Wrinkles in Spacetime

Humor in Einstein Schizophrenic World

Einsteinians are given a $1.32 million dollar grant to say if Einstein is wrong:

University of California Santa Barbara: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue their work on finding an answer."

Mark Srednicki and Joseph Polchinski found the joke really amusing, took the money and said that Einstein was not wrong.

Pentcho Valev

The Eotvos experiment dates back quite some time ... late 1800's I think. It has been improved upon several times. Even Newton performed a simple version of it. BTW, the o's it Eotvos have two dots above them. I do not know the correct pronunciation.

Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

You are very correct and I agree...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity."

I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space.

Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen.

General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe.

Inconstant Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)

"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

"In a paper, published in Science Advances today, the researchers demonstrate that for light from a source such as the Sun, random fluctuations of intensity give rise to correlations of twisted light beams. (...) "Twisted light is all around us and occurs naturally," said Omar S. Magaña-Loaiza, first author of the study and a Ph.D. student in Boyd's team."

Do you still believe in the constancy of the speed of light, Einsteinians? If you do, here is more information for you:

"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum - a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. (...) The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

Pentcho Valev

Steve Agnew,

"...time is not the actual property of an object but simply a shortcut for time delay..."

This explanation is not empirically supported. It is an example of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of substituting imaginative guesses about what can be substituted in place of that which is unknown. There is no empirical evidence for time suffering delays.

"... and decoherence rate that are the actual time-like properties that we do measure for each object."

There are no time-like properties. This is theoretical bait and switch. Only time is 'time-like'. All other properties are like themselves. Clocks are clock-like. Clock-like is not time-like. Perhaps when physicists recognize a universally constant increment of actual time, then clocks might be said to be 'time-like'. The practice in theoretical physics of giving indirect explanations while wording them to give the impression that they are actual explanations is not science-like. In order to make this point at a more common knowledge level, I point out that temperature is not a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of temperature. The indirect substitute explanation is an attempt by theoretical physics to appear to be explaining something for which they lack an explanation. It is the case that physicists do not know what temperature is. For uncertain readers: Temperature is not fixed to average molecular kinetic energy and physicists know it. In general, average molecular kinetic energy can vary while temperature remains the same value. In limited cases, temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy but in no case is temperature actually the same thing as is average molecular kinetic energy. It is an historical fact that temperature was entered into physics equations without its being explained. To this day, temperature remains a fundamental indefinable property.

Steve Agnew quoting me: "James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT as "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity.""

I repeat this quote because the point made needs repeating.

Me quoting Steve Agnew: "I also agree that changes in all of matter, matter phase, time delay, and decoherence rate are what we interpret as time and space. Where we disagree is of course with the nature of space."

I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'.

"Aethertime predicts all action with just matter, time, and phase and so space becomes just a convenient way to keep track of objects and their time delays and decoherence rates. That way the whole universe behaves in a nicely quantum manner and space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen."

I am not at this time addressing the properties attributed to the assumed substrate called matter. Empirical evidence cries out for those to receive some fixing. Nor am I now addressing empirical evidence and relativity theory. The context of this message concerns the practice of theoretical physics of making empirically unjustified claims about the nature of the universe. An example given here is "... space becomes whatever it needs to be to make relativity happen." There is no empirical evidence for changes to space or effects caused upon objects by space. Rather what is stated is an example of how theoretical physics has subsumed empirical scientific learning.

"General relativity then becomes simply the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the velocity of light is just a convenient representation of the rate of matter decoherence for the universe."

I refrain from venturing off into addressing relativity theory in this message. The point of this message is to address, at least in part, the lack of empirical support for much of theoretical physics. The usefulness of physics equations results from how accurately they mathematically model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that allow for successful extrapolations and interpolations very often yielding good predictions. The names and explanations of terms in physics equations do not have to be accurate to achieve accurate predictions.

All properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. The units can themselves be arbitrary, meaning without empirical justification. Kilograms is one example. What is important is that the units are defined in terms of measurable properties. The two measurable properties are length and duration.

Steve, If you wish to not continue this exchange, I understand. No hard feelings. Other 'scientific' forums censor my messages or remove me from participating when I make these points. I will mention in closing that my recollection is that you once gave mention of having read some of my work with understanding, but not of course with agreement. I sought to test your understanding of my work by asking if you were familiar with my critique of mass? I believe you did not respond. I take this opportunity to make clear that my work begins by explaining that the decision to accept mass as a fundamental indefinable property was the first error of theoretical physics. (I am not suggesting that force should have instead been chosen to be a fundamental indefinable property. Both force and mass should have been and could have been defined properties. Empirical evidence gives us guidance on how this can be done.) The act of now defining mass has begun the process of returning physics equations back to their empirical forms. That is what I do. I remove the non-empirically based, speculative, imaginative intrusions into physics equations that have been made by theoretical physicists.

Regardless of my opinions being different, I thank you for sharing your knowledge and ideas here at FQXi.org. Your messages are always worth reading.

James Putnam

You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:03 GMT as "...I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists does speculative imaginings become 'science-like'..."

I do actually agree that time is an axiom and so time is like activity which is like time, which is an identity. However, a second way to define a fundamental axiom is with the other two axioms of matter and action. Since action (or activity in your words) is the integral of matter in time, time is the differential of action with matter. This is the trimal nature of a closed universe.

Color is a measurable property of an object. Color change is a measurable property of an object that is time like. Change is what happens to objects with different time delays. These are very common measurements of objects no matter what kind of stuff you use to make those objects.

A real observable vacuum tube needs to have a real visible complete surface. All real solid objects have a real visible solid surface. All real liquid has a real visible surface, and all vapors have a real visible surface. All real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed, otherwise, it would be imposible for any surface to be visible. In order to be visible, surface must be illuminated by light. Light cannot have a surface, and because light does not have a surface, light has no effect on the constant speed of surface. These esearchers claims that invisible light is capable of twisting is utter codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a consistent theory that combines two inconsistent ones:

"In particular, Hossenfelder is searching for a good theory of quantum gravity - a framework that would bring together Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, which describes how cosmic bodies move, and quantum theory, which governs the behaviour of particles on the smallest scales. "Some people work on problems that I don't think are problems at all," she says. "But the question of how to find a consistent theory that combines gravity with quantum field theory is one that everyone agrees is a problem--and one that has to have a solution." (...) "We know the theories we have right now are inconsistent--when you combine them the answer is nonsense," she says. "It is clearly not how nature works, there has to be a better answer."

That is, Sabine Hossenfelder is going to find a theory where the Newtonian absolute time and the Einsteinian relative time coexist consistently. Bravo, Sabine Hossenfelder:

"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time."

"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute."

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Thank you so much for linking the August 2015 [link:science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498.full] Science [/link] article. This coincides closely with the date of my stroke, and I missed a lot of significant news. A very important experiment. Brilliant methodology.

Hi Tom and Pentcho,

What are the highlights from the article, "A self-interfering clock as a "which path" witness"?

Tom, you never betrayed you had any health challenges. Your posts have been as poignant as ever. Tempted to use the adjective "stubborn" or "incorrigible" but probably not politically correct :) Wish you all the best and hope your health is fully restored soon. I am sure you have access to the best care and latest technologies. Stroke is almost a death sentence on this side.

Pentcho, thanks for the link to the Perimeter Institute roundtable discussion...

Sabine has her job well cut out. Let's hope she does not disappoint. Relative time: To be or not to be, that is the question.

Regards,

Akinbo

hello dear thinkers,

Tom ,me also I wish you all the best for your health.Take care.We have had several difficult discussions due to my stupid parano in the past.But I have always liked to read your posts and developments.I am asking me also how is going Lawrence.Hope he is well.Take care dear Jedi of the Sphere.Regards

Hi Akinbo,

I've learned that strokes are funny things. While my verbal skills have declined (I stutter), my cognition and focus have benefitted. Maybe the speech impediment is a blessing -- it relieves me of the burden of having to engage in small talk. I am sad that the same level of health care is not available worldwide (or even in the U.S.) -- I strongly believe that free health care (and free lifelong education as well) are absolute entitlements.

Yeah, stubborn and incorrigible fit.

Anyway, I get access to Science articles through my AAAS membership. I don't know if you can access it; I would shoot you a copy if I could.

The crux of the experiment is the creation of an artificial superposition of states of time so that one state lags due to gravitational influence. The first two paragraphs of the (exceptionally well-written) article give the gist:

"Two-slit interferometry of quanta, such as photons and electrons, figured prominently in the Bohr-Einstein debates on the consistency of quantum theory (1, 2). A fundamental principle emerging from those debates--intimately related to the uncertainty principle--is that 'which path' information about the quanta passing through slits blocks their interference. At the climax of the debates, Einstein claimed that a clock, emitting a photon at a precise time while being weighed on a spring scale to measure the change in its mass-energy, could evade the uncertainty principle. Yet Bohr showed that the clock's gravitational redshift induces enough uncertainty in the emission time to satisfy the uncertainty principle. Inspired by the subtle role time may play, we have now sent a clock through a spatial interferometer. Our proof-of-principle experiment introduces clock interferometry as a new tool for studying the interplay of general relativity (3) and quantum mechanics (4).

"Time in standard quantum mechanics is a global parameter, which cannot differ between paths. Hence in standard interferometry [e.g., (5)], a difference in height between two paths merely affects their relative phase, shifting their interference pattern without degrading its visibility. General relativity, by contrast, predicts that a clock must 'tick' slower along the lower path; thus if the paths of a clock through an interferometer have different heights, a time differential between the paths will yield 'which path' information and degrade the visibility of the interference pattern (6). Consequently while standard interferometry may probe general relativity (7-9), clock interferometry probes the interplay of general relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, loss of visibility due to a proper time lag would be evidence that gravitational effects contribute to decoherence and the emergence of a classical world (10)."

Hello Steve,

Thanks. I expect Lawrence is still lurking. He pops in occasionally. My best wishes for your own health, too. :-)

Tom (et al),

Concerning; "For example, loss of visibility due to a proper time lag..." IF an experimental protocol could be so devised as to tell the difference. After all its already ambiguous as to what is meant by 'a photon', and the most recent researches I've read of ( at Maryland, if I recall correctly) have confidence of counting down to a level of about four photons. It seems ambitious, but worth trying. But are we dealing with a particle form or a waveform, and would it matter? And is light subject to entropy, or is it light because it is non-entropic?

But let's speculate some success, and a loss of visibility is attributable to gravitational effect. That would firstly corroborate Minkowski from the QM side, which taking the paradigm of absolute time would cast blocktime as a picture where 'everything happens at the same time'. So too, 'many spaces' would also be 'many times'; which I don't see as very different from Bohr holding that one thing can occupy more than one space at the same time. Just stated differently. Extending that to gravitational lensing, a proper time lag would also suggest that Olber's paradox is not so paradoxical. The light is 'there' in our space, just out of time sync. Perhaps the ticket to accounting for all that dark energy? It would open a can of worms, me thinks. Is cosmological inflation the reality or an illusion cast by a vast gravitational time warp? Was Hoyle half right? I'd like to think more real estate is still being made. Heretcally, jrc

I have spent considerable time trying to understand nature. Some of intricacies of nature as they became known to me, created the fascination. One of the earliest one was - conservation of Energy, the next was special theory of relativity, the third was exploding universe. The complexity of nature grew more as I progressed though my education as carrier as engineer. But now, I consider myself to be Pico-Physicist. TO say more, In Pico-Physics, the wrinkles are result of presence of matter in space. Some corollary of Pico physics state, that if we compare a star which is hiding behind lot of matter in space and another with line of clear space between start and observer, the one with matter clusters will appear to recede faster.

We have lot of data now, may be some day, I my inquisitiveness will be satisfied.

Pico-Physics agree with your analysis. But it arrives at Conclusion "space to be 3-D" from a different logic. This logic is based on Unary law of Pico Physics "Space Contains Energy". Multi-dimensional space can be seen as a mathematical formulation to understand problems, but not a reality of nature.

I would like to draw your attention to a chapter in Pico-Physics - Observation & Observer, picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer.

I believe with your approach to understanding reality, we may have much in common.

I had problem understanding the concept of Zero & infinity. It took me a long time, to understand the numbers by theself are just symbols, when associated with a unit they represent reality. They come to exist when associated with a unit. From this understanding evolved Infinte Maths, which I use to establish - Three dimensions of space and integrate whole lot of isolated divergent branches of physical sciences into UNary Law - "Space Conatins Energy".

You may like to visit /picophysics.org/concepts/pico-mathematics/ or just download vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/infinite-maths7.pdfAttachment #1: infinite-maths7.pdf

It depends on what we mean by time. Time is one of the most difficult concept to put into logic and understand it on that basis. It took me many years to get to understand time. This understanding led to stating a unary law "Space Contains Energy" as the sole fact of nature. This law integrates time in exclusion of all other properties from basic postulates of unary law, and defining Energy as an identity that is Konserved and Space that is not. Exclusion of all other properties to definition od these two identities, and delegation of all other fundamental laws of physics as corollaries of this law helps understand time as an observed reality.

The thought process thus evolved into what is now termed as Pico-Physics.