Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit

LC,

I am perhaps the first one who sees argues that both x and t are not as physically real in the sense of measurable as are r and elapsed time t_e. Only The latter have natural zeros. You are perhaps quite right in that both the Parmesidean and what is not quite correctly labeled Heraclitean perspectives are related to each other by a non-commutative relationship. My essay 833 tries to explain why both views are redundant: Obedience of the natural restriction to exclusively positive distance and exclusively realized temporal distance is the key to the commutativity of half-matrices instead of Hermitean symmetry, i.e., instead of Heaviside's split into real and fictitious imaginary part. In order to get most easily understood I remind of distance matrices between cities. If distance between NY and SF is the same as between SF and NY then one merely needs a half-matrix.

Look at Fig. 1 in my 833 essay. Both measurable time t_e and frequency f are always positive. See hyperbolas of the quanta delta t_e times delta f = const.

Don't worry: Frequency corresponds to energy or momentum with respect to the object of concern while elapsed time corresponds to distance from object of concern.

Given I guessed correctly when you wrote: "This would work our in an interesting way" and "I could mean" you meant out instead of our and It instead of I. Nonetheless, I cannot understand you. Doesn't block time contradict human experience? Why is non-block time no time? Didn't I clearly enough explain why the basic notion of time is the only measurable (unilateral and perhaps potentially infinite) elapsed time?

Regards,

Eckard

This is a sort of noncommutative geometry. It is the quantization of geometry, or the field theoretic content that underlies geometry. A for block time being contrary to human experience or intution, those do not really count for much. The non-block time is just a system of spatial geometries which are related to each other by a diffeomorphism group. The notion of time is actually somewhat lost in this picture.

Cheers LC

LC,

"A[s] for block time being contrary to human experience or intution, those do not really count for much. The non-block time is just a system of spatial geometries which are related to each other by a diffeomorphism group. The notion of time is actually somewhat lost in this picture."

Now we're getting into some interesting turf indeed! Regarding whether human experience and intuition count for much, I simultaneously agree with you and disagree with you. Certainly, everyone must agree that human experience and intuition have proven to be extremely fallible. This fact is perfectly illustrated by the pre-Copernican belief that the sun revolves around the Earth.

On the other hand, however, human experience and intuition must count for something, because our empirical observations comprise the very bedrock foundation of science! If we dismiss empirical observations as unimportant (not really counting for much), then what are we left with as the basis for doing science?

I believe most would agree that science is about discovering the "best" explanation (which I take to mean the most useful explanation) for our empirical observations, i.e., for our human experience. The post-Copernican cosmology has proven itself to be more useful than the pre-Copernican cosmology. In the meantime, however, absolutely *nothing* in the universe changed, aside from the way we humans think about and interpret our empirical observations.

I continue to suspect that a similar disconnect is manifesting itself here at FQXi in our discussions about time. Perhaps it is not unlike debates which must have taken place in earlier days between those firmly entrenched in the pre- and post-Copernican views of cosmology, with both sides failing to comprehend what the other was trying to say.

Back to what you were saying above, however, I agree that non-block time is indeed a system of spatial geometries. Whether they are related to each other by a diffeomorphism group or not I can't say off hand, but I agree with you that the notion of time (certainly the conventional notion of time) is indeed actually somewhat lost in this picture.

When paradigms come into conflict, the outcome typically has been decided on the basis of which paradigm is more successful in explaining empirical observations in the least complicated way. Thomas Kuhn's book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' offers a fascinating look at this phenomenon. I suspect that we're witnessing (and participating in) the early stages of just such a conflict of paradigms regarding the fundamental nature of time. As the saying goes, time will tell!

jcns

LC,

Even McTaggart distinguished between what Maxwell called objectism (presentism) and eventism. While my view is different, I am also distinguishing between two notions. What is your notion of time? I guess you are an eventist. Correct?

Regards,

Eckard

Marcel,

Most of what John is referring to is thermodynamics and phase spaces this should be obvious to all physicists.

"This appears to be the typical struggle when we mix elements of our reality and element[s] of a real universe as can be deduced from various accepted theories.

1- future, present and past are true in our reality because we have no choice about it, this is the way we think and work. Period. There is no sense in screaming and kicking about it.

2- The real universe is different from our reality and can be inferred/deduced from literal understanding of SR & GR. and applying it to something that exists"

You are deducing your conclusion is "true" from various "accepted theories". Your conclusion may be "valid" when deduced from your "premises". Telling John that (1) is true and there is no sense in screaming and kicking about it is dogmatic and rude. In (2) it seems you are deducing the true nature of reality through mathematical realism. I agree that the perception of time is better understood in other disciplines. However, I find it interesting there are no (credible) accounts of someone remembering the future. Why is it necessary to create the dichotomy between our reality and that of SR and GR? We are apart of that reality, we are "something that exists".

Most of these posts are nothing more than jargon filled talking points. John is genuinely curious and he is creating his own model about this subject while everyone else, myself included, is pedantic and snobbish. John is a passionate, curious and stubborn autodidact which is in the spirit of Einstein. He has no funding or experienced colleagues to assist him. We should motivate this type of person to keep going and not shut them down and ignore their ideas. Marcel perhaps you also have that independent spirit too. There is a fine line between constructive criticism and ego crushing comments. Save the latter for the celebrity scientists they are the ones who need the reality check.

If I may interject here, I appreciate and agree wholeheartedly with Nemo's defense of John's posts. I happen to see John and myself as fellow travelers in many regards. Moreover, the concept which John is working mightily to describe and explain in his own words is, if I'm not mistaken, his own version of the same view which I've espoused regarding the nature of time, and which I've tried to set forth in purely qualitative terms in several essays such as those which may be found here and here. It's my own view that this represents a different and useful paradigm for thinking about the fundamental nature of time, as I have discussed elsewhere in this blog and others.

jcns

One more proof of C-field announced yesterday:

"The longest-running project in NASA's history has completed its mission. Gravity Probe B has finally confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around as it rotates like a spoon twisting in a jar of honey, mission scientist announced at a May 4 NASA press briefing."

"Other experiments had already confirmed this "frame-dragging" effect, predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

To suggest that "our understanding of spacetime and, in turn, the speed of light, may need to be rewritten" without referring to the possible falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (Is the speed of light really independent of the speed of the emitter?) is not quite fair.

Strange, for the reports I am getting suggest nothing about a C* field. These results are basically analogous to the Faraday effect in electromagnetism. A moving charge is associated with a magnetic field. In a weak field limit the Einstein field equations are very similar to the Maxwell equations, and the motion of mass, or the rotation of a mass, is associated with a gravitational analogue of a magnetic field.

Cheers LC

Dear Pentcho,

If we consider photons as electromagnetic waves, then it is very likely that they behave like phonons, i.e. waves in elastic media: They do not directly depend on the motion of the emitter relative to the receiver, and their velocity of propagation is limited.

In so far, the emitter theory by Ritz was presumably wrong while Ritz was definitely correct in that the future does not yet exist.

We need not imagine photons like particles (bullets) because static electric and magnetic fields in "empty" space do obviously not require a carrying medium. They might rather constitute their own ether, possibly subject to dragging effects which were already discussed at the time of Stokes.

Anyway, there is no reason to look for a mistake by questioning c, since Poincarè's round-trip (de)synchronization is obviously an illegitimate merger of past and future.

Regards,

Eckard

I am studying a my article, and I obtain some problem that I don't understand totally.

The first problem is the mass definition: it seem not a fundamental constant in the Einstein equations, because only the metric tensor and the stress-energy tensor are the fundamental quantities in relativity, so that only a metric, and energy-momentum, measure is enough.

The second problem is the entanglement problem, with my Scheibe equation or the Wheeler-DeWitt equation there is not a quantum solution that depends on the speed of light, but only on the metric tensor in the spacetime: so if I obtain a zero-point energy (single quantum system) of a macroscopic state near 0° K (like spinglass system), and I make a separation in two macroscopic states near 0° K , then the change of the spin orientation near 0° K can be used to obtain the change of the quantum system of the other part in an instantaneous time (speed limit greater of speed of the light); so it seem possible a transmission between two entanglement-transmission apparatus of a character encoding (there is ever the speed limit for the apparatus, but it is possible a speed violation for the transmission).

It seem possible a multiple transmission using a little perturbation that change, and bring back in the initial state, a little set of the macroscopic state.

Saluti

Your gravito-magnetic field within your C* field theory is a completely different notion than the magnetic analogue in general relativity due to moving or rotating masses.

Cheers LC

You don't know what you're talking about.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

If one understands reality then issues over whether light speed has historically altered can be put into a proper context. One would have to find entities where their perceived rate of change(it might be pulsation, movement, light shift, whatever)throws up an anomaly. That is, the rate of change is different from what would be expected given relative movement. However, since these variables are intertwined, ie one calulates space and relative movement as a function of light quality, I am not sure if it is possible to escape this conundrum, ie light may always appear to be constant because it provides the basis of the calculation. It might be a case of (going back to my chilhood when watching TV), 'yes it is the transmission that is actually faulty but all you can do is pointlessly adjust the controls'.

I don't know, I'm not a physicist, I'm just pointing out the fundamental nature of the problem.

Paul Reed

Edwin,

That's uncalled for. Lawrence isn't the only one who sees no role for an additional field to explain the Lense-Thirring effect.

Tom

Tom,

I've told you that there is not an "additional" field, but you wish not to understand this point. As usual you ignore what I've stated, and simply repeat what you've said before. That's why I try to ignore you. Lawrence has not studied my essays, nor asked me questions, nor read the four books I've written on this point, but has the arrogance to tell me that my theory does not concern gravito-magnetism. His statements about my theory that are incorrect, based on nothing but his ignorance of my theory:

"Your gravito-magnetic field within your C* field theory is a completely different notion than the magnetic analogue in general relativity due to moving or rotating masses."

He did not have the grace to say, "If you mean this..." or "What do you mean by...". No, he implies that I have been developing a theory of gravito-magnetism for five years and I don't know what I'm talking about. Only he understands gravito-magnetism.

I have opinions about what it is that you and Lawrence don't understand about physics, but it's been evident for over a year that you and Lawrence do not appreciate my arguments, and I do not appreciate yours, so I don't take it seriously. I suspect Lawrence's problem is tied to his beliefs about geometry and symmetry, and that he can't see outside that box. But whatever drives his statement, it was inappropriate. And considering some of the things that you have said in comments to other participants, I don't need you to tell me what's uncalled for, either.

Lawrence could have simply said, "The gravito-magnetic field within your C-field theory appears to be completely different from my notion of the magnetic analogue in general relativity due to moving or rotating masses."

That would have been a true statement and not insulting, only a statement of his own limitations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"I've told you that there is not an 'additional' field, but you wish not to understand this point."

Who could? If it were not an additional field, you would have no need to call it by an addiitonal name.

Tom

With all respect, I think you undermine your case when you claim support from sources that clearly do not refer to your theory's predictions, and in a non-trivial sense, contradict them.

The Maeda et al paper on the non-dispersing wave packets of the Bohr atom does not describe a natural guiding wave that determines particle position, in the way that you have it. The classical Bohr planetary model, as the authors describe, is employed as an idealization of an orbital electron - that is, while we know that an electron does not really obey a circular orbit around an atomic nucleus as Bohr originally thought, it was (and is) instructive to think of it that way, in order to assign the electron any classical properties at all. Using the pulsed electric field, the experimenters find, sharply defines the ideal particle location by reducing the particle's quantum state to a classical orbit. This demonstrates that classical properties were native to the electron all along - however, so were the quantum properties that we already knew about, which supports wave-particle duality, not the locally realistic theory you espouse.

The importance of these results is to open the door to new experimentation on the electron as a classical object, other than the well known "bullet" scenario. We already have plenty of results on electron quantum mechanical properties.

Were Maeda et al to support your C field theory, you would not only have to show that the quantum mechanical electron model is wrong (i.e., that the electron truly obeys a classical orbit without the advantage of imposing microwave pulses), but that Kepler was also wrong (i.e., that planetary orbits are really circular after all). This latter conclusion follows, because a classical planetary model unified by a singular field has to hold for all orbital relations. Ironically, it would probably be easier to argue why planetary orbits are only _apparently_ elliptical than to argue why the electron orbit is only apparently dispersed.

To the idea that confirmation of the Lense-Thirring effect supports your results:

I doubt that many relativists ever expected it to turn out otherwise, because the effect is a straightforward prediction of the interaction of mass with spacetime. Equally, quantum theorists tend not to get overly excited these days at another new confirmation of quantum nonlocality. These tests are important to maintain scientific integrity; at this point, however, only negative results (a la Michelson-Morley) would be Earth-shaking.

Edwin, I offer this criticism in the interest of intellectual discourse. If we can keep it that way and refrain from personal references, I would be happy to continue. If my understanding is lacking, I would be happy to be set straight.

Tom

Tom,

You claim that "If my understanding is lacking, I would be happy to be set straight."

I find that not to be the case. I don't recall once that you've ever been 'set straight'.

When you encounter my mathematical arguments, you ignore them. You ignore all my statements. You don't evidence an open mind. I argue to defend a theory, some argue from psychological need. Such people can't be 'set straight'. They're a waste of time.

Edwin Eugene Klingman