• [deleted]

Quote:"One of the biggest obstacles has been that general relativity and quantum mechanics treat time very differently. In the former theory, time is another dimension alongside space and can bend and stretch, speed up and slow down, in different circumstances. Quantum theories, however, usually assume that time is set apart from space and ticks at a set rate. Theories of indefinite causality tackle this mismatch head-on, by questioning what time is at a fundamental level." From the article 'cheating the Causal Game'.

This is nux of various problems. Understanding -Why that difference- in how time must be treated, is helpful in seeing the direction from which a solution to a number of problems must come.There are two different things going on simultaneously. Atoms are interacting and giving a causal order of events in the material Object reality and EM potential sensory data is being generated with the potential to give a different apparent order of events in time because of data transmission and processing delays.

It was interesting to read about this promising research. I don't know exactly what they are doing from such a brief article but I wonder if considering the mismatch of causality at the quantum level and apparent causality at the macroscopic level will give the gravity solution. I will outline why I think it may not.

In GR the observer is assumed to be static. That is just a subjective view. It is built into the curved space-time hypothesis and model. However the observations with which curved space-time fit, seemingly verifying the model, might instead be due to curvature of light paths resulting from disturbance of the Object reality environment, through which they pass, by motion of the body within it and through it. The description of that motion within the 3n+1 space-time construct is bizarre, not because the motion is bizarre, but that the observer-subjective construct has not been constructed in such a way that it allows illustration of what is happening. I.e. As the observer is assumed to be static, when it is not, the necessary motion can not occur within the subjective observed space but occurs instead along the time dimension. Each new observation is conducted from within a new objective space from which data is received and from which the image of the universe is constructed.

A stationary observer on the Earth is not static at all but moving with all of the Earth's movements, over many scales of possible consideration. With the galaxy, with the solar system around the sun, around its axis and with geological movements. A change in the movement of the Earth over those different scales could give a change in the apparent expansion of the Image universe if it gives a increase in the rate of movement away from the origin source of the sensory data from which the universe Image is constructed. Such changes could occur as a result of the changing motion of the material solar system or Earth due to altering, rather than permanently fixed, relationships and that will alter the 'selection' of the potential sensory data received, giving not just the affect of expansion due to the motion but increasing expansion if change in the motion is also occurring.

At the smallest scales of consideration the vibration of the particles becomes significant. The affect of that upon the environment will mask any minute gravitational interaction that might otherwise possibly be detected; and the larger scale (Object) universal movement is not included in consideration. Though subatomic particles too must be moving with the motion of the laboratory on the Earth's surface and so along with the Earth's total Object universal motion. The subatomic scale of matter is not separate from the macroscopic scale of matter but contained within it and it all moves together. That's what unites gravity over different scales IMHO.

  • [deleted]

SciAm publishes an article by David Tong,based on his FQXi contest entry, from the digital vs. analog contest and it doesn't get a mention, let alone an article or blog post????

    John, the article was already published in november 2011, I also gave (then) a post on the thread. Indeed it is strange that even george Musser could not get mre attention, but a reason might be that at the moment the essays are coming in everybody is sticked to his own trick on FQXi, which is logical.

    Wilhelmus

    • [deleted]

    Thanks Zeeya. Should be interesting.

    4 months later

    Hi

    My reaction to this new research about reordering causality went something like this: "Oh No! Here is another group of talented imaginative young physicists who have found another aspect of probability to play with - are we in for another half century of multiverse-type thinking, this time around featuring micro-scrambled-time universes?" Doubtless clever mathematics can twist 'reality' around and make the outcome appear to follow experimental results. This may even lead to interesting computational methods, but does QM and general relativity need more bells and whistles to 'explain' their results?.

    Should not effort be now rather directed to develop revisionist ideas that say probability itself is emergent, and can result from an ordered, linear, causal universal lattice, such as the one I described in my Beautiful Universe Theory ? Or Eric Reiter's experimental results showing that Einstein's photon is not the point quantum he thought it was - in my opinion that is the root mistake that created the particle-wave duality and made the probabilistic interpretation necessary. By the way it was sad that Eric's name for his theory 'Unquntum' was used in the title of David Tong's Scientific American article without any justification, or reference to the original source: Eric Reiter's home-page unquntum.net

    Best to all,

    Vladimir

    2 years later

    Effect without Cause in Einstein's Relativity

    Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."

    This is a lie of course (taught by 99% of the Einsteinians) - general relativity does not predict that the ticking rate of clocks varies with the strength of the gravitational field. Rather, it predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field. This means that two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them ticks faster than the other. That is, according to general relativity, the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause.

    "Effect without cause" is not a problem in Einstein's schizophrenic world and yet the cleverest Einsteinians feel uncomfortable from time to time:

    Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

    Pentcho Valev

      The following argument is valid (although Einsteinians are unable to prove its validity):

      Premise: Einstein's 1911 gravitational-time-dilation assumption is correct.

      Conclusion: The acceleration of light falling to the Earth is negative, -2g (that is, the speed of falling photons DECREASES).

      Clearly the Conclusion is absurd so the Premise is false (gravitational time dilation does not exist).

      Here are references showing that Einstein's relativity does indeed predict that the speed of falling light decreases (the acceleration is -2g):

      "Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

      "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

      "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

      Pentcho Valev

      9 months later
      • [deleted]

      Fold the Brukner_causality (jpg) illustration in half vertically and you might be a little closer (only a little since it's Binary, apply it to super-symmetry and you get closer still.). Just consider the laboratories are in fact the same laboratory, however they are seen as different due to a paradox. In this instance Alice and Bob are actually two different outcomes in regards to development from their parents interaction (The entropy within reproduction and what gender they developed into etc.)

      Pentcho,

      Having looked into Relativity 2, I recommend it to those who are interested in and able for unveiling of its basic mistake. Have fun.

      ++++

      4 years later

      Hello, Dear Sir,

      The problem of forming the new effects on the higher matter levels starting from the initial realm of the quantum effects is a big philosophical and physical problem of today. And it should remain the same for thousands years. But, what is interesting that you really came closer the the real problems posing and solutions. Please, also consider our paper in your profound research: "new ontology ..." by Pavel Polyian.

      Pavel Polyian,

      Seberian Federal University,

      Kind Regards...

      Write a Reply...