Ripping Apart Einstein

John Cox

So Tom,

now that you have retired, aside from honing your integrated logical discipline by pointing out windmills to those whom have a penchant for tilting... How are you coming with a formulation of a hypothesis of your conjecture that for every classical measure, there exists at least one quantum state? Sounds like a reasonable premise to me. And if that's a bit off topic here, so is the diatribe against Einstein the person in the guise of refuting the purely Newtonion derivation of the constancy of light velocity. jrc

Thomas Ray

Thanks for asking, John R:

"How are you coming with ... your conjecture that for every classical measure, there exists at least one quantum state?"

What I mean by that, is the same phenomenon that makes quantum discord work for quantum computing. Following Joy Christian, I think quantum entanglement is an illusion, though it's an illusion that dies hard among conventional quantum theory proponents. Zeeya Merali's 2011 Nature article linked above ends with a telling comment by W. Zurek: " ... discord can be thought of as a complement to entanglement, rather than as a usurper. 'There is no longer a question that discord works,' he declares. 'The important thing now is to find out when discord without entanglement can be exploited most usefully, and when entanglement is essential.'"

Of course, I disagree that entanglement is ever essential, or even exists as a physical phenomenon. An interesting possible connection, for me, between quantum discord and quantum theory is the support it may give to Everett's many worlds interpretation; i.e., if at least one (precise) quantum coherent state exists among all the (approximate) classical measurements on any system, that precise state belongs uniquely to the universe we inhabit, among all the approximate universes that we don't inhabit.

My feeling is that a mathematical theorem that proves the phenomenological case of quantum discord will encourage quantum theory research, not just for computational applications, but toward more general deterministic frameworks, such as those of Joy Christian and Gerard 't Hooft. I have worked out some formal results that I am not yet willing to share.

"Sounds like a reasonable premise to me. And if that's a bit off topic here, so is the diatribe against Einstein the person in the guise of refuting the purely Newtonion derivation of the constancy of light velocity."

I agree. Being anti-relativity does not logically necessitate being anti-Einstein. The detractors don't even really understand Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics, much less Einstein.

Best,

Tom

Georgina Woodward

Tom,

You have shown that you either have not read, or do not understand, what I am saying. You wrote Quote"perhaps you can consider the possibility that you've never heard relativity explained in a way that you can see that your philosophy is incompatible with the scientific theory. You demand an absolute reference frame of "now" for all particles all the time."End Quote; That is completely incorrect portrayal of what I am saying and I really hope that no one takes your false depiction seriously. You are teaching Grandma to suck eggs. It would be nice if instead you responded to what was actually said.

The reality that is observed is compatible with relativity. I am arguing that space-time relativity is a mathematical model of that emergent reality. Not denying relativity as you say.

Einstein mistook the sensory data distribution with the material source reality. Hence the grandfather paradox and barn pole type paradoxes.

The emergent reality that I and you see or is shown on a computer screen or photograph does not contain the particle and objects that are portrayed. It is an image reality. Since the atoms in question are not there we can ask, as Feynman did, where are they?

The answer is not in the simulated emergent reality but in the unseen external reality that is the source of the electromagnetic data from which image realities can be fabricated. The emergent fabrications have temporal spread because of the non instantaneous transmission of light but there is no reason for there to be the same temporal spread within the external source (Object) reality. So there, in that material reality, of atoms, fermion particles and not yet received EM data it is the same time everywhere.

By the way I have now watched a few pop videos including Shakira and Beyonce writhing seductively together and consider myself sufficiently familiar with the physical talents of the woman. Each to their own.

Thomas Ray

"The reality that is observed is compatible with relativity. I am arguing that space-time relativity is a mathematical model of that emergent reality. Not denying relativity as you say."
Since physical reality is only the reality that is observed, your argument indeed denies relativity.
Teaching Grandma to suck eggs? Really? -- what does that mean?

John Cox

Tom,
One does not want to spill the wine before it's time, so I've been mulling over what not to say. That was a pretty clear and concise synopsis, however. A theorem really must be general, but not so that it leads to LegoLand. Rather I think historically that once a theorem is arrived at, it discovers a 'why' that was not anticipated and nowhere evident in the elements of its construction. Best wishes including Luck, there's a classical probability too for that. jrc

Georgina Woodward

No Tom you are incorrect again. What is seen, the output of sensory data processing, is relative I do not refute that. There is very good reason for it being relative.
There is a grandfather paradox because of confusion of the relative emergent reality that is seen with the underlying material reality. Just because sensory data persists in the environment, from which images of former things can be constructed it does not mean that people and other objects made of atoms persist in the environment as the material past. As there is no material past it can not be visited. So Pentcho is correct on that matter.
However as there is sensory data in the environment those former things can be seen. Light from a distant star that is received can be formed into an image reality that exists Now but shows the star as it was long ago. The material or object reality is the star as it is Now, if it still exists, and the emergent image reality is as it is seen Now, how it was long ago.
Teaching grandma to suck eggs is trying to teach someone what they already know well.

Jason Wolfe

There has to be a whole other side to reality. Otherwise we would be able to explain why the physics constants are the values that we measure them. Particularly the speed of light. Like I've said many times, I think there exists an invisible field that interconnects all matter, all things and has energy and momentum states. This invisible field must somehow be responsible for the speed of light. But I don't know how physicists are going to detect this field. Maybe it's beyond our reach.

Jason Wolfe

There is a whole other side to reality that is required to account for the physics constants. You can "not believe without proof" all you like, but you definitely can't explain all observables with your current paradigm.

Jonathan Dickau

Yes, as I've said all along..
Space is inside out. So you are correct that there is a whole other side. However; it could also be right side out, at the same time! Given the Möbius-like topology of S3 or S7, the fabric of space itself could be like an invisible field that interconnects all matter, as it has a side that is always hidden from us but equally real to the one we see. Check out Joy Christian's work for more on that. But he is certainly not the only one thinking like that.
The August Scientific American has an article about how a higher-dimensional black hole might have spawned our universe - that you will probably want to see. But rest assured Jason; career scientists are always looking for ways that another side to reality could contain the answers we can't see from here.
All the Best,
Jonathan

Jason Wolfe

Just for fun, I had in mind a crystal, like a quartz crystal for example, that is doped with particles from beyond the standard model. When the crystal is energized, when an electrical current is passed through it, it emits a field that increases the speed of light around it. Metal is also a crystal. You could build a spaceship with an outer hull made of metal that is doped with these special particles beyond the standard model. When the hull is energized, it creates a field around the spaceship, a very high speed of light c' >> c field. Within this field, the spaceship weighs less and travels faster than light, faster than c. Maybe there are aliens who have already worked out this technology. I thought it might be a fun thought experiment.

John Cox

Jason,
That a safe enough speculation given that the standard model is insufficient in regards any real rationale for the termination of mass accumulation in isotopes.
It is, however observed that such a terminal condition exists, though a few years ago as I was doing dishes with a pop science program on the TV, I hadn't caught the name or the university and didn't perk up until the moderator stated that the afore mentioned was working in a quantum mechanical regime of extrapolation of probability resonance (though not in those technical terms) which expected to find the 'Shangri La' of physics... the fabled 'island of stability' where a metastable isotope should be found above the known a.m.u. of the periodic table.
As a sci-fi drama, I think producers would go more for a story line of a socio-pathic big ego in big science getting big dollars from concealed corporate investment pools that don't think government should tell business what it can't do, and building a robotically refueled graphite moderated reactor sucking Pacific cooling water upwind of the central valley and the great plains bread basket, to produce an accretion of super heavy metastable isotopes in the hopes of surprising DoD with a means of making smaller fission triggers than would be verifiable by lift capacity START schedules of ICBM's. That would be a real box office BOOM! jrc

Thomas Ray

" ... it creates a field around the spaceship, a very high speed of light c' >> c field. Within this field, the spaceship weighs less and travels faster than light, faster than c."
Work it out and you'll see that the spaceship's weight is zero, while the field is infinitely heavy. The field influence is therefore vectored toward the spaceship, not on the vector that you want the spaceship to travel. No travel happens; the aphorism, "time is what keeps everything from happening at once" applies here.
The common problem with most time travel thought experiments is failing to account for the extra degree of freedom required to define motion on a vector that transcends 4-dimension spacetime. No motion, no travel.

Jason Wolfe

I see it differently. The field creates a c' field around the ship. Since energy is conserved, the energy content of the spaceship with the field activiated has energy E = mc^2 = m'c'^2. If the spaceship with the field slips into another space-time continuum with a speed of light c', then its mass in that other space-time will be m' = m(c/c')^2.
If the spaceship with the field activiated remains in this space-time, if you try to push it with a wooden stick, the atoms of the stick will find themselves in a c' environment. I'm not sure what happens, but I think the stick loses chemical bonding integrity and disentegrates.
But in any event, if you impart some momentum to the spaceship with a c' field activiated, the momentum will still be imparted to the spaceship, but the spaceship will still have mass m in our space-time, not m'. :( sad face.

Jason Wolfe

To make the spaceship travel, I have to use a physics upgrade that allows redshift to work in reverse, to create time dilation fields. The photons have to connect together in a way that breaches the conservation of energy "barrier". In this way, you pull energy (and it's graviational shadow) for a net energy creation of 0. When you do this, you give the spaceship momentum by creating a gravitational field. It's a bit complicated and needs some explaining. I'll come back to it if anyone is interested in grey alien propulsion physics.

Jason Wolfe

In principle you can change the speed of light locally without creating any real physics problems. Glass slows down the speed of light by multiplying the permitivity times a number between 1.0000 and something a little larger. I guess if a spaceship could generate a field around that raised the speed of light to, let's say c' = 2c, it might cause some Snell's law effects and some electromagnetic disturbances, but beyond that it won't violate conservation of energy, create paradoxes or destroy the universe.
There is no reason to believe that energizing such a field, a c'=2c field, is going to require an unreasonable amount of energy.

Thomas Ray

John R, I've heard of a mathematician who so believed in the random, or luck, factor, that he threw half of the pile of resumes from job applicants in the trash can before looking at the rest. That may be apocryphal; however:
Every random act has a corresponding non-random determinant, a hidden variable. The same professor who creates bad luck for the discarded applicants creates good luck for the remaining. We have no way of distinguishing random from pseudo-random. Chaitin's Omega calculation demonstrates this in the strongest formal terms; the algorithm's output is dependent on the programming language, such that the Omega number is incalculable, although the algorithm is closed and precise. In binary terms, the next digit -- 0 or 1 -- is unpredictable.
That is why Georgina's claim, " ... the output of sensory data processing, is relative I do not refute that ..." has nothing to do with Einstein relativity, and everything to do with a pervasive belief in randomness. Relativity is actually a theory of the absolute, the absolute limit of physical bodies to communicate, even though they share a common spacetime by the principle of uniformity. Georgina's view is akin to that of quantum theorists who necessarily assume entanglement, believing that the output of their experiments is identical to the algorithm (data processing) by which the data is obtained. Einstein said, no -- the universe's algorithm is independent of subjective sensory data.
Relativity avers that the world is objective, metaphysically real, even though all physics is local.

Jonathan Dickau

I think Tom is essentially correct, on some counts..
Is space itself curved, or stretched, or twisted? Relativity is a statement about the shape of space, and how it is well-behaved by providing a framework for different observers that is self-consistent for each, but allows for relative displacements of individual frameworks. The fact that this locally uniform framework and the shape of local space may be dynamically emergent is an essential component of the Machian view, and makes things interesting.
However; it is somewhat erroneous to equate this with the effects of observations from differing viewpoints - in the quantum mechanical sense - because any displacements arise because of relative motion and not any specific observations thereof. That is; we are talking about a process that affects what could be observed. Ergo; the twins paradox is not a simple illusion of perception.
Regards,
Jonathan

John Cox

Tom and Georgina,
Firstly, no one has a clue why light velocity is 'that' measured velocity, which is why we should take the postulates of SR as the best 'first approximation' of reality. AE didn't pull them out of imagination so as to make a new, weird theory. They are firmly grounded in classical Newtonian progress.
Yes, we can step back and take the analytical view of 'spacetime' and the relative vectors of several observers and do a comparative study of motion in an ubiquitous scalar time co-ordinate frame. But then we abdicate our own perspective as being one of those observers we are observing, we assume a preferred position of observation from Mt. Olympus. Time really is local to the reference frame of the observer whom cannot know of motion as other than relative to another, and can only measure from a set of constant scalar increments common only to ones self. My foot. My pulse. My push, climbing stairs.
Secondly, no one has a clue why the quantity of energy in Planck's Constant is a value preferred by spacetime. But it solved the 'violet catastrophe'. That does not necessarily mean that the Quantum is physically an inviolate 'least allowable quantity of energy'. QM simply and in finality assumes it to be so, axiomatically. And with a specific, stated purpose to deliberately make a system of purely mathematical probabilities.
Of course QM needs 'entanglement'. That's the gravity of the current situation. But QM does not have a theory of gravity, and the classical electromagnetic spectrum model does not have a gravitational component. We lack the necessary 'unified field' rationale to combine electromagnetism with gravity in a manner that explains both (ideal) spherical rest mass, and linear propagation of energy.
So it goes to finding probable connectivity. Like a two gallon pickle jar filled with cats eye marbles, initially at rest on its side, then rolled 2pi or 4pi. What vector does each cats eye now display? What if the pickle jar were on the space station?
Personally, we do not live in all approximate universes because they don't exist in any reality but our best guestimates. I don't expect things to pop into existence without cause, I expect that somewhere, sometime, something won't happen for no reason at all, and that alters what will then happen. jrc

pjackson

JC,
"no one has a clue why light velocity is 'that' measured velocity," I suggest that may be overstating sightly.
If we hypothesise that particles emit EM fluctuations then the local 'speed' would seem likely to be a function of the particle spin or oscillation rate. (note that such particles populate the transition zone on the surface of all matter, and lenses/ detectors/aerials tend to be made of matter).
We may then have a possible insight into spin. Fermions (electrons/positrons,) and Protons couple most efficiently at different (overlapping) wavelengths, yet all will then re-emit at propagation speed c in their own centre-of-mass rest frame.
That needs some thought, and I suggest it may be a clue. (Just a 'clue' of course, but I've found it one consistent with others).
So now... does anybody know why particles spin at the 'rate' they do?!! (and don't forget the spinning +/- changes within the 'dipole') I then find some of Nima Arkani-Hamed's work quite enlightening! (see the Messenger lectures on youtube ; on "The Future of Fundamental Physics").
(Tom, if you're reading this beware, there are distressing scenes from the beginning so you may wish to look away now; ...he reports that "space-time is doomed"!!).
Best wishes
Peter

John Cox

Pete,
As usual you are working from your own personal equation of an assumed metric a priori which you fail to identify. Provide a Theorem that presents a concise hypothesis for 'WHY' light velocity is the limit to acceleration instead of instantaneous universal translation across a distance. I do NOT sit at your feet! jrc

pjackson

JC,
Fair Do's. Optical Breakdown plasma density at gamma wavelength is ~10^23/cm^-3. As I've described, EM signals won't then penetrate because the wavelength 'won't go any shorter'. Or if you prefer the particle or 'energy' density view; The crowd is so jammed you can't move any more!
It's really the same as Hamed explains wrt gravity; it's all about 'size'. But lets look at the mechanics; Let's peek into the LHC pipe. As the bunch goes faster it propagates an ever growing cloud of photo('virtual')electrons which give of synchrotron radiation at increasing frequency. See how they go crazy and damage the pipe walls as c approaches!
hey we re-christened 'virtual' to obey the conservation laws, but where else do you think all that input energy goes? near infinite energy to get near c! Now let's go and look at the synchrotron 'power curve' with increasing speed. Hold it up against the Lorentz factor gamma potential curve. You'll find it's exactly the same shape!! Co-incidence? Certainly not I surmise. It describes exactly the same thing. Try ringing a shuttle crewman during re-entry. You radio signals wont get through the plasma bow shock from the nose!
As matter propagates through a vacuum (space or LHC pipe) it condenses conjugate fermion pairs at a rate described by the Lorentz factor, but only up to the min wavelength/max plasma density gamma (excess energy is then emitted as heat). Most of that is present science. The DFM just fits the various pieces together more coherently. It's all in the previous essays, from 2011 on ('2020 Vision') and here;
arXiv; Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation.
The model's ability to resolve anomalies in quantum optics (etc) is shown here;
arXiv; Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.
A boat has exactly the same length/ wavelength-dictated speed limit when moving in displacement mode (subtle design features can fool the water into behaving as if the boat's a bit longer!) In a nutshell; it seems things can't go any faster as space ain't empty and stuff gets in the way.
(you'd be in the way at my feet too!)
Best wishes,

Thomas Ray

Jonathan, I think you've confused special relativity with general relativity. Machian dynamics do not apply to special relativity.
The reason that quantum theorists use Mach's principle, is that because it largely motivates general relativity in the classical world, the principle sheds light on the many-body problem independent of scale.
The issue isn't spacetime. Mach viewed spacetime as a convenient fiction; quantum theorists do the same de facto, when they normalize time.

John Cox

Well, Pete?
Where's your Theorem in that shopping bag of springs? jrc

Thomas Ray

"Of course QM needs 'entanglement'. That's the gravity of the current situation."
Bingo, John R. And it needs nonlocality as well -- it's those two fundamental assumptions that drive the mathematics of conventional quantum mechanics. The "most successfully verified theory in the history of science" is dependent on interpretation, rather than being based on a prior mathematical theory that anticipates and preempts unobservables, in a mathematically complete form that can be independently tested against phenomena (rather than deriving inductively from observation).

« Previous Page Next Page »