|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5149 days) Posts: 24 From: Chorley, Lancs, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Speed of Light | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Off-topic content hidden. See Message 120 for explanation. Meta comments about discussion in this thread should be taken to Peanut Gallery. Discussions on other topics should be taken to other threads, or new threads may be proposed at Proposed New Topics. --Admin
Dear Bolder-dash
You say: who is an authority worth believing when it comes to particle-physics and the like? To me that is a very healthy question, revealing the dysfunctional state of contemporary Physics. For instance as Richard Feynman has stated: No-one understands quantum physics’. TO YOURSELF AND THE FORUM:Certainly, as you say, an inability to follow a logical argument is not the unique skill of physicists. Indeed, it seems to be the ‘skill’ of just about everyone who has been conditioned within our fractioned Western Education System. So my a answer to your question would be: At this present time. no authority can be trusted but oneself, armed with whatever Modern Education may have left in us of straightforward Commonsense Logic. What I’m saying, in other words, is that the situation in our failing present-day physics is; Every man for himself. So, the only survivors in this sea of modern confusion are the good swimmers, those who, undoubtedly like yourself, are not conned into believing that the ship is not sinking, and are wise enough to swim away from it as far as possible rather than getting sucked down with it. Now, as you so rightly say, Evolutionary thought requires as much philosophy as it does science but (that) it seems the rare man who can combine the two in his brain. This puts me in mind of the nineteenth century philosopher-physicist, Ernst Mach, who was as much a philosopher as he was a physicist. I heartily agree with what you say about Cavediver. It is much as I would have said to him if I’d have summoned up the nerve. I also agree with you completely that String Theory is a fairy tale For me it is neither philosophy nor science but pure metaphysics. If I may be so bold, I’d like to take this opportunity to expand, for the forum in general on what I said about Mach. This is as follows. When people talk about ‘Physics’ nowadays they inevitably think of just one kind of physics, whereas in fact there are two. That is to say, there are two historical strands of the subject which are logically incommensurable. However, only one of these, up to this present time has, as it were, been fully ‘road-tested’ on the public highway, but which has now, unfortunately, failed the test. This is Extant, or mainline physics, the Physics we ordinarily know and love; physics as it has been taught for generations or, indeed, centuries in our schools and universities. So deeply is it embedded in us that it seems as though it came with our mother’s milk, so that to contemplate any other radically different kind of physics seems well-nigh impossible. The fact is, however, that there does exist an entirely different historical strand, or paradigm, of physics which so far has not been ‘road tested’ to anything like the extent of standard orthodox Physics. This is the approach to the subject led by the physicist and philosopher, Ernst Mach. This was the physics from which Einstein borrowed the concept of observer-dependence, or relativity. And that’s where the rot starts. Whereas the subject matter of both kinds of physics is the same — that, is, physical PHENOMENA — the Machian, or relativist approach to phenomena is based on direct or unmediated observation. On the other hand, the standard paradigm, the quaintly called ‘Realist’ approach, is to regard phenomena as mediated by light as the space travelling ‘middle man’ between real physical objects and our observations of them. These two opposite, incommensurable ways of thinking simply do not and cannot possibly gel. The fact that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity seeks to combine them makes that Theory the greatest mind-twister in the history of physical science. Those who claim to understand it just have to be deluded, since they claim, in effect, to understand the impossible, that is to say, to ‘understand’ something that is, in fact, completely self-contradictory and incomprehensible. And this, of course, is where, in Physics, Logic began to be abandoned. By contrast, in the Machian approach to physics, there is no such contradiction, because there is no ‘middle-man’ in the shape of ‘light-velocity’, so that the deal, as it were, is between the ‘consumer’ and the ‘producer, direct. Moreover, in the Machian — or, rather, now the Neo-Machian — physics paradigm there is none of the conflict between relativistic and quantum physics that has bedevilled the Extant Theory since its very inception. The Machian approach, at its very root, is as quantised as it is relativistic, which, if it were instituted, would change the whole complexion of physics and physics teaching. This, of course, threatens a serious social upheaval, so that it is only to be expected that any prospect of its actually happening will be opposed on grounds more political than rational.
But how many of us on this Physics forum would put politics before scientific reason? How many of us, when ‘the ‘chips are down’ would be prepared to stand up for Reason against the Establishment’s need for maintaining peaceful, undemanding conformity with the elevated nonsense that our ‘priests’ of Modern Physics are peddling? My studied answer would be: very few, it seems. For the most part, NASA’s call for a ‘New Physics’ falls on completely deaf ears. Far from being progressive, too many members seem to prefer resisting progress all they can. For them it seems sufficient to keep chewing contentedly on a conceptual cud from which all sustenance has long disappeared. They say, in effect: I know enough about physics to suit me. Please don’t confuse me with any new ideas. And so the pantomime continues, with our Physics and Cosmology gone mad. with vain theoretical attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible, getting dafter by the minute. I suggest that if we are to help rather than hinder the progress of science, then in seeking the anticipated ‘New Physics’ we need look no further than the automatically quantised relativism of Mach. Unfortunately, Mach died before he was able fully to consummate his criticism of Einstein’s hybrid and confused rendering of his (Mach’s) relativity. However, Mach’s legacy lives on in the name of Normal Realism or, latterly, POAMS. This is the thesis that was presented to this forum for study and evaluation by the members, which, as ever was, is the proper way of going about things in scientific discourse. Unfortunately, that presentation has been met so far, for the most part, with little but the suspicion bred by the now common but paltry assumption that anyone putting forward anything radically new has to be on nothing more than an ego trip, just another competitor in the scrabble for fame and fortune. However, it is well to be aware of an old saying: Show me a man who cannot credit honesty and I’ll show you a charlatan. So, folks, the offer still stands. Do you want seriously to consider a possible way forward out of the current conceptual morass or remain just bickering over more and more dreary trivialities whilst remaining mired in it? My offer is to share with you my discovery of the vital relevance of Mach’s ‘ahead-of-his-time’ philosophical contribution to the advancement of science. For myself, I can see no other possible breakthrough, which is why I, together with some later converts (now colleagues) , have studied Mach’s method in depth for over half a century and, during that period, hopefully, have advanced Mach’s approach to physics in the way he would surely have done, had he lived long enough. So, rather than pointlessly keeping the results of that half-century’s study to myself and taking them to the grave, I offer them to you, as your claimed progressive group of scientists, for serious consideration as a prime candidate for the position of the ‘New Physics’ that everyone talks about but which no-one, so far, has had the nerve to propose. John Anderson of NASA says that in the unlikely event of a New Physics we should not miss it by having the wrong mindset. To this I would add: — and, most importantly, not for a failure of nerve. Do I make myself clear? Viv Pope PS,I am well aware that Physicists, nowadays, are taught next to nothing about Philosophy, a subject which scientists typically regard as taboo. I suggest that in order to break down that barrier and grasp what I am saying, the reader should, at the very least, acquaint himself/herself, on Google, with what ‘Phenomenalism’ and ‘Normal Realism’ mean. Also, anyone interested should key-in the buzz-word Neo-Machian. There you will see, in this twenty-first century, what has matured out of Mach’s nineteenth-century phenomenalism. Thanks, Viv Pope Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3651 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Off-topic content hidden. See Message 120 for explanation. Meta comments about discussion in this thread should be taken to Peanut Gallery. Discussions on other topics should be taken to other threads, or new threads may be proposed at Proposed New Topics. --Admin
I would add to that that even numbers are also just words which represent concepts, but when people use those exclusively in lieu of actual sentences, confusion is sure to follow. After all, a formula is only useful when it has a relationship to some reality. Sometimes that connection appears to be an after-thought. Its interesting when you look back on this forum at some of the discussions between some of these hardcore number crunchers, and see how even they have a hard time following their own steps. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Off-topic content hidden. See Message 120 for explanation. Meta comments about discussion in this thread should be taken to Peanut Gallery. Discussions on other topics should be taken to other threads, or new threads may be proposed at Proposed New Topics. --Admin
Dear Bolder-Dash,
You and I seem to be very much on the same wavelength regarding these 'hard-core number-crunchers’. I have met some who can scarcely count spoons in a drawer without going into paroxysms of mathematics. And you can’t chuck a stick, nowadays, without hitting some mathematician who thinks he is trying to ‘read the mind of God’. Long on Maths but short on Logic, the mess that these ‘scientists’ are making of modern physics and cosmology is nothing short of scandalous. Thanks, Viv Pope. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3651 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Talking about how numbers diffuse understanding complex thoughts like the speed of light and particle physics is off topic? Well, if that's the level of simplicity we must adhere to here, then I guess I should just say...
Light is like very fast..duh!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3651 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Admin,
I wasn't attempting to be pompous, but simply was trying to make the point that I was enjoying the opportunity to read different points of view regarding some of the complex issues of light and physics. I think regardless of who's side you take, for the vast majority of people reading these things, once it turns into a numbers game all chance of having an opinion about it are lost. Basically, I think the OPs original question was answered as best as it is going to be in the first few posts, and further discussions were now delving into what assumptions can we make about the speed of light. Viv apparently wishes to challenge some of the basic premises we declare about what light actually is, and I would think that's a fair discussion unless someone else has more to add about how the speed of light can vary. And also, how much of the understanding of science is actually science, and how much of it is just theoretical thoughts, that can vary with each generation. Certainly the concept of the speed of light still has as many aspects about it that are subject to abstract thought as they are to observable phenomenon (or not?, I am wondering) I was enjoying Viv Pope's point of view without having an opinion about the voracity of it one way or the other,and thought it was perhaps a bit unseemly to paint his as being a nut or out of touch just for taking the discussion into another plane (was there somewhere else it was going?) I would have liked to have read more about what anyone might have to say about repudiating his claims in a language we can all share-instead of just attacking his credentials. Edited by Bolder-dash, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
Hi Bolder-dash,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here at EvC Forum we try very hard to keep discussion focused on and around the thread's topic, and try to discourage significant departures. Discussions that have run their course do not turn to other topics. Instead, participants are encouraged to propose new topics over at Proposed New Topics regarding related issues that come up. Viv essentially has three topics that he would like to discuss.
Staying on topic doesn't mean that every sentence or paragraph must be on topic. Short diversions, personal asides and interjections are a normal part of any discussion. Moderators only try to step in when significant departures from topic occur. And members who demonstrate a penchant for going off-topic tend to get more attention from moderators. By the way, threads in the Coffee House forum are not moderated as closely as the more focused science or religion threads, and you can begin topics there yourself without going through the topic proposal process. Viv's experiences as a scientific heretic might be appropriate there. Edited by Admin, : Minor wordsmithing. Edited by Admin, : Ditto.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Percy (Moderator),
I understand that you wish to hide my last posting on this topic. In your message 20, you state very clearly and unambiguously that the topic is issues related to the speed of light. Just to check, then, that this discussion is still on track, Relativity is definitely an issue related to the speed of light. So are Quantum instantaneity and Mach's developed contribution to physics,. Indeed, this whole discussion is about issues related to the speed of light except perhaps, for this latest tte--tte with Bolder-dash about logic, which is, perhaps marginal, although the logic and maths we discussed was in relation to the argument about light-speed. Anyway, Ref’s decision stands. So, okay, let’s get back firmly on track. TO ALL MEMBERSRe. the discussion on Light-Velocity in relation to relativistic and quantum-digital physics We kick up a dust and complain we cannot see’. Berkeley There is no logical reason why nature should be so confusing to us. Further to my last posting on this subject, let me say that what I am doing on this forum is nominating Mach’s Phenomenalism as the ‘New Physics’ that John Anderson of NASA and others talk about as what is needed to solve the anomalies that have been found to be inexplicable in terms of standard Extant Physics. In its latest Neo-Machian form of Normal Realism (click on Google), not only does it explain, perfectly, without theoretical contrivance, NASA’s ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ (as due to NASA’s neglect of spin angular momentum); it also explains, in the same way, the astronomers’ ‘Missing Mass Anomaly’ without having to postulate the nonsensical and completely undetectable ‘dark matter’. This latter anomaly arises, just like the former, due to the neglect of the spin angular momentum of practically all orbiting bodies, from planets and satellites to spiral galaxies. (Newtonian ‘gravitation’ which NASA uses to track its satellites and which astronomers use to calculate ‘the mass of the universe’, typically neglects the spin angular momenta of orbiting bodies.) This New Physics, of Machian origin, is no ad hoc emergency response to these anomalies. It is of almost two-centuries-long standing, and these recently discovered anomalies are simply proof of its validity. In addition to explaining these recent anomalies, the Neo-Machian method solves the notorious EPR controversy between Bohr and Einstein regarding the question of whether action-at-a-distance (IAAAD) is instantaneous, as quantum physics requires, or is limited to the ‘velocity of light, c’ as Einstein’s Theory demands. Moreover, in Machian phenomenalism light is simply what you see — that is, phenomena. All physical phenomena are ultimately reducible to discrete amounts of energy-interaction which Mach called ‘sense-data’. In the developed, Neo-Machian synthesis, these ‘sense-data’, which I have called light-pixels, are identified with Planck’s quantum h. So as well as being, at root, relative, or observer-centred (empirical, as opposed to absolutist), Mach’s method is quantised, which means that it is, by definition, a Quantum Relativity. So, if it is ‘New Physics’ we are seeking, then what are we waiting for? Neo-Machian Digital Physics (click Google) or Normal Realism does it all. Viv Pope. FOOTNOTE NR also closes the Educational gap between Arts and Science and, not least, creates a seamless join between Science and the Humanities. In addition to all this, NR solves the ‘Pioneer Anomaly’, together with the ‘Missing Mass Anomaly’. It reveals the logical fallacy of interpreting the Hubble redshift as galactic recession (‘All receding bodies are redshifted’ does not imply that all redshifts show receding bodies) On this basis it opposes ‘Big Bang’ cosmology, It also dispenses with ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ (by including spin, see above). It demystifies the concept of ‘black holes’. (They are just ordinary angular momentum barycentres, like the eyes of hurricanes, cyclones, etc.) Any and every one of these items will be explained on request. It is to be borne in mind that the key to all this is the alterative, non-speed interpretation of the constant, c. Once this is is grasped, the story tells itself. V.P.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Please, no replies to this message. Please keep discussion focused on the topic and not on the people discussing the topic. --Admin
Sorry to say, cavediver and a few others here who have great interest in science appear to be these kinds of people to me-obviously smart guys and have a great grasp of math equations, but perhaps because their minds are so in tune to these numbers, there isn't a lot of room left in there for intellectual imagination. Ah, the good old smart-envy... never pretty Tell you what - I bet I've slept with fewer women/men than you. That should make up for it... Edited by Admin, : Add note in red at top.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3917 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
not only does it explain, perfectly, without theoretical contrivance, NASA’s ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ (as due to NASA’s neglect of spin angular momentum); it also explains, in the same way, the astronomers’ ‘Missing Mass Anomaly’ without having to postulate the nonsensical and completely undetectable ‘dark matter’. This latter anomaly arises, just like the former, due to the neglect of the spin angular momentum of practically all orbiting bodies, from planets and satellites to spiral galaxies. (Newtonian ‘gravitation’ which NASA uses to track its satellites and which astronomers use to calculate ‘the mass of the universe’, typically neglects the spin angular momenta of orbiting bodies.) More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would love to understand better.
in Machian phenomenalism light is simply what you see — that is, phenomena. All physical phenomena are ultimately reducible to discrete amounts of energy-interaction which Mach called ‘sense-data’. If light is just perception, why does the sun warm my face? What is happening in a photo-electric cell? Where does solar power come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would love to understand better. Yes, so would I. But I always find it puzzling how every single one of these independent researchers, such as Viv here, has come up with a theory that does indeed explain everything - the Pioneer anomaly, grand unification, quantum gravity, and does away with the need for dark matter and dark energy - everyone one of them. And yet no two of them are in agreement with each other in regard to the grand theory that makes all these fascinating and sensational predictions, solving all of our current problems in cosmology and partcile physics. Puzzles the hell out of me. And us poor deluded mainstream scientists plod along with our best guesses and incomplete theories. We really are the intellectual underdogs in this game...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Iblis
Thanks for your comment and your question. You say more of this, please. Fair enough. Here is something I was working on in anticipation of a request such as this. I hope it helps. Pythagorean Relativity (for the EvC forum.) This is just to show you how easy relativity is to deduce and understand —and teach — in Normal Realism as described in my last posting. Once we get rid of the idea that light has a ‘speed’, it all becomes very simple and easy. Let me show you what I mean . Just imagine yourself back at the time of Pythagoras. You look out on the world and you observe, as Pythagoras did, that the world has three rectangular dimensions, length, breadth and depth. You wouldn’t know anything, of course, about ‘light-speed’ and all its associated trappings, such as, ‘Michelson and Morley’, ‘ether’, ‘electromagnetic waves’, ‘photons’, ‘Faraday’, ‘Einstein’, ‘Minkowski’ or anything like that. Light is simply what you see in those three dimensions, the opposite of dark. Also like Pythagoras, you observe that a body travelling, say, east whilst it also travels north, travels a distance whose length is the resultant of the two component distances, which is the square-root of the sum of the squares of the distance north and the distance east, the relation known as Pythagoras’ Theorem. But now you start thinking about the speed of the travelling body, which is the distance travelled by the body in a certain time, that is, the distance s divided by the time t. In this way, you come to realise that in addition to the three dimensions of space there is another dimension, the dimension of duration, or time. Then you ask yourself how that fourth dimension is to be projected’ You reflect on the fact that the defining characteristic of all three dimensions you already know is that they are projected in such a way as not to encroach on each other’s domains, and the only way of doing that is to project them at right-angles to one another, that is, orthogonally. From this you conclude that, by that same token, the dimension of time must be projected at right-angles to the other three, in the same way that those three are projected in relation to one another. And in the same way that the distance s travelled by the body is the square root of the sums of the squares of the three spatial dimensions, the composite, space-time length of the travelling body is the square root of the sum of the squares of all four dimensions. Now it goes without saying, of course, that the measures of all four of these dimensions have to be in the same units for the formula to have any geometrical meaning. Besides, for what possible reason would you want to choose different units for any one or more of those four dimensions? It follows, then, that whatever units you might use for measuring time would be the same as those used for measuring space, and vice versa. So this extended version of Pythagoras’ theorem to include time would, in effect, make the whole thing a geometrical time-formula. In that case, if the intrinsic duration (proper-time) registered by the body in travelling the distance s is the time-measure t, then that duration relative to the observer of that motion is tR = (s2 + t2), where tR is the resultant of the two component measures. [Note that the missing symbol in these formulae signifies the square-root sign, and that R is a subscript whereas the 2s in places are superscript.] This, no more and no less, is, the pre-Einstein, pre-Minkowskian, pre-modern physics formula for relativistic time-dilation. To prove this, let us use the same units of modern seconds for all the variables, uniformly, and let the observational speed, or relative velocity, of the body be v = s/tR . From this it follows that s = vtR Substituting this expression vtR for s in the Pythagorean time-equation and simplifying the result produces tR = t /1 — (v2/c2), which is, of course, Einstein’s formula for relativistic time-dilation, from which all modern relativistic physics stems. (Recall that in this formula, c is not the customary ‘speed of light’; it is simply a constant made necessary to equate conventional units of metres and seconds.In the New Physics of Normal Realism, c has no significance apart from that. Viv Pope. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Neo-Machian quantum theory. This is just to show you how easy quantum physics is to deduce and understand — and teach — without thinking of light as having a ‘speed’. This is as in Neo-Machian Normal Realist physics, described in my last posting. In Mach’s phenomenalism. all phenomena reduce to discrete bits of observational information which the followers of Mach called ‘sense-data’. If we extend this concept of ‘sense data’ to include instrument-data, as in Normal Realism, then since all objects, anywhere, can be instruments of perception, these ‘sense-data’ of Mach’s can be identified with Planck’s quantum of energetic physical interaction, h. [Note that the missing symbol in these formulae signifies the square-root sign and that R is a subscript and the 2s in places are superscript.] tR = t /1 — (v2/c2), Now v-squared, in standard modem physics. is e/m (from e = mv2, where E is potential energy, which is twice the kinetic energy K) Substituting this energy expression E/m for v-squared in the above formula and stating the formula in terms of E produces E = mc2[1 — (t2/tR2)] Taking t as the coefficient of the formula, and expressing tR in integer multiples n of t. we have E = mc2[1 — (1/n2)] Note that for n equals infinity this formula states, simply, the famous energy-mass interconversion formula: E = mc2 . This means that energy and mass are totally inter-convertible only in the case of n being (theoretically) infinite. For all other values of n the formula produces a step series of quantum values for E, expressed by; E = mc2[(1/n12 — (1/n22)] where n1 and n2 are intermediate values of n, with n1 being the fixed and n2 the running terms, respectively. [Note that the 1 and the 2 directly following the ns in these formulae are subscripts.] Now anyone who knows his physics will see, straightaway, that this Pythagorean derivative formula has the exact shape of the Balmer formula for simple spectra. For instance, with n1 given the starting value of two and the rising series for n2 = 3, 4, etc., this formula expresses the whole series of energy-values of the spectrum of hydrogen. Dividing the formula by Planck’s constant h then expresses it in terms of frequency, f, viz.: f = flim. [(1/n12 — (1/n22)], where f.lim. is the constant of the series, like the Rydberg constant in standard spectroscopy. What this says is simply that energy is fundamentally quantised at its very root, that modern quantum theory —which, as Feynman says, nobody understands - is, in fact, very easy to understand — unless, of course, we seek to understand it in terms of the labyrinthine theoretical ‘Escher’-like structure of Extant Theoretical Physics. All this, of course, can be only the starting point for the proposed Neo-Machian New Physics which is, of course, relatively young compared to the much older and more grizzled, Extant Physics. Give it some years in maturing and I’m sure it will be a natural replacement for current physics, which is now, due to long-time theoretical overindulgence and consdequent hardening of ts intellectual arteries, dying on its feet. Viv Pope Now, Iblis,to your question of the sun warming your face or a photo-electric cell — or, you might say, a rock, a pebble or indeed the earth itself. The answer is that these interactions consist of statistical numbers of quanta transferred from the sun to the object in accordance with the ordinary Second Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes called the Law of Entropy. Recall that these light-pixels, or quanta, have the dimensions of energy-multiplied-by-time, or action. Recall, also, that in Neo-Machian Normal Realism, these proper-time-instantaneous interactions don’t take place just between objects and human percipients, as in the early phenomenalism of George Berkeley. They take place between all objects whatsoever, only some of which may be our eyes, cameras and photoelectric cells. So, where does that power come from? It comes from the sun in the ordinary way known to the science of thermodynamics —excluding only ‘photons’ and ‘light-speed’. Again I hope this helps. VP Edited by Viv Pope, : Missing signature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
Hi Viv,
Not all the character codes you're using are rendering for me. We do have Latex here. For example this:
[latex]I=\int_{\cal{B}}d^4\! x\sqrt{\tilde{g}} e^{\Phi}\left(\tilde{R}(\tilde{g})+\left(\nabla \Phi \right)^2-{1\over 12} H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho} \right)[/latex] Becomes this:
--Percy Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
In that case, if the intrinsic duration (proper-time) registered by the body in travelling the distance s is the time-measure t, then that duration relative to the observer of that motion is
, where tR is the resultant of the two component measures. This, no more and no less, is, the pre-Einstein, pre-Minkowskian, pre-modern physics formula for relativistic time-dilation. To prove this, let us use the same units of modern seconds for all the variables, uniformly, and let the observational speed, or relative velocity, of the body be v = s/tR . From this it follows that s = vtR Substituting this expression vtR for s in the Pythagorean time-equation and simplifying the result produces
, which is, of course, Einstein’s formula for relativistic time-dilation, from which all modern relativistic physics stems. (edited to make use of equation formating) Yes, this is Special Relativity using Minkowksi's space-time approach from 1906. You have just written your first equation in a bizarre form, as you have mixed a coordinate measure and scalar measure on the right hand side. We would normally write t2 = -tR2 + s2, keeping the coordinates together. So what on earth ae you talking about this being pre-Einstein and pre-Minkowski? And why are you claiming this as your work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
E = mc2[1 — (t2/tR2)] Taking t as the coefficient of the formula, and expressing tR in integer multiples n of t. we have E = mc2[1 — (1/n2)] Err, what right do you have to say that n is an integer??? t2/tR2 has no reason to be an integer, and wishing it so is not exactly science. So you have no quantisation. Just wishful thinking. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3917 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
You look out on the world and you observe, as Pythagoras did, that the world has three rectangular dimensions, length, breadth and depth. You wouldn’t know anything, of course Yes thanks, I do love this stuff. My understanding of n-dimensional geometry is pretty satisfactory to me, I don't see anything in this part of your material that is confusing or improper. But I've picked up a problem student who isn't getting it, who seems to admire your posts; so now I have some hope that he will be able to understand, by hearing it from you, that another dimension is just another orthogonal measurement like length, width and depth, rather than another universe like the one that Captain Kirk and his away team beamed over to accidentally where Mr Spock had a beard.
fee fie foe fum pre-Minkowskian tomayto tomahto Neo-Machian blah blah E = mc2[1 — (1/n2)] yadda yadda yadda But what I was really hoping to hear more about, whenever you get the chance, is this business of angular momentum. I am currently trying to study fractional spin, and quantized spin in general, and relate it to things we can use as examples in the macro scale or "real world". In this blurb for example
wiki writes:
Angular momentum - Wikipedia The classical definition of angular momentum as
L = r x p depends on six numbers: rx, ry, rz, px, py, and pz. Translating this into quantum-mechanical terms, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that it is not possible for all six of these numbers to be measured simultaneously with arbitrary precision. Therefore, there are limits to what can be known or measured about a particle's angular momentum. It turns out that the best that one can do is to simultaneously measure both the angular momentum vector's magnitude and its component along one axis. they seem to be saying that all the variables and measurements can be modeled using some large spinning object in motion. This sounds whatever, vaguely similar to some of the things you are saying. So I was thinking that understanding what your philosophy expects angular momentum to have to do with the measurement of gravity might help me understand these concepts better, or at least see where I might be going wrong.
to your question of the sun warming your face or a photo-electric cell — or, you might say, a rock, a pebble or indeed the earth itself. The answer is that these interactions consist of statistical numbers of quanta transferred from the sun to the object in accordance with the ordinary Second Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes called the Law of Entropy. Recall that these light-pixels, or quanta, have the dimensions of energy-multiplied-by-time, or action. Recall, also, that in Neo-Machian Normal Realism, these proper-time-instantaneous interactions don’t take place just between objects and human percipients, as in the early phenomenalism of George Berkeley. That clarifies things. It's not just observation, like God-on-the-Quad or Von Neumann's Catastrophe. It's actual energy, which you are saying (I think) is getting from one point to another without passing through the intervening points. Let me see if I can talk through it using semantics you might like better than the ones that I would prefer normally. The heat on my face is energy that was part of the sun 8 minutes and change ago. It has jumped from the sun, directly to my face. It hasn't moved through any vacuum at all. Some of its neighbor energy there on the sun, has jumped instead to random hydrogen molecules between the sun and the earth. Some of it has jumped to various parts of the atmosphere between me and the sky. Some of the heat on my face has jumped to me from the atmosphere. But none of it has ever existed in a vacuum, not the unreal vacuum between me and the sun somewhere and not the real vacuum between molecules or particles. There was never any traveling through, there was always a quantum-jumping across. Yeah? This line of thinking is interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how useful it is. There seem to be some theoretical problems here, too. We know that gravity is subject to the c limit, it doesn't happen instantaneously. Your material seems to be implying that spooky-action-at-a-distance effects like those involved in entanglement would also be subject to the limit, ie there would be a delay between one end of the waveform collapse and the other. This doesn't seem to correspond to the results of the actual experiments, but I will have to do more research to dig out examples and see if I am understanding them correctly. This whole discussion reminds me of the Ensemble Interpretation, which says that the effects that the Copenhagen is struggling with only apply statistically, never to single particles. They have this same problem with experiments which seem to isolate single quanta and show the same effects. One solution to this might be to say that even these singular quanta are in fact statistical, composed of some even smaller parts in some sub-universal dimensional matrix of some kind. But I strongly doubt that you subscribe to any such wacky sub-sub-atomic mayhem
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024