Wrinkles in Spacetime

Einsteinians (other than Sabine Hossenfelder) reject special relativity

[link:www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/]"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity.[/link] It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order - 
A, then B, then C - someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way - C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."

"A conscientious cosmologist rejects Einstein's notion that time is an illusion and the future is set. (...) In 1905, Einstein overturned Newton's harmonious picture of a standard universal time. He replaced it with a discordant, relative view in which different people could disagree about the duration of events, and even the order in which they happened. The young Einstein came to the remarkable realization that time was, in fact, a fourth dimension, alongside the three dimensions of space that we see around us, creating what has become known as the "block universe" picture of reality. (...) [George] Ellis respected Einstein's mathematical ingenuity, but he later balked at the philosophical implications of the block universe, in which the future stands on the same footing as the past."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Pentcho Velev,

Although Einstein foolishly insisted that a finite amount of invisible energy was exactly equal to a finite amount of invisible mass multiplied by a finite beam of invisible light multiplied by its finite invisible self, this has absolutely nothing to do with observable reality. Only infinite surface is observable because it is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe

from the point of view of history of science you are not a realist (that traditionally believes in the existence of a reality, that is independent of our perception - nowadays consisting of atoms etc.), but a positivist like Mach. The problem with this view, where you take only your sense data as real, is that one ends very fast into a kind of solipsism. And it is difficult to see a way, how general valid concepts can be developed - concepts, that are independent of our human perception.

However I would take this critic not as prove of impossibility, but as a challenge: How can we develop general concepts from what is knowable about nature. I believe modern developments in operational quantum mechanics are very promising.

Another challenge - somehow connected to the above - is your unique reality. Uniqueness cannot be named. Only things or events that are repeated can be named or recognized. However most of us believe in the uniqueness of the now, the universe - of the reality. Where does this come from? Couldn't that be a projection of our perception of the uniqueness of our self? How could we think reality as something not unique?

However Steve is right: you are repeating yourself. But you're not alone with that in these blogs!

And last but not least. Are you able to imagine a surface, that is not embedded in a 3 dimensional space? Respect if you can.

Best regards

Luca

Hi Mr Valeri and Mr Fisher,

I agree Mr Valeri.Godel d have said that we must accept our known universe and the unknown universe .We are sofar of the singularities and the entire uniqueness principle.We appraoch all days but we are far of all the universal laws.Regards

Paul Davies (2003): "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Is the "Great Revolution in Science" still around the corner? Yes it is. For the moment Einsteinians reject the consequence, spacetime, but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. However the gullible world is not infinitely gullible and will soon realize that when the "immediate consequence" is wrong and should be "retired", the underlying premise cannot be true:

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Pentcho Valev,

In order for only infinite real surface to be visible, it must be illuminated by real light. Therefore, real light cannot have a real surface. We can see the real surface of real objects moving and it is only surface that moves at the same constant speed. As real surface is infinite, no part of it can be finitely measured. The surface of a fly hovering close to a person's eyeball is immense. As it flies away, it gets quite smaller until it flies out of view. Einstein's proposed formula for calculating the magnitude of invisible space/time is utterly preposterous.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve Agnew,

"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."

Physics empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the case that time is passing during changes of velocities. It is also the case that space is traversed during changes of velocities. So, velocities change with respect to either time or space. However, neither time nor space are accessible to us so that we may make measurements upon them. They cannot serve as standards of measurement. So, we substitute measures of object activity in their places. That is our only choice because we only observe object activity. With regard to the property of time in particular, it is not what the 't' in physics equations represents. Nor do symbols for length or distance represent the property of space. The 't' represents cycles of a specific object activity. Clocks measure the number of those cycles, or cycles of their own, that have occurred during a measurement of object activity. Physicists choose to speak and write using the word 'time' for 't', and compound words that include 'time' such as space-time or time-like. Theoretical physics introduces substitutes (educated guesses) to fill in for that which is unknown. Even with these theoretical intrusions present, the equations remain useful because they are designed to accurately model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that usually provide useful extrapolations and interpolations. What the equations cannot do is fix the empirically unsound guesses that theorists have injected into physics equations. A major effect of such theoretical guessing is the introduction of fundamental disunity into physics equations. That problem began with the decision to make mass an indefinable property. Theoretical physics is stuck with disunity that cannot be undone by the introduction of additional invented, and empirically unverifiable, 'properties'.

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 do speculative imaginings become 'science-like'..."

Time is an unexplained given; 'time' measurements and 'time' delays are misnomers for duration measurements and duration delays. Duration being counts of cyclic activity of objects that are not time. Time is not like objects and objects are not like time.

"I do actually agree that time is an axiom and so time is like activity which is like time, which is an identity. ..."

We do not know what time is like. We do know it is not like activity. Activity is objects changing their velocities. There is no empirical evidence for time having a velocity let alone a change of velocity. What is a physics fact is that time is a fundamental indefinable property.

"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."

Matter is an imagined mechanical substrate credited with being the source of observed properties. Those properties being defined by and represented by their units in physics equations. Matter has no units and is not represented in physics equations. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of matter. The choice of the idea of the existence of matter is a philosophical preference. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We do not know what cause is.

The mathematical term for 'action' does not include measured time. Time is not measurable. Measurements take time to occur but the unit of second is not a measurement of time. A measurement of time would involve the differences between two points of time. We have no way of accessing points of time. With regard to action being the product of either energy and 'time' or momentum and length: What is the physical meaning of 'action'? Its usefulness is not in question. Specifically: Why are its units Newtonsxmetersxseconds? Those units convey all of its meaning, and its purpose in physics equations.

"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."

It is not the measurements that are in question. The measurements give us the empirical information that we need in order to know what effects have occurred. It is the non-empirically supported practice of assigning, by means of employing inaccurate wording, additional effects that did not occur. For example, there is no evidence that time gets delayed. There is evidence that object activity gets delayed.

James Putnam

Dear Dr. Hossenfelder,

My question is what in your opinion is your most significant contribution to scientific knowledge

Joe Fisher - what do you mean by 'surface'?

Spacetime Is Doomed, Therefore Einstein's Light Postulate Is False

According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand, (21:41) spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how they are moving. But since the consequence is nonexistent and doomed, the postulate from which it has been deduced is false, isn't it? Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence". See also this:

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Excessively high-pitched lessons like Arkani-Hamed's tend to indicate weak arguments. Einstein's split thinking is obvious to me: He took different points of view at a time and felt therefore forced to deny simultaneity.

Let me just tell you for pleasure what I was propagated to radio listeners: E's Relativity is not used by those who are designing experiments in cosmos, funningly - because the belonging equations are too difficult to solve -.

++++

:) hello Mr Valev and Eckard,

:)(--)(--)(--)(--)

Dear Sabine Hossenfelder, I really admire that you're working on this. I think that deciding whether spacetime is discrete versus continuous is THE most important question in physics and will make it easier to find out how everything is brought together.

I think it must be because if you define a universe to be a set of discrete information with a nonzero chance of interacting, you really run into trouble with continuous spacetime which would be an infinite set.

Do you think it would be possible to use data from the black hole merger date from LIGO to deduce if a black hole is a 2D object with no interior as opposed to a 3d object? A 2d black hole could indicate that spacetime has broken down which again could indicate discrete spacetime.

Neil deGrasse Tyson (1:09): "If you are moving fast through space, your time will tick more slowly, as observed by others."

However special relativity predicts that, as observed by yourself, your time will tick FASTER than the time of others (who are not moving):

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

So special relativity predicts no real difference in the clocks' readings and Einsteinians are forced to introduce the camouflage called, in the quotation above, "enough strangeness".

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

You win the prize for relativity ignorance. Understand why Einstein said 'all physics is local' and cure yourself.

Absurd Variation of the Speed of Light in General Relativity

The following texts horrify and paralyze Einsteinians:

Albert Einstein: "Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable."

Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."

Yes, according to Einstein's general relativity, the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is -2g). This is idiotic isn't it:

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

"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+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 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 φ would be c(1+φ/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+φ. 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+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev

I see nothing either horrifying nor paralyzing in the excerpted quotes of Einstein which Pentcho has just posted. GR is covariant and predicated on spherical geometry where change of volume is calculated from the curvature on a prescribed surface, not protracted from an assumed zero point center. SR is invariance between two gravitationally isolated gravitational domains and only enters GR in the terms of elapsed time on a curve, which via the Lorentz Transforms computes a length along a line of spatial curvature. But as in any measurement system, a result can only be expressed in terms where a choice of one parameter is taken as the benchmark against which all other parameters are relational. It is only in normalizing the time parameter across the entire gravitational domain in relation to an averaged mass density, when a result obtains that the speed of light is variable in relation to position and magnitude of gravitational field. So covariantly when expressed in terms of the compression of time in a spatial volume, the light has to traverse a greater amount of time in any given span of space relative to gravitational magnitude. Hence the clearly stated specification by Einstein that ", the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable." the key word *spatially* cannot be discounted. jrc

Hi all,

Dear John and Tom,Eckard,could you tell me more about the fine structure constant and the theory of perturbations please ,I learn a little the different mathematical methods for the creation of spherical algebras.I don't know well this constant but It is very relevant considering the harmonical oscillators.If the quantum gravitation is a different quantum of E,it is relevant it seems to me to insert the spherical volumes and motions,spinal, orbital and linear before encoding in nuclei.This standard model must insert the BH and dark matter relativelly speaking like our cosmological scale.The standard model seems encircled by BH and dark matter.The harmonical oscillators can perhaps answer.The bridge between the standard model and our irmpoved model is interesting to analyse.Regards

Steve,

There are a lot of interesting quotes from notables in physics about the fine structure constant, but nobody knows what its physical significance is. What can be said is that it consistently is observed as a simple numerical proportion in the spacing between elemental spectral lines, in particular the 'splitting' of a dominant line such as the yellow band distinctive of sodium. The problem is that those spectral lines are emitted or absorbed frequencies of light by elements, but when subject to Doppler shift measurement the frequency changes smoothly as would be evident of a continuous spectrum having a physical waveform. So while the emitted light behaves as a wave, the emission behaves as a particle. Its a puzzle. good luck with that - jrc