Ripping Apart Einstein

pjackson

Eckard,

Thanks for your perception. Pentcho should respond. QM's uncertainty principle and Copenhagen interpretation are then also allowed compatibility with the SR postulates, if not the nonsensical assumption that only an 'absolute' background was possible, and subsequent confusion of 'interpretation'.

The recent confirmed uncertainty verification is here, showing that the wavelength CHANGES in presenting itself for measurement by complying with detector frame'c' (considered here as 'disturbance of the system').

DFM - Heisenberg 'Disturbance' confirmed.

The implications seem to be a little broader than is immediately apparent, as referred in my essays, which you should now find far more comprehendable.

Thanks

Peter

PS. Unfortunately Akinbo (below) seems clearly correct, as my post elsewhere. Your proposal is ok for a limited domain but incomplete. Simply adding Higgs field local propagation frames completes it entirely equivalent to the wavelength/speed 'frame change' solution above.

Fred Diether

Hi Tom,

I think what a lot of people are missing is that there is actually two different kinds of time. There is an absolute time related to the cosmos and the event that started this all. No matter which direction you look out into space, it points to the "big bang" event. Then there is proper time that is relativistic. It is more of a local kind of time.

Best,

Fred

John Merryman

Fred,

There is apparently two kinds of space as well. That which is expanding, based on the redshift of light and that which is stable, based on the speed of light, since this light is apparently being "carried" along by the expansion.

Remember light travels about 186,000 miles a second, so a lightyear is about a trillion miles. Therefore this measure of space has to remain constant, if those galaxies are moving apart, such that the light takes longer to travel from one to another.

The question is, which is Einstein's ruler? That which is constant, or that which is expanding? Which is the denominator and which is the numerator?

Or are we missing something else entirely?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

Fred,

True. I have run out of ways to explain it -- thanks for adding a clearer exposition.

John,

"Or are we missing something else entirely?"

Yes.

John Merryman

Tom,

Though we all think it is something different.

One way to consider the various options and proposals is as to how far into the model do we need a reset? Is this just a head cold, or 2nd stage lung cancer?

The establishment is the establishment because any system will naturally promote its most fervent believers and demote those more skeptical. Think financial markets, political parties and religious sects. So the nature is to build out as quickly as possible. This will include minor setbacks, given some proposals quickly collapse when the weight of further building is put on them, but we are now to the stage where the ideas being put forth are so airy and nebulous, they don't apply any real demands on those questionable prior levels and so the fact there is no breakage is taken as a sign all is well, even as those looking on, scratch their heads and lose interest.

The stage has come where the process starts to lose momentum. This usually leads to infighting. Now in this situation the existing split is between the more conservative groups/standard model and the more extravagant ones/strings, susy, multiverses, but the conservatives will have to look a little more deeply into themselves than they may wish, to find another direction this model leads. Some philosophy might be involved. Premises and assumptions might have to be examined. A whole can of worms that would be. Physics might go to the doctor for a cold and find it has cancer. It's happened before. Theories are mortal, even when their adherents think otherwise.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Though we all think it is something different."

Not those who trust relativity to be recovered within their models. I give little chance to any theory that defies special relativity or thermodynamics.

John Merryman

Tom,

How about theories which cannot distinguish between past and future, or why time goes in one direction? Are these theories incomplete, or to be considered proof there is no difference between past and future and the passage of time is only an illusion?

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

Akibo,

I wrote: "The speed of light IN VACUUM ... refers to the difference...". You are correct in that my sentence would be too simplistic if I did omit "in vacuum".

You also wrote: "How can light know in advance what its position on arrival will be?"

Is such teleological argument justified in this case? I don't think so.

The speed of light (in vacuum) is c relative to distances in space, and we used to agree on that if the distance between emitter and receiver changes during the time of flight then this relative to each other motion can be attributed to a constant velocity v. Don't confuse this v with any absolute i.e. referring to emitter, receiver, or medium velocity. Since there is no preferred point of reference in space, there is no absolute reference for a velocity and energy, too.

My consideration is distinguished from

- emitter theory that refers c to an absolute velocity of the emitter,

- Einstein's SR that refers c to the receiver/observer assumed at rest,

- Maxwell's aether theory that refers c to the absolute velocity of a conjectured light-carrying medium.

What about time, those like Tom who believe in spacetime ignore that there is an absolute zero of elapsed time. They have even trouble with the still to be capitalized (like God) Big Bang. To them, believed finiteness of time from the moment of creation implies finiteness of space.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

I am sorry, I cannot see how the paper you quoted confirms your DFM and allows "compatibility with the SR postulates, if not the nonsensical assumption that only an 'absolute' background was possible, and subsequent confusion of 'interpretation'..".

Maybe, I will never understand your reasoning. If you are as intelligent as you are claiming them you will perhaps be able to explain what is wrong with my own reasoning instead of declaring it incomplete. Are your "Higgs field local propagation frames" more consistent with Michelson's null result than Maxwell's aether?

Eckard

John Merryman

Ps,

Yet from the constant dynamic of change explicit to thermodynamics, one would think the unidirectional sequencing to be fundamental. How do you related the physics of thermodynamics and the math of special relativity?

Or are they just separate and apply to different models, like QM and GR?

Thomas Ray

"Yet from the constant dynamic of change explicit to thermodynamics, one would think the unidirectional sequencing to be fundamental."

Why?

John Merryman

Tom,

Does a thermodynamic system go in reverse? Do hot gases start to contract and sink, relative to cold ones, do vortices and eddies start spinning in the other direction and pushing out what they had been pulling in? Isn't thermodynamics classical physics and wouldn't the inertia of the system mitigate against it going the other direction? Thermodynamics means temperature propelled systems and temperature is a function of energy, so wouldn't that mean the energy being reversed and isn't the premise of energy that it is a force, so reversing it would seem to go against its essential nature.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Does a thermodynamic system go in reverse?"

Yes.

"Do hot gases start to contract and sink, relative to cold ones, do vortices and eddies start spinning in the other direction and pushing out what they had been pulling in?"

No.

"Isn't thermodynamics classical physics ..."

Yes.

" ... and wouldn't the inertia of the system mitigate against it going the other direction?"

No.

"Thermodynamics means temperature propelled systems ..."

No.

" ... and temperature is a function of energy, ..."

No.

" ... so wouldn't that mean the energy being reversed ..."

No.

"... and isn't the premise of energy that it is a force, ..."

No.

"... so reversing it would seem to go against its essential nature."

No.

John Merryman

Tom,

Then can you give me a thumbnail sketch of thermodynamics that doesn't have an energy based dynamical change, where a directional sequence cannot be derived, thus nothing that would resemble the temporal effect of changing configuration?

In other words, thermodynamics compatible with blocktime.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

yes.

Thomas Ray

John, I reply often to you and James, because I see you as two sides of a coin. I think you are wrong, and go too far. I think James is right and doesn't go far enough.

James says "All is controlled," and I agree, with the addition of a qualifier " ... by you." Everyone's "I" implies an infinity of "you's" and everyone's "you" implies a singularity of "I". In other words, there is nothing external to either I or you that controls anything, i.e., that serves as a cause to the effects we experience.

The support with which I can defend this assertion, comes from thermodynamics:

I hope you have digested the first page of the lecture on the first law before you read this.

Peter Atkins, whom many (including I) regard as one of the best physical chemists in the world, solved Aristotle's first-cause paradox by postulating an "infinitely lazy creator." This postulate perfectly defines the limit of the least action principle. It's also observed to be true physically -- the equilibrium state at every scale assures us that while we do not observe reversibility of events, we do experience reversibility of processes.

All best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

I will read that shortly and have no problem with being wrong. The whole trial and error thing, most of us are also rans. One point first;

"while we do not observe reversibility of events, we do experience reversibility of processes."

I have no problem with reversibility of processes, although it would seem some principle of least action would mean it would take far less energy to knock a cup off the table, then to reverse the consequences.

Time, on the other hand, might be measured in terms of particular processes, but the overall effect has to be explained as well and I will be interested to see how this essay on thermodynamics covers blocktime.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

Just started reading. Lol. Did you read it?

"- Thus no truly reversible processes exist. However, many systems are

approximately reversible. And assuming reversible processes will greatly aid

our calculations of various thermodynamic state functions. "

John Merryman

Tom,

I admit I started skimming it after the first few pages, but it all seem to prove my point that the effects of time are not thermodynamically reversible. The relevant part;

"Reversibility

A reversible process is a process where the effects of following a thermodynamic

path can be undone be exactly reversing the path.

An easier definition is a process that is always at equilibrium even when undergoing a

change.

Phase changes and chemical equilibria are examples of reversible processes.

Ideally the composition throughout the system must be homogeneous.

- This requirement implies that the no gradients, currents or eddys can exist.

- To eliminate all inhomogeneities, a reversible process must occur infinitely

slow!

- Thus no truly reversible processes exist. However, many systems are

approximately reversible. And assuming reversible processes will greatly aid

our calculations of various thermodynamic state functions.

Reversibility during pressure changes ensures that

p = pex

That is, the pressure on the inside of the container is always equal to the pressure

exerted on the outside of the container."

So basically even only the most contained, ordered and simple processes can be reversed. What am I missing?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"So basically even only the most contained, ordered and simple processes can be reversed. What am I missing?"

Oh, just the most minor thing, John. The principle of least action, which is one of the most important physical principles that exists.

Lenny Susskind and Geroge Hrabvosky have the most delightful literary conceit built into their otherwise serious book, *The Theoretical Minimum.* Opening every chapter is a mock dialogue between "Lenny and George," in the manner of Steinbeck. Here's the one that opens the chapter on the principle of least action:

"Lenny was frustrated--not a good sign considering his size and strength--and his head hurt. "George, I can't remember all this stuff! Forces, masses, Newton's equations, momentum, energy. You told me that I didn't need to memorize stuff to do physics. Can't you just make it one thing to remember?"

"Okay, Lenny. Calm down. I'll make it simple. All you have to remember is that action is always stationary."

« Previous Page Next Page »