• [deleted]

You can read about another interpretation of the special relativity, explaining also the magnetic effect and magnetic induction of the electric current, giving the time dimension in the frame of the accelerating electrons: http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0058 .

7 days later
  • [deleted]

Pssst .. Peter

I'm over here, hiding from Pentcho's posts on the Faster than Light blog.

They dropped our discussions from the Joy discussions.

Anyhow, if pV=nRT

and let's assume a constant pressure, constant # moles, and R since it's a gas constant.

Then, non-mathematically speaking, since CIG works in concepts, we simply drop those constant variables p,n, and R.

Now, we have V = T (volume = temperature), and again we have the concept of Energy [for temperature to go up we add energy (or per E=mc2 the energy eqivalent of mass)] to Volume.

Alternately, if E=mc2, c2 = E/m , c = sg. root E/m , and when "c" varies (percentages of c travel as per CIG Theory), the other side of the equation reacts accordingly.

So, Energy (temperature) correlates directly to the creation of new volumes of Space. MTS

Within pV=nRT, there is support for CIG Theory.

Again, the particles are not simply moving away from each other, faster and faster, thereby creating bigger volumes. (this is argued by the simple concept: "farther away from what - we started with a given volume of space") . Rather, "New Space" is created, and there is an eqivalency among space and mass and energy and c (also time).

And conceptually,for the reasons cited above, this equivalency is supported by CIG and the gas laws.

Doug

doug

It seems the message got through, and that was important. FQXi is a very important haven from the narrow 'mainstream' trench of the thought police. It's a human weakness of some that non conformity is so hard to live with. They clearly just need reminding now and then.

Perhaps, if we stay here in hiding and whisper, the fuss will die down without retribution.

I agree with your CIG rationale. In fact I think Energy = Volume is one of the most fundamental relationships. Now you just need a precise derivation of quantification for the sums so it'll be taken seriously.

I have a couple of other fundamentals, agreeing with your conceptual or 'heuristic' approach as AE called it, which emerge from a logical derivation. Tell me if you agree;

The first is simple; c = c'. (c as a Proper Time 'proper-gation' speed in each medium including the energy of the local space).

The second is a~a. Which is distinctly NOT a=a, the root of all nonsense in predicate calculus, logic and arithmetic. Consider doug = doug. As there is only ONE doug it is a metaphysical concept. Of course moving from 'proper' nouns to common nouns, (B Russel) there are many other dougs, but NONE ARE THE SAME!

Do you know any two trees, toffee apples, snowflakes or grains of sand that are identical at the microscopic level? So a=a is NOT reality in any sense above particle scale, and there are too many of those to compute except as virial 'systems'. We then have a probability amplitude distribution, or revved up fuzzy logic.

So I, and the DFM, propose a new Law, the LAW OF THE REDUCING MIDDLE with an inverse Gaussian distribution, replacing the Law of the excluded middle. So no more toffee apples for me! But I suspect if I try to tell the law that I'll get banged away and silenced.

What do you think? (speak quietly)

Best wishes

Peter

    • [deleted]

    Shhhh, I hear someone coming...

    Just a note to say that you can listen to Albrecht describing his work on the January podcast. I haven't opened a new thread for that item because obviously this thread already exists.

    • [deleted]

    Pssst...try to keep on topic... If you want to hide out on this thread, please try and refer back to Albrecht's work in each post.

    • [deleted]

    Ooops, we've been found! discussing Proper Time on a thread about 'improper' time! Yes. I agree with Andreas that our conception of time is nonsensical. No, I don't agree any of the other solutions offered so far are logical or resolve anything. That is very clear Yes?.

    The only one with consistent logic and which also resolves the issues raised, is that described in my essay.

    'Proper time' is as originally defined, but with the minimum of clarification; ALL speeds are 'propagation speeds', including in space, where each domain has limits. We may then say, as speed is a simple derivative d/t, that, as with co-ordinate time, there is also then 'improper' or 'co-ordinate' speed.

    We may then see 'APPARENT' c v, if we're in motion with respect to the propagation medium, but there is no such thing as REAL c v. Only when the light actually ARRIVE at a detector lens does it start propagating at c in our lens. Lambda changes so the wavefunction issue, Copenhagen and the Measurement Problem are resolved.

    Now NOBODY has even 'dented' let alone falsified that heuristic description, which agrees with the postulates of SR, AND with quantum physics. There is a hushed silence and all those fully (Ph) "indoctrinated" just turn away without comment like the three monkeys (exquisite though they may be). 'Different' is not 'wrong', just unfamiliar. If what we have is wrong then what is correct must be different, yes?

    Can anybody offer any intelligent falsification of that model? ... ...Hello...?

    Fundamental physics Eh? ...Is there hope?

    Peter

    PS. Any chance of a 10 minute podcast Zeeya?

    If anybody IS interested, a longer more complete version of the essay is here; Much ado about something.

    • [deleted]

    I was unable to find a single valid argument in this article. No conclusion follows from the premises. Either I am getting stupid or physics has reached the final stage of putrefaction.

    Pentcho Valev

      • [deleted]

      " Either I am getting stupid or physics has reached the final stage of putrefaction."

      Before I choose, Pentcho, I want to ask you what you think the premises of the article are.

      Tom

        • [deleted]

        Tom,

        "Time is fundamental to our interpretation of the world yet we very rarely question our choice of timekeeper."

        Hint: The article is a big head scratch over why a presumed fundamental, the vector of time, is so uncooperatively ambiguous.

        Why do you think that is so?

        Could it be that time is not so fundamental, or is it another multiworlds situation, where every clock forms its own reality?

        • [deleted]

        The main conclusion seems to be this:

        "If you choose to measure time using one type of clock in the early universe, the history of the cosmos would pan out very differently, than if you chose another."

        This is nonsense per se. The history of the cosmos cannot depend on anyone's choice of clocks.

        The premises that entail this conclusion are to be looked for in the preceding text but I found no statements there logically related to the conclusion.

        Pentcho Valev

        • [deleted]

        John, it's relativity -- which is a classical theory -- not the multiworlds intepretation of quantum mechanics, in which "every clock forms its own reality."

        Tom

        Tom,

        Wasn't your difficulty from assuming it as an 'either/or' question? Mutual exclusivity is essential for logical 'frames' but I suggest it's not 'absolute'.

        John.

        I agree, time is not 'fundamental' at all, more a confusing red herring. Just a word we've invented. Perhaps we should all speak Chinese (it may yet come!) and get a fresh view of it. We invent a machine that emits something at regular intervals, then worship it like some mysterious god! Is that not wholly pagan?

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        Tom,

        No, every clock measures its own time. They all exist in the same reality. GPS satellite clocks are not in another reality from those on the ground.

        "In the absence of an external clock, Albrecht decided to use the "internal time" concept of general relativity and define time relative to his quantum components. The simplicity of his computer model meant the clock was nothing more than a list of numbers indicating the progress of time. The physics and evolution of the quantum system were driven entirely by how those states of the clock were correlated with the other evolving parts."

        "If you choose to measure time using one type of clock in the early universe, the history of the cosmos would pan out very differently, than if you chose another. In other words, when considered at the quantum level, different clocks led to arbitrarily different physical laws."

        The evident problem for QM is that it does presume a universal clock, rather than each to its own. What if we simply treat time as frequency and have it emerge from action? Then we can have a universal present, but different clock rates.

        • [deleted]

        Every timing mechanism is a rate of change. The reference for timing is a conceptual constant rate of change. That is, within the realms of practicality, every timing mechanism is synchronised. Otherwise the whole system of timing, ie time as 'told' by any given timing mechanism, is useless. Time is concerned with the frequency at which any given physically existent state alters to the next in the sequence, ie it is a difference between physical realities, and not a feature of any given physical reality.

        Einstein's concept of relativity is nonsense. Section 1 part 1 1905, demonstrates this, he neither understood how timing worked, nor that there was a differentiation between physical existence and the photon based representation of it which we receive. So the timing difference which actually occurs between time of physical existence and time of receipt of photon based representation thereof, which is fundamentally driven by spatial relationship, was incorretly asserted by him as being a feature of physical existence.

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        Paul,

        "Otherwise the whole system of timing, ie time as 'told' by any given timing mechanism, is useless. Time is concerned with the frequency at which any given physically existent state alters to the next in the sequence,"

        The measure of time is regular sequence, but the arrow of time is due to the irregular environment, otherwise time would be nothing more than a metronome.

        "What if we simply treat time as frequency and have it emerge from action? Then we can have a universal present, but different clock rates."

        No, John, we couldn't. You assume that there is a universally valid time in which all observers agree. Your present, e.g., differs from the present of a hypothetical observer in the Zeta Reticuli region. The frequencies at which events pass here and there can be locally measured at the same clock rate, while distantly, the rates have to differ.

        Your view is Newtonian, in which "time flows equably" over the universe. It was replaced by relativity in which "all physics is local." Albrecht's discovery (with which I agree) is that the cosmological condition (i.e., the past condition assumed to determine the present) is sensitively dependent on one's local choice of the Hamiltonian (the system's energy content). The idea of random Hamiltonians corresponds perfectly to Everett's branching worlds, and it agrees with what we know about both relativity and quantum mechanics, so long as we allow a noncollapsing wave function.

        Tom

        You've got got it wrong, Pentcho. One does not find it possible to choose a clock "in the early universe." One chooses a clock in the present universe, and finds that this free choice affects what the cosmological condition (the early universe) would have been. As Swarup sums up elegantly:

        "The implications are groundbreaking: Our universe did not arise with one single set of fundamental laws prewritten, which governed the evolution of particles, planets, galaxies and people, or even the dimensionality of space. Instead, the basis of our universe would be an underlying random structure through which the observed laws of nature emerge as probabilities."

        Because the probability of our universe existing is 1.0, the particular Hamiltonian that characterizes our domain should be self limiting by a constant value that restricts its time evolution. That would be the constant speed of light, something else that you've gotten wrong.

        Tom

        • [deleted]

        Tom,

        Let's do a little mind game. Call it trying to understand what the other person is saying. As I keep describing it, time is an effect. Obviously it is complete nonsense to say it flows equitably all over the universe, because situations vary. Just like temperature. If one candle gets more oxygen than another, then not only does it burn hotter, but it burns faster, ie. its clock is faster. Just like the twin that stays home.

        Now it takes action and thus time to cross space and so information from various regions takes different speeds and thus time to arrive at any point. This doesn't negate the fact that what is present is the extant energy. Time is simply an effect of this energy changing shape/traveling around, whatever. The present is what exists, whatever its form. Presumably other parts of the universe co-exist with our part of the universe, even if the current information from them obviously hasn't reached us, because we are still receiving prior information, as the light which left there is now arriving here.

        Now if you wish to stick with multiworlds, because the math says so, that is certainly your right, but you haven't convinced me that time is actually a physical vector of points on a timeline, as opposed to a dynamic process of change.

        "As I keep describing it, time is an effect."

        An effect of what? John, if you want to play a game called "let's try to understand what the other is saying," we have to speak the same language.

        Try to understand the contradiction between what you believe and what we objectively know, that even in your words: " ... it takes action and thus time to cross space and so information from various regions takes different speeds and thus time to arrive at any point ..." means that space and time are not independently real.

        You are assuming that space is a static background over which time flows at varying rates. That is exactly how Newton framed it, even inventing the calculus to show the precise rates at which the flow varies according to the varying energy field, just as you say.

        Einstein showed us that there is no privileged background; i.e., spacetime and energy are interactive.

        Tom