaction of the reality with certain other physically existent phenomena, and is commonly known as light, heat, vibration, noise, etc.

What this demonstrates is that the philosophy underpinning Copenhagen, and the subsequent translation of what was originally postulated and became known as Relativity, is incorrect. It does not correspond with how reality occurs.

There can only be 'a present'. Which is that which physically existed as at any given point in time. That is all there is. Obviously, from our perspective, by the time we are aware of it, it has already ceased to exist. Yes, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle revolves around the difficulty of acquiring knowledge of reality (which is any given present), it does not relate to any inherent characteristic in reality, which is most definitely 'certain'. Otherwise, it could not exist in the first place, and then alter, which clearly it does. I am not bothered about wavefunctions. As at any given point in time, there is 'something', and we subsequently become aware of it because of an interaction therewith at that point in time. Now if that interaction equates with wavefunction and its 'collapse', so be it. Whether it be a 'wave' or 'collapses' is irrelevant to the generic point. Reality and knowledge of it, are different. Or more importantly from the physics viewpoint, reality and the reality we receive upon which we can formulate knowledge, are different. Leaving aside the probable inadequacies of the sensory processing system, there is no reason to assume that the physically existent phenomena which have acquired a functional role with the evolution of sensory detection systems, are able to achieve this perfectly.

On the subject of light, people keep thinking in terms of the observer's perspective. He (or she) just happens to be the matter which was in the line of travel of a particular light. It is just an entity, and it is moving, like all entities. Forget that is enables us to 'see'. There is an effect in photons (what, how many photons, how that effect then travels, ec, I do not know) which is created as the result of interaction with any given entity (reality). It then travels, and there are a number of them (ie effects) for each interaction. These continue to exist over time, in that the effect from a sensory detection perspective is maintained. We know this because recipient observers in different directions and at different distances, receive the same input.

Space is a meaningless concept. It is just that which is not of the objects being considered. Only objects exist. They have a 'size'. The space, either within them or between them, is just another object. There is no space between me and the monitor, just something else which is either me nor monitor.

Paul

Azzam

The question is flawed, because there is no such thing as chicken, or egg. Our conceptualisation of reality as 'its' is incorrect. We only perceive it that way, because we could not cope with the actuality, and we are thinking of reality in terms of superficial characteristics, which we then deem to be an 'it', which persists over time. All, there is is a sequence of physically existent states, each different, with some innate property causing alteration.

Paul

Paul

Exactly! In my theory, the reality is existence of the information element in the infinity state, and our knowledge the reality in transforming the information element through the present (wave function) from the infinity state to the material world of the system. This process of transforming the information element from the infinity state to the material world of the system is called in quantum "the collapse of the wavefunction".

time is related to present, and since we are existed in a material world which owns mass, it is existed the definition of reality, and the knowledge of the reality, because at the present the material system can't receive more than one information element at the present, from that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from.

Don't you think that such ideas are more into philosophical perspective than materialistic? are you trying to prove realities with philosophy?

Azzam

Not sure it is "exactly". Because what you are doing there is conflating the reality, the effect reality instigated by that, and our knowledge thereof. Put simply, reality occurs independently of us, but we are trapped in a closed system of sensory detection. Specifically on the point about chicken/egg, have a look at the exchange in JCN Smith's essay blog (Rethinking a key...), please, rather than me repeating it here.

Paul

Azzam

Well, contrary to how people try to depict me, I have no interest in philosophy. To me such musings about things that are inherently unknowable is a complete waste of time. We are involved in a physical existence. We can never know the 'true nature' thereof (if there is one anyway). We can only know what is, which on occasions involves overcoming known problems with the physical process of effecting that (ie sensory detection).

So the "infinity state" is the pysically existent state, light is, from the perspective of the sensory processing system, "information" about that. There is no "material world", but the best abstracted approximation of that existent state we can construct by extraoplation from individual sensory experiences. And, by definition, the speed at which any given light actually travels is the speed at which that particular information is conveyed from the reality to the recipient, the information being some form of encodement in photons (an effect, ie light, not photons).

Paul

Paul

Our problem in physics that we are trying to define the reality and the knowledge of the reality through our material world. Do you know the story of Plato's Cave? We are restricted by matter. Matter is defined by mass. Mass is created from energy according to Einstein's equation E=mc^2. The knowledge is defined by consciousness, and our consciousness in joined by our matter and mass. The highest level of knowledge is existed in the consciousness, and matter (mass) is making as a reluctance for the consciousness to know, from that the concept of probability in quantum comes. From Mass it is created time and space or according to Einstein's relativity theory spacetime. Present is defined by Spacetime and it is working on the consciousness which is restricted by matter same as the wave function in quantum. Present (spacetime or the wavefuction) is separating us from the future. That will lead us to guess (probability) about the upcoming information from future and when the information comes to us through the present, we know if our guessing is right or wrong. This is what is called in quantum collapse of the wave function. Since there exists a contradiction between the basis that the relativity theory was built on and the resulted results of quantum theory. Our knowledge to the natural laws is still uncompleted. What I did in my MSRT is trying to unify the relativity theory of Einstein to be agreed in the concepts, principles and laws of quantum. I found everything is solved in physics by the theory. Quantum tunneling, quantum entanglements, OPERA, ICARUS, SN 1987a, Pioneer anomaly, and then what is the meaning of faster than light, also, many other abstract concepts in quantum can be imaginative and describable. In my theory the information is transmitting to us by speed of light, not by light itself, light is an entity same as the neutrinos, and what is applied on particles which own mass is applied on the light, and if I measured a particle moving with speed greater than the speed of light in vacuum, I can also measure light beam moving with speed greater than the light speed in vacuum. See my interpretation to Quantum tunneling, quantum entanglements, OPERA, ICARUS, SN 1987a, but, in this case the information is not transmitted faster than light, and there is no violation to causality. I my theory the universe is started from energy, (pure energy) and from energy it is created the mass, and then space and time (Planck time). So, at t=0, all the universe was as pure energy and there is no mass (infinity state). see my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002 at this point the spacetime length is equal to zero, and there is a present only without past or future.

Azzam

There is no problem if how reality can be known is sorted out from all that which cannot be known. That being a function of existential considerations not practical problems associated with sensing. That is how does reality occur, for us. Otherwise there is this indeterminable foray into metaphysical presumptions. Although most of the time people do not realise this because the maths, or whatever model, disguises it and gives the analysis a superficial gloss of objectivity. Using your words, we only have the "material world" and "knowledge of reality".

We are not "restricted by matter", we are matter. Indeed there is only matter (or to be more precise, if matter is a technical word referring to one type-stuff-physically existent stuff). It is not our consciousness, it is sensory detection, which is a function that has evolved across all organisms and utilises certain physically existent phenomena, which occurred before the evolution of sensory detection systems. Put simply, there is 'something out there', an interaction with another 'something out there' creates 'something else out there' and sometimes a sensory organ is in its line of travel and hence receives it. Otherwise it hits something else, like a hill, the moon, whatever, and ceases to exist.

Neither space nor time are created, they do not physically exist. 'Stuff' exists, and what is the difference between different examples of stuff, as defined by us, by virtue of our evolved system of sensory awareness, is designated as space. In reality it is just other stuff. In other words, albeit for understandable reasons, we are conceptualising the constitution of reality, incorrectly. There is alteration in the configuration of this stuff. That happens at a rate when compared to other changes. Timing measures this. Put simply: there is stuff and alteration thereto.

Nothing is separating you from the future, there is no such thing as the future. There is only a present, ie when stuff is physically existent in a particular state. Alteration then occurs and it is in another physically existent state, and so on. Albeit from our perspective, there are vast similarities, so we think much still exists in the same state, and therefore get confused as to what constitutes present and past. The 'future' is a present that has not occurred, ie it does not exist. We can make predictions as to what might occur. We can take action which affects events. But the latter is not 'altering the future', it is causing a different present to occur from that which would otherwise have done so.

Apart from the fact that spacetime misrepresents spatial dimension, it 'double counts' time. Because it has reified this characteristic into reality, so there is deemed to be change within reality, which there cannot be. Then it times it (as in timing). There is only the measuring system-timing. We can establish what occurred (the present) as at any particular point in time, or we can compare the rate at which changes occur.

The relativity theory of Einstein (or really Lorentz) before it got subverted by incorrect conceptualisations of time and space, was that matter actually altered in shape (ie in the line of motion) when a differential in force (eg gravity) was incurred. Which also caused a changing rate of momentum. This may or may not be correct.

Paul

Paul,

As a physicist, I'm restricted by the experimental results, and my goal is to find a solution and try to interpret each result within the framework of the theoretical physics. Nature does not make a mistake. Mistakes are always existed in our theoretical framework. Often the experimental results is imposed on me to accept new terms and concepts contrary to the prevailing current theoretical framework, just as what happened with Einstein and Heisenberg when they discovered the quantum theory. Our knowledge is still incomplete, due to the existence of the contradiction between quantum theory and relativity. For example, how can we interpret quantum tunneling and entanglement by relativity? and if in quantum tunneling it is speeding up time, how can I interpret it by special relativity if SR is dealing with space and time, and how it is related with time dilation and length contraction in SR? If I measured a speed of faster than light in quantum, how can I interpret it by special relativity and how is related to space and time? I built a theoretical framework in order to answer about these questions, and I found what I did agreed exactly with what is resulted experimentally. So! can we discuss these questions in order to understand how our knowledge can be changed?

Azzam

You are indeed restricted to experimental results, as any scientist is. But it is the start point which is relevant. That is, what presumptions were made about how reality occurs? It is not an abstract concept, it physically exists, somehow. And so any form of representational device (maths, graphics, word) must correspond with that, otherwise it may well be extrinsically invalid, ie it does not accurately depict reality, just works intrinsically according to its own rules.

In other words, the first answer to your question: "how can we interpret quantum tunneling and entanglement by relativity?", is what physically corresponds with quantum tunnelling and quantum entanglement, and what physically is relativity saying (which opens up a different pandoras box of what was actually originally said as opposed to interpretations based on misconceptions of time and space). But please don't answer those questions, I am just making a point. Though what I will say is that nothing can speed up time, because it is not physically existent, so it is not available to be affected (that is a specific example of the general point I have just made). And incidentally, SR has no changing rate in it, Einstein said so. It is a theoretical circumstance of fixed shape bodies, only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, light that travels in straight lines, etc. There is no length contraction in SR.

Paul

Azzam K AlMosallami,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It appears that we have taken different approaches for explaining special relativity type effects. I do continue to agree with your statement posted in my blog. I commented on it over there.

James

James,

I really thank you for reading my essay, and I'm very happy for your comment.

I'm also enjoyed when reading your essay, and I found there are ideas we can share. Please read my paper for the exact solution for the unsolved problem in physics regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 My solution is related with what you proposed in your essay. Also my solution for the Pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the proposed solution of the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006 According to my solution to the Pioneer anomaly is gives us different approaches for explaining the Hubble's law, and General relativity depending on my Modified special relativity, depending on quantum theory. According to that wormholes in GR can be explained by the same explanation of quantum tunneling and entanglement and that gives new interpretation for faster than light. According to my MSRT in the case of measuring faster than light particles or a light beam depending on distance and time, there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality, and locally the the light speed is the same and equals to c. Locally no particle can exceed light speed in vacuum, and the problem in measuring the light faster than light will be existed in the measuring of time. What I proposed is agreed with the experimental results of OPERA, ICARUS and SN 1987a, and also with the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement, and with what proposed in quantum field theory relative existence the proposed particles Tachyons and other phenomena relative to faster than light in quantum. I have many to say, and I'm ready for more discussion at any point.

Paul

In my theory, I agree with you, there is no past or future there is only present, but that is existed in the infinity state if I'm a system of rest mass equals to zero same as light. But since i'm a material system and have a rest mass of greater than zero, my future is existed within the probability of the wavefunction, and my past is existed within the collapse of the wavefunction. This is interpreting why I can't catch my present. Mass is leading me to receive my life information that I'm doing in the infinity state same the wavefunction working in quantum. Heisenberg uncertainty principle also supported my idea. Also, the equivalence of mass energy is supporting my idea, that my mass is created from energy which is existed in the infinity state. In my theory, energy is equivalent to consciousness and mass is equivalent to matter. Mass and energy are equivalent to each other.

Azzam

"Your future", or more precisely: the future, does not exist anywhere. Based on knowledge about a specific past and about reality in general, we can construct probability statements on the likelihood of a particular present occurring, which has not, as far as we are aware, already done so. The past is a present which has been proven to have occurred, and since been superseded with subsequent presents. Only a present exists, and because some innate property is causing change, there is a relentless sequence of different ones.

You "can't catch your present" because you, and everything else is part of it. You physically exist, just like everything else, including light, noise, vibration, etc. So as at any point in time there is a physically existent state of everything (ie a present). For you to be aware of some of that, the physical effects (ie light, noise, etc) caused by the interaction between some of those existent states needs to travel to you and be received (ie intercepted in the line of travel by the appropriate sensory organ). This simple physical fact demonstrates that reality occurs independently of the recipient sentient organism, and that what is received is, in the context of the sensory process, a 'representation' of a reality (ie not the reality itself), and what is received, is so, at a subsequent point in time.

Forget consciousness, this has nothing to do with it. There is a physical process involving sensory detection systems. What actually corresponds with the concepts of mass and energy in physical reality, I have no idea.

Paul