Real-Time Physics

Pentcho,

"if the consequence is unacceptable, the postulate must be false." Not necessarily. As I found out, the mistake can instead be attributed to the admittedly intended by Einstein misleading interpretation of the first, not the second postulate. I see this insight a key to what bothers not just Smolin.

A second obstacle is a lack of awareness among theoreticians that the symmetrical laws of nature, in terms of differential equations, are abstractions from reality. Everybody who watches a movie that shows typical real processes is able to judge whether the arrow of playback direction corresponds to causality. Mathematical models deliver both a realistic retarded and a unreal advanced solution.

Moreover, reality differs from records and mathematical models in that there is not just a direction but also an actual current border between past and future.

Eckard

I still do not know why you are being so coy about Smolin's arguments...Smolin wrote a whole book that said simply, "Time is real." I agree, time is real.

"Smolin cautiously complained: "according to conventional wisdom ... time is an illusion that emerges from some deeper physics." He just "begs to differ". Perimeter institute would hardly tolerate readiness for seriously asking to what extent SR and spacetime are wrong. Meandering search for even more silly alternatives are more welcome so far. I admire Hermann Weyl for frankly admitting "at present there is no explanation for the symmetry between past and future ...Steve, I cannot see your theory invalidating Smolin's arguments for real-time physics."

Matter time is all about the reality of time...it is space that not primal, merely emergent. Frankly, I do not know if you are agreeing or disagreeing with matter time. Nothing about matter time contradicts Smolin, who has his own cute little loop quantum gravity that very few like.

Somehow you seem to think that because light oscillates in time, that it also oscillates in space. Of course, by standard physics, this is called the dispersion relation and all of mainstream physics is built around it.

"However, if f remains the same and the medium changes, λ will change and c will change as well. So, IMHO when there is a variation in electromagnetic vibration, all aspects should be examined. Is it source frequency that is changing or is it the ambient medium that is changing?"

However, what if our notion of space comes from the oscillation of light it time? Space is then only what we imagine because light and time and matter and action. Light would not really have a wavelength in an existant space, bur rather we imagine space as a distance in time oscillations between two objects.

Peter,

In addition to what I posted earlier and what you said about, "accelerating an electron towards c round a collider tube". Something occurred to me. If the equation applicable is me = m/в€љ(1-v2/c2), and it is correct, then the electron's mass approaches the infinite. If such an electron hits a target, its momentum will be ~mec. I think if we examine this thoroughly we will see that such mass increase to infinity is an illusion and not real. Such an accelerated electron fired at a mountain can blow it up based on momentum conservation laws (and Newton's action-reaction law)! This does not appear to be the case. If it is not the case, then this is another reason to abandon Lorentz factor. But on another note, if it is, perhaps we can use that technology to blow up any earth bound asteroid to prevent a disaster?

I read somewhere that Einstein (honest man that he is) abandoned this rest mass-relativistic mass concept, reversing himself and saying mass is 'invariant'.

Eckard,

(from the other thread) There was no data on cosmic microwave, pulsar light in 1905. So Einstein was justified then to say, "But ALL experiments..."

Steve,

"However, what if our notion of space comes from the oscillation of light it time?"

What of people that don't know what is called light? Do blind people have a notion of space? Do they walk around? Do they grope in the dark to find objects in the room? Perception of space seems to be independent of perception of light.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Oh ye of little faith! If theory can't match findings it needs binning. You're rooting around lost in the bin Akinbo. I don't have time, but will just point to the errors;

1) When particles in the LHC are collided it's found the DO have that additional energy! It's no 'illusion'. You'll find the speed dependent relative energy the same with cars approaching you! And just check out the 'power curve' of the synchrotron radiation emitted as the plasma density increases. I't precisely described by the Lorentz factor. It's not just the 'rabbit from the hat. That's only simplistic thinking. It was known long before M&M that light 'hits a wall' at c. The undeniable (without delusion!) effect is caused by a real physical mechanism.

2) Doppler Shift. Again you disappoint as I've rationalised this before for you more than once! You've again forgotten Maxwell's near/far field transition that every antenna engineer knows intimately! Just look closer;

Two identical emitters oscillate at identical rates OK? So they both emit into the NEAR field (as close as a few nm) at the same wavelength and speed. OK? Now the ambient medium is the FAR field. If one is dense and the other diffuse, the latter speed is higher so wavelength longer. A very dense medium slows each wave in turn, so compresses them, which IS Christian Doppler's wavelength change, or rather one 'case' of it (remember f is only the derivative).

Analysis; The medium (dielectric constant) factor 'n' (giving propagation speed) has an effect on wavelength independent the the (any) kinetic effects.

Akinbo,

In the thread "Ripping..." you somehow mixed text by Him with your comments without the due separation e.g. by means of [ ] or the like.

Eckard

Eckard, you are right. Sorry about the confusion. Will you be able to translate some of Einstein's papers from German to English? Many of the papers still remain untranslated I wonder why?

Akinbo

The concept of space is a very useful and indeed essential part of our consciousness. It is how we keep track of objects and actions and so all of our senses return nothing, no change, when we do not sense an object.

"What of people that don't know what is called light? Do blind people have a notion of space? Do they walk around? Do they grope in the dark to find objects in the room? Perception of space seems to be independent of perception of light."

A blind person depends more on touch and sound, but the principle is the same. When we sense two objects, we deduce a time separation between them and we imagine that the lack of sensation between those objects is the nothing of empty space.

Our sensations are all neural impulses whether they are touch or sight or sound or smell or taste. All sensation is an exchange of matter with objects and light is just a part of object matter that is how they are held together. When we touch an object, we likewise sense by exchanging matter how the object is put together just like when we sense its light.

However, that being said, it still does not mean that space is axiomatic since you can describe all of action with just matter and time without an knowledge or reference to the nothing of empty space. Moreover, imagining action without space allows you to get a sense of the true nature of our underlying reality with proper time and matter. Then, all you need do is multiply dtau by c and you are back into space.

Steve,

"Our sensations are all neural impulses..." discretely so, yet not in any known metronomic. Genetically the neural complexity produces mental processes from which emerge behavior. Theorizing is a complex of behavioral patterns not the mental process itself. So the quantum mechanical view that continuous function can be explained as a 'smoothing out' of a manifold of small enough events is very descriptive of human conscious awareness. That being said, it does not follow the quantumized description is axiomatic of the reality. We can somehow perceive that there is continuous function but we can only have a vague idea of what we call 'continuum', being limited by the very discreteness of neural impulses. Underlying the quantum macroscopic, metronomic experience may well be a continuum of what metamorphizes as; space, time and energy. :) jrc

Reality may be continuous, but a discrete reality sure works well. The idea of matter exchange of very small particles being the underlying reality seems like a winner to me.

"Underlying the quantum macroscopic, metronomic experience may well be a continuum of what metamorphizes as; space, time and energy."

That spacetime is doomed according to Arkani-Hamed is a little bit of rhetorical device since nowhere in his talk does he really make it clear. Is space doomed? Or time? Or is it just the unity of space and time that is doomed?

"Do the topic "real-time" and Pentcho's denial of spacetime relate to the question of continuity?"

It would be nice for more clarity...Presumably mass-energy equivalence (MEE) is true, therefore the Lorentz invariance follows from MEE. Lorentz invariance means that c does not depend on velocity, but note that c can still change for other reasons than velocity. Gravity changes c, index of refraction changes c, acceleration changes c, and of course the decay of the universe changes c.

Relativity and gravity are still continuum theories, with or without spacetime. Quantum theory is discrete with or without spacetime.

"Just an aside concerning the often claimed digital function of neurons: Neural systems tend to have no common sampling time, not even approximately, because there are multiple analogous dependencies to the thresholds of firing, and refractory time does also vary a lot."

There definitely are modes in neural impulses...they are called EEG waves. The fundamental mode is called the delta mode at ~1.6 Hz, the heartbeat mode of unconsciousness, and the alpha mode at 7 x delta, 11 Hz, the mode of consciousness. By pairing neurons firing at delta, the brain creates attractor/repeller packets that condense into a moment of thought.

A moment of thought is a neural packet of aware matter that is analogous to the digital internet packet, but while an internet packet holds 2 kB, a neural packet can hold several tens of MB of equivalent data. So there is a timing in neural network processing, it just varies according to the variation of the delta wave.

Eckard,

The issue of continuity goes straight to the lamentable lack of a classical model of atomic structure. The successes of application of the QM regime in technologies severely weights any debate, and I think it is too seldom noted that Planck's solution to the Violet Catastrophe was an ad hoc idea that worked. Bohr's instantaneous quantum leap and Schrodinger's analytical equation (which he never explained) simply agree with the consistent observation of 'h'. The disjunction occurs with the wavelength emerging instantaneously at light velocity rather than as being a time dependent classical ejection of energy which assumes a straight line trajectory in an apparent differentiation of a finite quantity. What has evolved as the standard model has effectively deterred any real efforts to explain the wave particle duality in a realistic physical model necessary to construct an alternative hypothesis of a continuous 'flow' of energy within an electronic mass or as constituent of an atomic mass, which as a special case emerges as an electromagnetic waveform. On this I think we would be in general agreement. Regards, jrc

Continuity is indeed a key distinction between GR and QM. Your lamentations are my inspiration...

"The issue of continuity goes straight to the lamentable lack of a classical model of atomic structure."

In GR, the starting point for motion is the a priori existence of both rest and moving frames and it is the distortion of 4-space that results in continuous motion between a past rest frame and a future moving frame. In QM, rest and moving frames do not exist until the a priori excitation of a superposition of matter waves with complementary momenta, both moving into the future with respect to the ground or rest state of the past. A quantum excitation induces a step change from a stationary or rest ground state by a discrete jump in energy, h, and so all QG motion is quantized.

In GR, the starting point for motion presumes the a priori existence of two states; a rest frame of the past and a moving frame of the future, and the gravity field distorts 4-space. So GR moves continuously from a rest to a moving frame, from a past to a future, in a 4-space even while the balance of the universe moves with complementary momentum into the complementary future. In GR, the a priori existence of rest and moving states along with a rest and moving clocks means that there is no absolute frame of reference...and there are always two different clocks running.

In QM, two moving states and two clocks begin with the a priori quantum excitation from a stationary ground state of two bound particles at arbitrary phase. The stationary ground state left behind in the past, the source, provides an absolute frame of reference for observer of all future action, but with an indeterminate phase.

Did the universe begin with the complementary motion of deterministic particle norms with two different clocks or did the universe begin with the excitation of two bound particle amplitudes with uncertain initial phases? To reconcile charge and gravity forces, just reconcile these two different a priori concepts.

Steve,

I would argue against a past and future tense in a continuous model of the great crush of time that is gravity. Where QM accepts instantaneity in an a priori discrete jump to effect an quantization, I would argue that a continuous variation of velocity is simultaneously existential in a discrete matter state. It is that inherent connectivity via time that produces an inertial integrity across a corresponding density range, to use your parlance of 'matter'; matter is more mass-like at lower velocity and more energy-like at higher velocity.

Physics has no difficulty in accepting laminar flow as differentiating between different velocities within a homogeneous fluid, matter density should be no different. The rest state of nil velocity would have a time metric of 0sec/sec, and the zero boundary condition of least density at a light velocity state would have a time metric of 1sec/sec. The gradient would be an exponential coefficient of light velocity, but the limit to magnitudes of c deceleration into greater density would be proportional to the total inertial quantity. In the proverbial nutshell... gravity only seems to be the weakest force at great distances, but exponentially at the microscale it shows itself so strong that a matter state of lower density can be drawn into a volume of a larger quantity with a proportionally greater density limit that is isolated by it's time metric, and because the lesser quantity cannot then be assimilated, it is 'squeezed' out again. It would be easier to probabilistically determine among the myriad of such events, if any one such event would classically depart the squeeze with all its original energy quantity or be amplified by other coincident events. So I don't advocate the abolishment of QM, just tired of its claim of exclusivity. :-) jrc

Very good. Now you are down to the nitty-gritty.

"Where QM accepts instantaneity in an a priori discrete jump to effect an quantization, I would argue that a continuous variation of velocity is simultaneously existential in a discrete matter state."

There is really no instantaneity in QM, there is rather a time for the evolution of each excitation where matter and time represent a pure superposition of states that then evolve into two complementary matter waves with two complementary and coherent clocks. So quantum states evolve continuously just like classical states.

Moreover, QM rest and moving clocks combine into a proper time norm of experience just like GR, but those QM clocks can also interfere with each other, especially in some future action involving the moving clock complement.

In GR, the continuous evolution of the rest and moving clock norms into a proper time means that the two clocks can never show interference effects. In other words, the amplitudes and phases of neither matter nor time figure into continuous norms of GR action.

You note that at some small scale as well as some large scale, gravity force dominates over charge force. What QM tells us, though, is that it is exactly at those scales where the GR fails. Relativity's failure to incorporate the amplitude and phase of matter and time means that there are no valid predictions of gravity action at these limits.

Of course, mass-energy equivalence also precludes any QM predictions at these same limits...until matter time comes to the rescue with that new term that stabilizes boson matter inside of the containment of the event horizon torus of an outer matter accretion disk.

In any event, you need some scheme to patch up four critical GR flaws; event horizon, Planck limit, galaxy rotation, and clock interference. The simple expedient of inner to outer momentum transfer due to matter decay seems to take care of the first three of these issues. But the mechanics of GR deal only with the norms of matter and time and so GR is structurally incapable of incorporating clock interference into action.

Only QM allows interference and with interference comes quantization and the evolution of superimposed matter waves. However, it does appear that there is a Schrödinger metric for a proper time amplitude in QM whose norm becomes the proper time norm of GR. That metric now includes the extra momentum transfer term due to matter decay.

What this means is that the GR distortion of space is a valid methodology that incorporates the norms of matter and time for GR deterministic action. However, to predict certain actions it is necessary to incorporate the amplitudes and phases of matter and time, not just the norms. And only QM has the necessary structure to carry the amplitudes and phases of matter and time.

Steve and John C,

"Lorentz invariance follows from MEE"? To my knowledge, it was not Heaviside's explanation of the observed inertia of electric charge but the attempt to rescue the hypothesis of a light-carrying medium that led to Lorentz invariance hypothesis.

"electromagnetic waveform. On this I think we would be in general agreement."?

Being an EE, I am not even in agreement with myself about how a propagating electromagnetic waveform alias wave packet looks like. If a signal symmetrically extends from minus infinity to plus infinity then I see it non-causal.

I am still pretty sure that future data are not measurable in advance.

Some early essays of mine show spectrograms that were accordingly calculated on the basis of IR instead of IR.

While Heaviside's trick to split the non-existing future data into mutually extinguishing parts of even and odd components was clever, it does not justify restricting physics to non-real physics.

If real-time physics does not fit into the theory of spacetime, then this theory might not correctly reflect reality.

Transformation into the complex domain includes an ARBITRARY choice of either clockwise or anti-clockwise direction of rotation. I see this one more indication for the necessity to question spacetime.

Eckard

WHY LORENTZ INVARIANCE IS DOOMED

Pentcho has pointed out the clear implication of postulate-consequence relation. If spacetime (consequence) is doomed , then Lorentz invariance (postulate) too is doomed.

And Eckard is right in pointing out to Steve and John C that it was "...the attempt to rescue the hypothesis of a light-carrying medium that led to Lorentz invariance hypothesis". That is what my own history of science too tells me.

Peter J, (if I understand him correctly) seems to believe in the philosophy of Lorentz invariance but does not agree with the equations (Arabic symbols he calls them) which express the invariance. This contravenes a variant of Pentcho's "postulate-consequence relation". How can one believe in a consequence when he does not wholly agree with the postulate?

For clarity, these are the Lorentz equations, with L, t and m being the length, time and mass for a frame stationary to observer and L', t' and m' for the length, time and mass moving relative to an observer.

(1) L' = Lв€љ(1 - v2/c2)

(2) t' = tв€љ(1 - v2/c2)

(3) m' = m/в€љ(1 - v2/c2)

So when there is no relative motion between the observer and what is observed, 'v' = 0. In that case, L' = L, t'= t, m' = m

Given a light source S and a receptor R, a certain distance apart, i.e.

S---------->R -->

If on light emission, R moves away while the light is in transit, we would expect signal arrival time to be delayed. If this does not occur, it will be surprising. In the Michelson-Morley type experiment, this was searched for but did not occur and it was surprising. The result made it seem there was no change in the path length SR, as if it was contracted and not lengthened as should have been the case since R moved away. The amount of contraction is given by Eq.1. In the MM experiment, the 'v' considered was the earth orbital motion at 30km/s. Note that length contraction is for the scenario of the receptor R moving away from incoming light.

For the scenario with receptor R moving towards incoming light, i.e.

S---------->R

(reposted was cut-off by the system)

WHY LORENTZ INVARIANCE IS DOOMED

Pentcho has pointed out the clear implication of postulate-consequence relation. If spacetime (consequence) is doomed , then Lorentz invariance (postulate) too is doomed.

And Eckard is right in pointing out to Steve and John C that it was "...the attempt to rescue the hypothesis of a light-carrying medium that led to Lorentz invariance hypothesis". That is what my own history of science too tells me.

Peter J, (if I understand him correctly) seems to believe in the philosophy of Lorentz invariance but does not agree with the equations (Arabic symbols he calls them) which express the invariance. This contravenes a variant of Pentcho's "postulate-consequence relation". How can one believe in a consequence when he does not wholly agree with the postulate?

For clarity, these are the Lorentz equations, with L, t and m being the length, time and mass for a frame stationary to observer and L', t' and m' for the length, time and mass moving relative to an observer.

(1) L' = Lв€љ(1 - v2/c2)

(2) t' = tв€љ(1 - v2/c2)

(3) m' = m/в€љ(1 - v2/c2)

So when there is no relative motion between the observer and what is observed, 'v' = 0. In that case, L' = L, t'= t, m' = m

Given a light source S and a receptor R, a certain distance apart, i.e.

S---------->R -->

If on light emission, R moves away while the light is in transit, we would expect signal arrival time to be delayed. If this does not occur, it will be surprising. In the Michelson-Morley type experiment, this was searched for but did not occur and it was surprising. The result made it seem there was no change in the path length SR, as if it was contracted and not lengthened as should have been the case since R moved away. The amount of contraction is given by Eq.1. In the MM experiment, the 'v' considered was the earth orbital motion at 30km/s. Note that length contraction is for the scenario of the receptor R moving away from incoming light.

For the scenario with receptor R moving towards incoming light, i.e.

S---------->R

(cut-off again). I post the remaining part...

For the scenario with receptor R moving towards incoming light, i.e.

S---------->R