Ripping Apart Einstein

John Cox

Georgina,

That is an interesting take on the question, and goes to the gadenken of riding on a beam of light and 'time stops'. A uni-temporal reference frame can be constructed if we approach light velocity from the other perspective than our common intuition that goes from relative rest upward to 'c'. Looking at it from 'c' being equivalent to the rate that time progresses, down to relative rest, would mean that as long as I sit at my keyboard I am not transiting space but only the time dimension which is passing me by at an alarming rate! I'm getting old fast!

I like Fitzgerald's observation that the velocity of light is 'astonishingly low'. Compared to instantaneous, it takes about eight minutes for light to reach me from the sun. So the two observers at arms length are passing the time, not the relational space between them, while the moving observer is a passerby through both of theirs.

"The resolution of the ... paradoxes is as simple as acknowledging (accepting) that an output image is not the object it depicts.' Which is assumed in the construct of measurement in SR. jrc

pjackson

JC,

"Where's your Theorem in that shopping bag of springs?" Good question. The problem I've found with completed jigsaw puzzles is that the pieces don't look like they did when on their own, and are all interlinked.

At present each one is nicely crafted, with it's own nice clear 'stand alone' theorem, shape and descriptions. The fact the shapes won't fit together doesn't seem to worry too many people. But I've reconstructed from rather deeper more common foundations, so (as Einstein anticipated) the first job is to describe the 'new way of thinking' needed. I've just explained it in one way to Akinbo. Does that work for you? (See also the 1913 quote!).

I then need a series of interlinked theorems, which I've only written so far as 10 main axioms (and the replacement of the Law of the Excluded Middle - in my last essay). I've posted them here before a few times, but they need updating. (I included a limited specific set in the last essay).

I'm preoccupied with the QM paper and maths at present. Astonishingly I keep finding my 'shocking' hypotheses aren't shocking at all! The redistribution of +/- at each detector subject to angle has been well established since the 1980's. and see (A2) here; Experimental violation of Bell's inequality based on phase and momentum 1990..

What with Bell agreeing half of it a priori the task seems to be reducing to one of assembling the rest of the (existing) pieces more coherently.

If you can find any good theorem's in the last post I'm happy to share them.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

JC, Georgina,

I should really post this here, discussing the irrefutable logic of multiple 'local' inertial systems, consistent with the SR postulates but NOT with the paradoxical assumptions that confound rationalism as much as QM's.

"This is the simple way out of the difficulties raised by the MM experiment. If from the beginning we had used a plural instead of singular word to denote the system in which radiant energy is localised ... those difficulties would never have appeared. There has never been a better example of the danger of being deceived by the arbitrary choice of terminology. However Physicists, not recognising the gratuitous assumption made in the use of the words 'the Aether', adopted the second alternative, they introduced new assumptions."

N. R. Campbell, Modern Electrical Theory, Camb Univ. Press 2nd ed., 1913; p.388.

And remember Einstein's words even after deriving those new assumptions; "Space without ether is unthinkable" There just couldn't be one SINGLE ("absolute") ether frame. 'Wheels within wheels'.

Make sense? Best wishes

Peter

John Cox

Tom,

I would expect from how you stated your conjecture (and I should have said, statement, instead of synopsis) that a formulation would withstand mathematical proof. QM normalizes space too, as well as time. The 'either' condition is at the limit of equivalence for time, and the 'or' condition is at the equivalence limit for space. So the axiomatic non-locality is not too distant from time being local to a material point in space.

I I like Maxwell, instead of Lorentz who gives us rate of change as a harmonic progression and is symmetric with, N^2. Maxwell plotted graphically permutates out to an exponential rate of change, hence, e^2.

Pete,

You do have a 'forest for trees' cyclical argument going, which as a general rule, go pretty lame. Maybe too many axioms is entropy. jrc

Thomas Ray

Hi John R,

Actually QM quantizes (vice normalize) space. Time is normalized in relativistic quantum mechanics by t = c = 1, and therefore the time metric drops out of quantum mechanical equations.

The deep question is whether spacetime need be normalized. I thought Vesselin Petkov's essay deserved much more respect than it got.

Your long reply to Georgina was very thoughtful, and deserves equally thoughtful comment. I will make time for it when I can.

Thomas Ray

Dang, I did it too. I meant "quantized" spacetime, not "normalized."

Thomas Ray

"The miracle of the miracles - the bug-rivet paradox: "

This needs to be put to rest with a wooden stake through the heart.

Pentcho Valev apparently will never understand that there is no paradox here, but you might:

The case is that up to the speed of light, all physics behaves just as Newton described. Valev keeps assuming that speed never reaches c, by his fictitious "c c'" which if he were aware enough to see it, cannot refer to the constant c of Einstein relativity. The "paradox" exists only in this strawman argument of pre-Einstein physics; in the true relativistic case of the bug and rivet, every observer's frame is infinitely large, so there is plenty of room in that space for all of the players. I didn't just make this up -- Bose-Einstein statistics requires that any number of bosons may occupy the same point. The bodies are not rigid.

pjackson

JC,

I posted the wrong link. The +/- redistribution equation is here; (A2)

Probing the phase coherence of parametrically generated photon pairs: A new test of Bell's inequalities.

Nobody likes getting lost in a forest. But when any real new answer comes along it always has wide implications, indeed that's a test of it's veracity. I can't think of any falsifiable examples of your inverse proposition. Can you? Or perhaps their lack of take-up is the wide application itself. That I agree with.

I think being scared of letting go 'present understanding' is most of the problem preventing advancement.

Whatever views we have, it is what it is, and it works. Have you seen anyone find any falsifiable 'flaw' yet? I searched for years and it's now been in the public domain for a few. All 'disagreement' so far has been just 'belief' based. I really WANT something solid to arise!

Best wishes

Peter

John Cox

Pete,

Abraham Marcus 1968 'Electricity for Technicians' and second edition 1975 by Rebecca B. Marcus and then co-author Charles M. Thomson published by Prentice-Hall, Int'l et al; is the very best treatment of magnetism and electricity that I ever read. Brief concise history of discovery and step by natural logical step in the development of theory and application of Electro-Motive Force. The very stuff of Faraday.

Marcus doesn't touch on Maxwell, but all the essentials to understand what Maxwell actually did in his integrating over partial differentials of field intensity, is there. And what gets lost in all the curls and div.s as Maxwell is usually presented, is that while Maxwell and the majority of physics saw 'fields' as disturbances in a media, Faraday saw them as projection in a real material sense of the substance of which they were associated, not as something separate.

I didn't grasp Maxwell until I chanced upon a graphical representation which shows the 'right hand rule' plotted on a Cartesian orthogonal. The direction of motive force is always at right angle between electrical characteristic influence and that of magnetic, but which undergoes a phase transformation relative to velocity of a conductor crossing a field. The rise and fall of respective field intensity and reversing polarity is plotted as a sinusoidal curve intersecting a timeline z-axis. It simplifies to two symmetric inverted 'U' curves, plotted one for electric on (say) x-plane and magnetic on the y-plane. Extrapolated to rest, static state, the magnetic intensity is a 'c'

proportion greater in motive force than the associated magnetic intensity, though both have equal areas under the curve. BUT, the least value of intensity of one field curve will intersect the z-axis at a point incident to the greatest value of intensity of the other field curve. As the comparatively slow speeds of laboratory electromechanical apparatus increases in velocity, that 90 degree displacement of phase decreases. At light velocity the orientation observed in electromotive experiments was also observed in Hertzian waves, but the phase displacement was gone and the slopes of the curves are in sync. What is distinct to any electromagnetic wave of any wavelength/frequency is that the measured greatest intensity of both electric and magnetic motive force is equal. At light velocity electrical field strength has diminished from a 'c' proportion greater than magnetic, to equivalent. AND, the true measured intensity of magnetic motive force is equal to that of a static magnetic field with an associated 'c' proportion greater electrical static field intensity.

This permutates algebraically to a rate of change with velocity as an exponential function. The basis points are there in the increments of lengths in the 90* displacement. The half length on the z-axis to the full length, the half length being one of three equal increments, are the first two terms in an exponential progression; 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/n.

Lorentz does not have that degree of freedom, it is only of time and space. The form of the transform as ; sqrt 1 - (v^2/c^2) reduces to a harmonic series of additive properties; 1/2 + 1/4 +1/2n.

The equivalence function is the same for both, however; 1c (sub) t + 1c (sub) s, = 1c^2.

So if you look at the end-on cosine graphic of your helix you see a rotation of the x and y planes away from the z-axis, but with one co-incidental antipodal point of least intensity, lying on the z-axis incident to a point in time, while the other antipodal point transits through space across time tracking you helix.

Hope this helps find a definitive Theroem of your DFM. jrc

P.S. So yes, there is mathematical form in Maxwell to theorize the proposition of energy density varying as a direct inverse proportion of velocity following an exponential rate of change.

Which is a good point of departure from the prior (lengthy) thread. jrc

John Cox

OOOps, Pete

correction p.3, should be "extrapolated from rest...the electrical field intensity is a 'c' proportion greater than magnetic field intensity. jrc

John Cox

Tom,

I jumped to the next thread down, 68 posts to thread is my limit.

I like your Ellis quote, apropos.

As to the limit of distance of effect distinct from the time, I (warily) have long conjectured that the reason we don't find measurable gravitational effect in Electromagnetic Radiation is that it physically resolves by diffeomorphisis into the far field as a linear prjoctection with the gravitational field elongated to something like tubular spatial configuration. As I'd mentioned earlier, computational application of my modeling suggests an ontology where the density proportion obtains from an inverse acceleration of 'c' by an exponential rate, and that results in an exponential coeffeciency of 'c' interior to the constant density proportional to mass which would require the translational velocity of effect to abruptly (at zero boundary) assume a relative value of ~2^14 cm/sec as differentiated from the 'c' equivalence parameter of `3^10 cm/sec. (does require a falsification regime) But in conclusion, the 'tubular gravity field might be what prevents photonic pulses from emanating at right angle (at least) due to opposing directional effect in magnetic and electrical fields, which results in wavetrains diverging in a classical spread.

The exponential rate would also apply in elongation of the gravitational field to conform with linear projection, so I have long suspected that what passes for non-locality in lab experimentation, is in reality the linear projection of the gravitational field configuration, at a rate where it will actually extend across a space of a length (physically in the apparatus' rest frame) of ~2^14 centimeters per second per second. That should be doable by micropulse timing with existing long objective detection experimental apparatus used in neutrino researches and such. Yep, I bet it reaches out and touches the detector photomultiplier. You can file this under gobbledygook. jrc

Georgina Woodward

John, thank you kindly for your reply.

A couple of points: if you sit still at your desk you are not moving along the time dimension of Object reality space because uni-temporal space in which things made of atoms exist does not have a time dimension. It is always the same time everywhere and as the configuration of the universe alters including the configuration of your material body, there is what we regard as passage of time. The Object reality is not spread across time but is recycled so that only its youngest iteration exists. You are of course also not stationary as you sit at your desk because the Earth is moving, revolving, orbiting the sun and moving with the solar system within the galaxy.

I should also mention that uni-temporal-Now is ahead of the experienced present because it takes time to process received data into space-time output. There is a delay between what happens in the world of atoms and particles and the experience of images of those happenings or awareness of a detection. Showing that this is so for all chemical reactions (involving atoms), and all quantum events is further evidence in favour of the explanatory framework's construction. I think there are already some quantum experiments showing this but don't have a reference to hand. The events are not happening in the future because the 'world' of atoms is not part of the emergent space-time output and though Object reality contains the distributed "field" of EM potential data, that is just data existing -Now not the material past present or future. There is no future made of atoms only uni-temporal Now.So no time travel to the future is possible. I agree with Pentcho on that.

Georgina Woodward

Tom you wrote "Unlike the twin paradox, the grandfather paradox is a true paradox of relativity.It does not depend, as you imply, on the observer's ability to see what is "really" there. " What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about having to see what is really there.

There is no material past only electromagnetic data that can be formed into images of things that formerly existed / happened. An image of grandpa is not material grandpa. Going through the motions of killing an image would have no affect on material 'would be killer'. An image of the past is not the material past.

Georgina Woodward

Re retrocausality. This can appear to happen because events in Object reality always preceded observation of them. It is possible that an outcome occurs in Object reality , the material reality, before observation of the Image reality showing the cause of that outcome.

In Object reality cause always precedes effect because only the youngest iteration of the universe exists. What it is, its configuration, depends upon what happened in previous iterations. There is a one way arrow of time for that reality. But the Image reality is a different matter because the order in which events are seen to occur depends upon the order in which sensory data is received and processed into output. Allowing non simultaneity of events for different observers and so possible ambiguity about cause and effect. As well as speculation about the co-existence of ( material ) past, present and future and from that speculation about time travel.

Thomas Ray

"There is no material past only electromagnetic data ..."

Georgina, electromagnetic energy is material.

Jason Wolfe

I'm just curious. Why is it that time travel is discussed with complete respectability even though the grandfather paradox makes it impossible. However, the existence of an afterlife, ghosts, grey aliens, etc., are snickered at in spite of a large body of evidence, and NO PARADOX. Can someone please explain that to me?

Georgina Woodward

Tom, the electromagnetic radiation exists solely within uni-temporal Now along with all other things made of atoms and particles, but has the potential to be processes into an emergent space-time image reality.It can give the emergent image of a past event without being that event. It is not that event while existing merely as potential data and it is not that event when the emergent image reality is fabricated, it is a simulation of the event. The differentiation between material objects and their interactions and images of material objects and their apparent interactions has to be made. Its not my fault that Einstein didn't do that. I'm just pointing out that it needs to be done.

John, I see your confusion You are trying to get uni-temporal time within space time (riding light beam). That is the wrong way around though it is space time, the distributed electrmagnetic potential data field, that I have called the data pool, and all output image realities that are within uni-temporal Object reality.

It is possible because electromagnetic potential data and emergent images are not the same kind of thing as material objects. There is temporal spread built into the fabricated image because of the non instantaneous transmission of light but the image does not actually exist across time. The object reality set and the image reality set or perhaps I should say multi-verse of sets are not of the same kind. Which is why the containing set is able to have less dimensions than the sets it contains.

John Cox

Georgina,

As I had pointed out, a universal ubiquitous time metric is possible to construct under the constraint of light velocity being equivalent with the 'speed' of time (Unruh-translit.). But it is not, not-withstanding distributions of data points, any different than the psychologism you assert was Einstein's folly. And its unnecessary, it's redundant to the unitary fields it theoretically spawns. And a ubiquitous time space would be existant as the least density lower bound at infinity, because of the constraint of equivalent 'c' speed of time. All told, it's too high a price to keep R4 from taters. Sorry, my prejudice. One unitary field of a rest mass in aggregate of superpositions of affinity inherent to the zero boundary condition of a coherent state mass, is my gig.

It is not due Einstein's scientific acumen, that he is popular as a 'pascifist egghead' which spread with his fame in the wake of WWI. He had been one of a handful of Germain scientists to object to the militarization of science and the enthusiasm for it by most scientists during the war. Nobody understood the least of what General Relativity was about when a few news articles announced the confirmation recognition of Eddington's results. The populace in that era frequented amusement parks with many passive attractions. Bending light and warped spacetime were amusements like fun-house distorted mirrors. But he was adored for his humility (publicly) and genuine humanity, and his sense of continuity that societally carried across the abhorrent anomaly just past.

But firstly, Einstein was a hands on, designer-builder of electromechanical apparatus which influenced his researches and informed his theoretical scope. He was practical scientist in an age of practicality, and he was in the thick of the race in signals traffic electromechanical appliances. Fully grounded, and prolific in investigations of electromagnetism and Brownian Motion, with a Galilean relativity. Analytical survey of real-time systems operational efficiency towards a better theoretical predictability in signals transmission and relays were stock in trade in his time. It was a step or two outside the box for Albert Einstein to do SR. In a word, Existentialist

But these all go to foundational questions. Like its said, there's no wrong hole in a boat. jrc

Georgina Woodward

John,

You wrote "the psychologism you assert was Einstein's folly" What on Earth are you talking about? It seems you, like Tom, read things in what I have written that are just not there and then argue against them.It is extremely annoying. It was your misunderstanding of what I was saying that I was talking about. I haven't said anything here that might be construed as dissing Einstein other than " The differentiation between material objects and their interactions and images of material objects and their apparent interactions has to be made. Its not my fault that Einstein didn't do that."

Your first paragraph makes no sense to me it looks like English but I don't understand its meaning. You wrote " And its unnecessary, it's redundant to the unitary fields it theoretically spawns. And a ubiquitous time space would be existent as the least density lower bound at infinity, because of the constraint of equivalent 'c' speed of time." What ??? Self censored expression of exasperation. Quote "One unitary field of a rest mass in aggregate of superpositions of affinity inherent to the zero boundary condition of a coherent state mass, is my gig." What??? Each to their own then, you have fun with that.

The rest is biography of Einstein , I can see no relevance for it in our conversation or this topic "ripping apart Einstein" I thank you for reading my former posts. I have pointed out my agreement with Pentcho's point that time travel to past and future are impossible. Goodbye.

Eckard Blumschein

jrc,

You wrote: "a universal ubiquitous time metric is possible to construct under the constraint of light velocity being equivalent with the 'speed' of time (Unruh-translit.)" With "(Unruh-translit.)" you perhaps meant you translated German words into English with an online dictionary. Did you refer to a source in German or are you yourself responsible for the logically circular "speed of time"? Speed is logically based on time, not vice versa.

I consider Einstein much too mediocre as to be responsible for the mother of almost all confusion in physics. Does time move at all? What does it mean when one says time flows? Basic confusions tend to be based on lacking awareness of different points of view. Our usual time scale necessarily relates to an arbitrarily chosen point of reference. Even Christ's birth at midnight in Greenwich was not a natural zero. Everybody including you and me count age backward as the temporal distance of an event in the past from the only natural zero of elapsed time, i.e., from now. The scales of ordinary and elapsed time are steadily moving relative to each other. In this sense, time actually flows.

Having not yet read Georgina's many words, I guess, she might be pretty right while I contempt any attempt to reconcile mandatory theories with paradoxes.

Eckard

Jason Wolfe

Why is it that we can't alter the laws of physics and the physics constants? If we don't know how, then why is it that we don't know how? There was a time when most people believed in God, and God was good for getting it all started. But since God doesn't exist anymore, then why can't physicists answer my question?

« Previous Page Next Page »