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

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

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

Azzam,

You have very excited ideas must be studied seriously!

Azzam

You talking about the vacuum energy, Is there a relation between what you are proposing and the Casimir effect? The causes of the Casimir effect are described by quantum field theory, which states that all of the various fundamental fields, such as the electromagnetic field, must be quantized at each and every point in space. In a simplified view, a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position. Vibrations in this field propagate and are governed by the appropriate wave equation for the particular field in question. The second quantization of quantum field theory requires that each such ball-spring combination be quantized, that is, that the strength of the field be quantized at each point in space. At the most basic level, the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, and its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. However, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure, so all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

Albion

thank you very much for your comment. In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force exerted between separate objects due to resonance of vacuum energy in the intervening space between the objects. Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field. In cosmology, the zero-point energy offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive values of the proposed cosmological constant. In brief, if the energy is "really there", then it should exert a gravitational force. In general relativity, mass and energy are equivalent; both produce a gravitational field. One obvious difficulty with this association is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is absurdly large. Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is handled. It is also arguable that undiscovered physics relevant at the Planck scale reduces or eliminates the energy of waves shorter than the Planck length, making the total zero-point energy finite. If you review my equivalence principle, you will find it is more comprehensive than Einstein equivalence principle. My equivalence principle, it depending on the difference of the vacuum energy of the observer locally stationary, and the vacuum energy in which the experiment is done. This difference is may be negative, or positive. this difference is depending on the difference of temperature, pressure, and the effective density. Most of the experiments regarded to quantum tunneling and entanglements are performed in a very low temperature, comparing to the lab temperature and this case is studied in my MSRT, where in this case the difference of the vacuum energy is negative, where in my MSRT this difference is representing to the Lorentz factor (gama) in relativity, and according to my MSRT, it is producing to measure the speed of light or particle faster than light in vacuum depending to the measured distance and time, but there is no violation to the Lorentz transformation or causality and the speed of light is not broken locally According to my MSRT.

You seem to be saying that special relativity is wrong. Is there some experiment that can be done to prove that special relativity is wrong?

Roger

Thank you very much for your comment. As it is known in physics, there is a contradiction between the basis that the relativity theory of Einstein built on and the experimental results produced by quantum theory. Some phenomena in quantum can't be interpreted according to the relativity theory of Einstein, like quantum tunneling and entanglemeny. In cosmology, there is a contradiction between GR and quantum field theory. I believed most of the problems in physics can be solved if we could solve the contradiction between quantum and relativity. what I did in 1996 in my graduation research that I built new theory that unifying between relativity and quantum in concepts, principles and laws. According to my theory, I found quantum tunneling and entanglement can interpreted according to the modified relativity theory, and I found all the experimetal results is agreed exactly with what I proposed in my MSR theory and according to that I introduce new intepretation to faster than light, and my interpretation is agreed with what resulted in OPERA, ICARUS, SN1987a and quantum tunneling and entanglement experiments. In 1996 I introduced that it can be measured a light or particle to move in faster than light speed in vacuum depending on the measured distance and time but this measured speed is not real. the speed of light locally is constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. And in the case of faster than light for a paprticle or light, it depends on the measured time separation, where in this case the particle or the light is passing through a vacuum of negative vacuum energy which leading the time to be speeding up, and thus the measured time separation will be less than the required time separation. The latest experimental results of OPERA, ICARUS, and SN 1987a are agreed with what I proposed in 1996. The problem in the measuring faster than light is in the measuring time as seen in my MSRT, the neutrino speed locally not exceeding the light speed in vacuum, and in this case there is no violation for causality and Lorentz transformation. In quantum tunneling, the chemical reactions are performed in a time seperation less than the normal situation, why? my interepretation is interpreting that depending on my interpretation for faster than light. Existing a paprticle in two states at the same time in not interpreted according to SR, and this is prooved in quantum, but in my MSR theory it is interpreted. Quantum entanglement is not interprted according to SR, but according to MSRT it is existed and interpreted. EPR, and cat schrodenger can be solved by my MSRT. Furthermore, if we modify the General relativity theory according to my MSRT there is no contradiction between quantum field theory and the modified General relativity,( review my previous comment). I solved the Pioneer anomaly according to my MGR and MSRT see http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 and my solution is an exact solution, and gives new interpretation for the Hubble's law. My exact solution for the pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the thermal origin for the Pioneer anomaly, see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

Many scientists are not agreed by the proposed solution of Einstein for the twin paradox see http://twinparadox.net/ I solved this problem and according to my MSRT there is no twin paradox. Roger, I'm ready for excessive discussion for any point.

Roger

I'm posting my theory to proof not I'm right, but to proof I'm wrong. I have been 18 years living in a conflect with myself if I'm right or wrong. I remember the seminar that I had done and told my teacher it can be measuring light speed greater than light speed in vacuum for the particles or light beam. and this measured speed is not real but depending on the measured time separation of the event. and according to that as it is exited time dilation, it must exist time contraction, that means if a reaction performed in a time separation t according to my clock, then according to my theory in some physical situations it could be performed in t' according to my clock where t' less t. The latest OPERA experiment is proofing what I proposed in 1996. Also all the experiments regarded to quantum tunneling and entanglement. I'm seriously need a serious discussion here, not proof I'm right but I'm wrong to know the right.

Azzam/Roger

Except that, it is best to follow what Einstein defined SR as:

Einstein SR & GR 1916 section 18:

"...the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion... Up to the present, however... provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion...The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion".

Einstein Foundation of GR 1916 section 3:

"...But we wish to show that we are to abandon it and in general to replace it by more general conceptions in order to be able to work out thoroughly the postulate of general relativity, the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation"

Einstein SR & GR 1916 section 28:

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of isolated material points holds relatively to it... In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity"

Paul