ponderer

Hence my comment on interference, especially self-interference.

 

You can stand on your porch and shake your fist at the world of QM, but using a computer and the internet to do it make you either a fool for not recognizing that computer and laser communication technology are based on QM, or a hypocrite.

Well now that's a little unfair. I have said consistantly that Q-M works and is an excellent tool. That does not address the issue which I am arguing. Seems like a deflection, and rather poor form.

Merged post follows:

You don't see the problem with the double slit experiment? A single electron passes through both slits at once as a wave. Can a car do something analogous?

Not at all.

Propagating E-M energy is not the same thing as a car. It's a wavicle. You have a problem with wavicles?

This seems more to do with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeed, here things do seem to get weird. The problem lies in the fact we want to keep as many classical notions in the interpretation as possible. To do this, you end up with some weird ideas like quantum tunnelling and wave-particle duality etc.

There is nothing weird about wavicles. They make sense to me. The double slit experiment also makes sense. I don't see the problem.

IMO wave particle duality makes plenty of sense, if you are taking about non-massive particles.

It is the electrons, protons, and neutrons, where I make a distinction. To me they have mass, and the cause of their mass gives them more distinct boundaries and position, but they are made from the same stuff as wavicles, and so given to some limited wave-like properties.

He's only "straining" to make the analogy relevant. The reason for many worlds interpretation, etc., is not because of anything analogous to the car insurance company, it's because of things like the double slit experiment.

You have to be kidding. The double slit experiment? A wavicle makes many worlds?

I should actually appologize for my attitude. I expect that QM has advance a good deal over the last 40 years.

I do not really know enough about it, but my early exposure 40 years ago, was that of probabilities, where electrons were indistinct entities. This much I am not buying, for the reasons stated.

I find in general that some of the conjecture coming out of Q-M appears to me to be absurd.

I am sure that Q-M is a very useful tool and that it is excellent theory, but I think that some it's practitioners push the limits of reason, beyond tolerance.

But in fairness, I should just shut up about something, that I don't know enough about. So, I will refrain from further comment on the topic.

What definition of "logical" are you using here?

 

Can you make two cars interfere with each other, or have a car interfere with itself?

1) Schroedinger's Cat, logical.

2) You know, it seems to happen to me all the time, when I am driving, and I don't have to make it happen. I happens all on it's own. I have to be constantly interferring with the operation of the my own car too, because the road turns, or has contours, and then those other driver's, and traffic lights and stop signs.

But, you are trying to strain the analogy. No analogy is perfect. That is why it is an analogy.

There is an underlying point, to this little parable. You know the moral of the story sort of thing.

What is the math describing? You cannot convert a statistical picture into an actual picture. You are just building a phase space sort of view, based on very limited local scale input, and a large scale statistical input. You are trying to impose a large scale statistical construction on localized phenonoma. You have to expect that it will work out statistically and provide good outcome prediction, but it cannot be construed to actually reflect the actual local scale reality, beyond a statistical estimation.

To suddenly go off on whimsical tangents is illogical.

It is not necessary to consider particles, in order to get the wonderful logic and deductions of QM.

Let's say we own a car insurance company. Once a year we take a census of our insured cars out there by issuing an insurance bill. We find out the home base for the cars and trucks, and we know statistically, on average most of these vehicles will spend most of their time parked, somewhere close to their base.

However, we do not know if any given car is parked, or where they are, but statistically, if they are not parked they are on average within a certain range of their home base, most of the time. We also know that in locations where there is a higher density of cars, there is a statistical increased likelyhood of collisions.

As an insurer, we do not know where any given car is at any given time, until there is an accident, and the time and location are recoded. Such an event cannot occur without disrupting the progress of the car.

Now, it is logical to assume that every car exists in a quantum flux, and only materializes when it has an accident. Further it is logical to assume that there must be mutltiple universes where all things are possible, because the cars all exist in a quantum flux.

All of this works out statistically perfectly, for budgeting and business planning. Most accidents happen close to home, just like the statistics say. The accidents happen in the right statistical percentages every year, and we have the whole thing analysed from top to bottom statistically. Our actuarials are the best in the industry.

Because it all works out we must accept the assumptions about every car existing in multiple universes, and that every car is caught in limbo between having an accident and driving along OK, until we get an accident report. I think I'll go out to the garage, and see if my car actually exists.

Thankyou Quantum Theorists.

When did we abandon reason?

But that's the problem with the caption in the picture — it presents tc as a constant, meaning that t is not a variable; the implication is that t' is also a constant, because you can transform from t to t'.

I can`t help it if you find the caption misleading. The graphic is taken out of context, from a article. Now, that you see the explanation, do you understand? I was not intending to go into this at length, but after posting graphs and equations, It was easy to explain.

If this distortion is not confirmed, then the logical explanation is non-rotational frame dragging.

Either we see distorted potential wells, or there is non-rotational frame dragging. Either way, something is going on that no one is considering, I think.

Is there an actual physicist on this site that can confirm this is actually something novel.

Don't tell me, you don't like my conclusions.

I never did like this transformation being rammed down my throat, without due analysis, consideration, and explanation. "Now let's move on."

It wanted more chewing on, to break it down more, and digest it better.

Your picture with the circles is wrong; we went through this recently in another thread. The light will not reach points on the moving circle simultaneously, according to the stationary observer, so it is incorrect to say that it reaches in t' such that d = t'c.

 

One must be careful not to impose any artificial constraints on the problem.

A single instantaneous pulse of light was sent, when the stationary circle and the moving circle were overlapped perfectly, with the centers perfectly on top of each other.

In the frame of reference of the moving circle, the points of the moving circle are equidistant from the the center of the moving circle, from which the light pulse was emmitted. For an observer in the moving frame, the light must all arrive around the moving circle at the same time, since the circle remains equidistant from the light source, which is the center of the moving circle.

The light arrives around the stationary circle in the stationary frame also at the same time, according to an observer in the stationary frame.

The stationary observer does not see the light arriving all around the the moving circle at the same time, but the moving observer does.

In order for him to see things differently, his percention of time and space must be different.

t'c is direction dependent. It varies with direction. It is not a constant for the whole frame.

A general equation is derived for each point in 3-space, by substituting,

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (tc)^2

It is a spherical plot for all of 3-space, for any given x,y,z

At the end of the derivation, the reverse substitution is done, thereby relating t and t' for the same location in 3-space.

Merged post follows:

You know what? I might as well come out with it.

If you look at the very first graphic in the thread, it's only purpose is to calculate the relative space-time distortion in the moving frame shown in the second graphic.

The key is the second graphic, and only the send light cone.

It represents how time and space are distorted in the moving frame compared to the stationary frame, as perceived from the stationary frame.

The relative distortion of space and time must distort the gravity well, and if electrostatic potential is considered a potential well, you can expect the same thing.

The extra-dimensional topology of the potential well will appear to be tipped in the direction of motion.

Consequently, light bending around the front side of a moving galaxy should seem to be in a bigger gravity well, due to gradient, than light bending around the back side of the same galaxy.

If you measure light bending around a moving galaxy the estimate of the mass of the galaxy due to it's apparent constituents and by the bending of light may not jive. The light bending will vary, depending on geometric circumstance.

An observer in the moving galaxy will see our gravity well distorted in a similar way, but in the opposite direction, which is demonstrated by the bottom half of the same graphic, the receive light cone space-time distortion for the moving frame.

It seems relative motion must tip the topology of potential wells in the direction of motion, as seen from another frame of reference.

So, does GR take this into account? I don't know. I'm not a physicist, but I don't think so. I don't think I am wrong on this, but I am willing to be corrected. Unless I am missing some fundamental fact or other, I am certain my logic and math are correct.

I don't think anyone else is seeing this, up to now. I have just mentally taken it for granted for a decade or so.

Do you think I should publish something?

Here is the other starting graph. And then there is this effect that is governed by the same general equations.

If we are to assume that time is slower in the moving frame because of the effects of the send and receive light cones being combined, we would multiply the general equations for the two and get the Lorentz tranformation.

 

However, we do not do that. We look instead at the universal speed of light, and say t'c, compares to tc, and using general equations, for the send and receive light cones, we get this picture of relative time and space distortion in the reference frame, for the same set of circular points.

 

That is what you use to do the Lorentz transformation, into that frame of reference.

 

The general equations representing the first graph and the second graph are multiplied. The send light cone general equation against the send light cone general equation and the receive light cone general equation against the receive light cone general equation, and you get the Lorentz transformation for the send and receive light cones individually.

 

That noramlizes the view of the frame, except that its running a bit behind and if size matters, the girls around here will be less impressed.

 

It's a general proof of the Lorentz transformation, using general equations, for the send and receive light cones, in the full 3D space. Only a circular set of points is used in the graphs, but the general equations solve for all points in 3-space.

 

In any case whats going on underneath does not look so flat, even though the transformation produces a flat result.

 

No more freebees.

To get the general equations, start here, then suppose 3 dimensions instead of the 2 in the graph.

You should get these two opposing "Doppler Shifted" results, which when multiplied gives that last result:

It was my understanding that Superconductors were required to be at or very close to absolute zero to exhibit these properties. Is this not the case? I had excluded their use as a levitation mechanism due to the logistical properties of keeping a train line for example extremely cold.

You don't keep the track cold, if that is what you are saying. You use the superconductor in the train and keep that cold. The track you magnetize.

Hi,

 

I've wanted to ask this question for decades and I'm sure it's the oldest, tiredest relativity question around.

 

Take a universe with nothing in it (or nothing visible) -- no external reference. Then take a barrow and drill a hole in the center of each end and place a rod through the barrow long enough to extend from each end. Now put some air in the barrow and a person. Finally weld a handle on the inside wall of the barrow.

 

Got all of that (know where this is going?)?

 

Place all of this in the frame-less universe and spin the rod that runs through the barrow. Inside, the person holding on to the handle otherwise floats around watching the rod above him (there's no 'above' but you know what I mean) turn. Okay. Got that pictured?

 

Why is there no centrifugal force? With no external frame of reference, no ether, no invisible space/time structure what's the difference between this and a situation where the person is pulled to the side of the barrow and watching the rod above him turning.

 

Something knows if the rod is turning or, the barrow is turning. What is this something?

 

Thanks,

Rusty

You have to be careful when you use the terms Ether or Aether, since they are associated with a classical notion of a cosmic gaseous medium. So any good anal retentive physicist is going to say, "Ether? Rubbish!"

You are discussing a space-time medium, I would presume, and not the classical Ether.

Merged post follows:

if space is not nothing then what are its properties?

It has dimension. It is a medium for E-M and gravity waves. It has a speed limit. If you bend it, it distorts gravity and time. It forms potential wells. Brane theorists certainly seem to think it is something.

Let me ask you a fundamentally simple question. If space is nothing, with no properties, then what stands between things?

If there is nothing there, all things must be touching with no gaps between them. Poetically, space is nature's way of keeping us apart. (My wife is out of town)

It reminds me of an old saying. Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

According to my way of thinking, once you accept that space-time is something, nothing else needs to exist, except energy.

Space-time is the canvas, and energy is the charcoal. All things are just geometric convolutions of space-time, sketched in energy density variations. Particles don't generate fields, and oscillations, they are the fields and oscillations. We just assign particle names to the various configurations, of fields and oscillations, but the particles themselves are just those fields and oscillations in the otherwise isometric space-time universal medium. It's like one of those pictures that are done by embossing. Think of space-time as the medium, copper, felt paper, brass, whatever, and energy is the raised embossing, but it is not static, it moves. Like the face in the sand storm in the Brendan Fraser version of the the movie The Mummy, or the face in the water, in the sequel. It's energy. It has to move. Quantization, and then chaos math for the dynamic system, generates the rest. <squirm> Get the picture?

It's a logical inversion of sorts. Instead of particles separated by empty space, we have just space-time, and particles are geometric blemishes of space-time. That geometry is sculpted in energy density variations, like waves on the ocean, but more prolific in its diversity of manifestations, and their compexity. Waves on the ocean are just a subset of the larger complexity.

"" Well this could only be true if the Big Bang did existed. But if everything started from one point, than wouldn't everything evolve into the same thing?

No. As soon as you quantize energy into interacting particles, or wavicles, massive or otherwise, you have created a dynamic system.

Chaos theory, which has mathematics describing the behaviour of dynamic systems, has an unfortunate name. That is because clustering and structure arise according to the mathematics of dynamic systems, described by Chaos theory.

Chaos might be seen to be the antithesis of entropy.

While entropy tends to homogenize energy density, and errode structure, Chaos tends to localize energy density in a chaotically structured manner.

The structure you see around us is governed by chaos theory mathematics. The main themes are fractals, bifurcations, and strange attractors. Bifucations occur in population densities for example, where you get gradual change suddenly interrupted by an event, which causes a sudden dramatic increase or decrease in population. Strange attractors are things like galaxies, solar systems, the red spot on Jupiter, and closer to home, such things as the shapes of plants, turbulance, clouds, mountains, shorelines, errosion valleys, the course of rivers, etc.

The genernation of some strange attractors involves fractal math, and others involve phase space.

You immediately recognize the classification of the thing you are seeing, and can put a name to it, but no two are exactly alike.

Well, Apple has announced their newest unnecessary gadget for everyone to go out and buy. What do you think about it?

I would worry about damaging the screen because it is not protected by a cover.

From our friends at The Onion:

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/science_channel_refuses_to_dumb

 

"At this point, having the word 'how' in a show's title is about as close to scientific investigation as we get," Myers said. "In fact, I don't even know how we can justify airing a show like Mantracker at all. A cowboy hunts contestants down using his trailing skills? I guess you could say it makes the audience use 'observation' by watching what happens on screen."

 

"Observation is a part of science, right?" Myers added.

It is sad that such a ubiqutous and attended medium should be reduced to appealing to the lowest common denominator, instead of attempting to raise the bar.

Correction:

If we are to assume that time is slower in the moving frame because of the effects of the send and receive light cones being combined, we would multiply the general equations for the two and get the Lorentz tranformation.

However, we do not do that. We look instead at the universal speed of light, and say t'c, compares to tc, and using general equations, for the send and receive light cones, we get this picture of relative time and space distortion in the reference frame, for the same set of circular points.

That is what you use to do the Lorentz transformation, into that frame of reference.

The general equations representing the first graph and the second graph are multiplied. The send light cone general equation against the send light cone general equation and the receive light cone general equation against the receive light cone general equation, and you get the Lorentz transformation for the send and receive light cones individually.

That noramlizes the view of the frame, except that its running a bit behind and if size matters, the girls around here will be less impressed.

It's a general proof of the Lorentz transformation, using general equations, for the send and receive light cones, in the full 3D space. Only a circular set of points is used in the graphs, but the general equations solve for all points in 3-space.

In any case whats going on underneath does not look so flat, even though the transformation produces a flat result.

No more freebees.

Correction:

It is a representation of the send and receive light cones for a point in relative motion, for light sent and received, from a circular set of points, with the same relative motion, and equidistant from that point. As seen by a stationary observer. x,z are distance and y is time. You would need a spherical set of points, to give a true 3D representation, but we have to steal a spacial dimension to plot time.

 

The moving central point and circular set of points are represented by three red world lines, and the rims of the cones. You will notice that the cones are skewed. The rim of the cones, represent simultaneous events in a circle about a point, from the perspective of the moving observer.

 

You will also notice a distinct difference in what might be considered simultaneous events between the stationary observer, and the observer in motion at the center of the light cone.

 

If you imagine a ring of lights at the rim edge of the bottom cone, and a single pulse light source at the center of the cones, then the ring of lights for a stationary observer must fire sequentially from left to right, in order for them to converge at the center point simultaneously.

 

In the moving frame of reference, since they are all equidistant from the center point, they must have all fired at the same time, in order to arrive at the same time.

 

For the single pulse light source radiating outwards, according to the stationary observer the light is received in sequence, by the constituent points of the equidistant ring, in a time sequence from left to right, again.

 

While the moving observer in the same moving frame will see the light all arriving at the same time, all around the equidistant ring.

 

Inorder to rectify the discrepancy, we may postulate that the observer in the moving frame has a directionally dependent different perception of time and distance, that is rectified by some Lorentz transformation magic and everything looks flat to us, except he's running a little behind.

 

Well that's all well and good, but if he is in some far off galaxy moving across my field of view, I am not likely to be transforming into his frame of reference. I just have my own, and my big honking telescope.

 

I am not concerned with what I am sending to any far off galaxy. I'm just looking.

 

All I'm getting is the light transmitted from that galaxy.

One point at a time.

 

1) That's the thing. They are, and they are not.

 

2) I think I know exactly what I am doing, by deductive reasoning.

 

3) a physics article, including all the math.

 

I had it posted on my web page for years, many years ago, along with some light cone graphics. It explained time dilation, step by step.

 

Thus my signature.

 

One shift, two shift, red shift, blue shift

 

I did not discuss the real consequences, which seemed to be none. It seemed that all I had done was provide a general proof of the Lorentz transformation.

 

It did not occurred to me that the proof would have relativistic consequences for the geometry of gravity wells, and electro-static wells.

 

I mentally went about with that picture, but did not really come to terms with the fact that nobody else is thinking this.

 

So I'm thinking maybe I should put my hand up.

 

Maybe general relativity takes this into account, but if it doesn't drop the transformation stuff, and look deeper, I don't think so. Like I said, I am not a physicist.

 

Comments I'm reading here from people who seem to be knowledgable makes me think otherwise.

Here is a sample light cone graphic.

The Lorentz transformations are just the homogeneous transformations that preserve the space-time interval. (They are (some of) the isometries of the Minkowski metric. ) They should be compared with the Euclidean group.

 

Messing with the Lorentz transformations is fine, as long as you know what you are trying to do and why.

 

As for actual publishing, is this a philosophy or physics publication?

One point at a time.

1) That's the thing. They are, and they are not.

2) I think I know exactly what I am doing, by deductive reasoning.

3) a physics article, including all the math.

I had it posted on my web page for years, many years ago, along with some light cone graphics. It explained time dilation, step by step.

Thus my signature.

One shift, two shift, red shift, blue shift

I did not discuss the real consequences, which seemed to be none. It seemed that all I had done was provide a general proof of the Lorentz transformation.

It did not occurred to me that the proof would have relativistic consequences for the geometry of gravity wells, and electro-static wells.

I mentally went about with that picture, but did not really come to terms with the fact that nobody else is thinking this.

So I'm thinking maybe I should put my hand up.

Maybe general relativity takes this into account, but if it doesn't drop the transformation stuff, and look deeper, I don't think so. Like I said, I am not a physicist.

Comments I'm reading here from people who seem to be knowledgable makes me think otherwise.

No one can force you to publish your idea. I am completely ruthless when it comes to keeping my ideas from society. I even turn away people who come visiting me to tell me theirs (Jehova's witnesses et. al.). As for your personal morals/ethics or whatever the correct term might be: You probably have to decide that for yourself.

It just seems to me that it would be hard to get past the review process. What I could do is try, and if that doesn't pan out, try one of the less reputable publishing outlets.

I just dislike having to get judged by a closed minded review. "The math is correct but we don't like your conclusions." Rejected.

I have to go through the trouble, to be dismissed in the end.

I'm not even a phyicist. I'm just a guy trying to understand what's going on.

Makes you wonder, what's the point?

I read two post on this site that make me realize that I am the only one who gets it, about a certain topic, which I wrote a paper on in the 90's. I never published, but I did have it reviewed by a single physicist, who said the math was correct, but he didn't like my conclusions.

However, If my conclusions are correct - they are in my opinion very logical - which I have personally taken for granted all these years, they have the potential to affect cosmological observations, which never occurred to me before, and they have the potential to influence theory on electro-magnetism.

I guess that means I am sort of obligated to publish, doesn't it? Morally? Ethics.... hmmmm

It has to do with the Lorentz transformation.

When I was taught the derivation, it seemed to me that they sort of glossed over it, in a kind of leap of faith sort of way.

I was just trying to understand it in a more deductive logic way, and so I picked it appart, more than they bothered to do.

The explanation they gave me lacked that deductive rock solid reasoning that you started out with. Remember set theory. I decided to apply some of that.

Politically, messing with the Lorentz transformation is like questioning the Koran.

Still I pretty sure I'm right. Deductive reasoning will do that to a guy.

It's nothing complicated.

Not quite what I was looking for, but thanks. That is just a 2 dimensional plane that has been folded as with the below picture. How I understand space-time is that it works in 4 dimensions so am struggling to see how it bends around an object in 3 dimensions. rather than creating just an impression under a gravitational object

 

I suppose what I am asking is if there are any representations of the below that show spacetime in 3D instead of on one plane.

 

What you are asking for is impossible, due to the limitations of our 3D manifold. You cannot demonstrate a 4th dimensional geometric topology, without trading off one of the three other dimensions. It is a limitation of the space.

The best you might get is a cross-section of a sphere, with a colour gradient, representing 4 D displacement.

Merged post follows:

that pic is absolutaley wrong

Yes, the day the Earth bounced. I wonder if they will make a movie.

I post it as a basic from the basics, as I see it.

This a representation of a point standing still:

Of course "standing still" is something physically frame dependent, it means for an observator named A (Albert, Alfred, Antony, Anastasia, Anyone), no displacement: Alfred sits on his chair doing nothing.

We can represent the situation like this (you must have noticed I like diagrams):

Antony (or was that Andrea?) is standing still. Better say A observes himself standing still.

 

But there is something wrong here. No displacement in space is only one side of the "standing still" phenomena. Time is elapsing, no matter Anastasia is moving or not.

So we have to represent the "standing still" diagramma as follows:

Is this correct?

On a basic philosophical level, no the diagram is incorrect.

Your first problem is Alfred. Alfred consists a host of moving parts. Time passage is marked by the movement of Alfred's parts.

Let us consider a 3D Euclidean space.

Nothing exist in the whole universe.

Now we introduce one thing into this universe that has no moving parts, but is some homogenous thing fundamentally different in some way from its surroundings.

Time does not pass in this universe.

Time can only pass if there is change. Change is brought about by motion. Time cannot pass without relative motion of some sort.

Motion and time are fundamentally entwined, with space, since you cannot have motion without displacement.

As Sisyphus noted, space is added between the objects. This is independent of any local motion.

The photon has a wavelength, the space that it occupies at any given time is also expanding, stretching out the wavelength.

Ok bear with me according to einstein nothing can go faster than light. as any any object at that speed would gain infininate mass which would obvioulsy be a problem. However as i understand it Black holes are formed by having such a strong gravitational pull that even light cannot escape. Now what this implies and I stress implies because we do not know for sure, that light has some mass for the gravity to effect. By logical reasoning this means that light traveling away from the black hole will have a force exerted on it strong enpough to slow and then reverse its direction taken another way light heading towards the black hole will have its speed increased by the same force. From this I come to two conclusions:

firstly that photons have mass

and

secondly that faster than light is possible Very hard but possible as the idea of mass increasing as speed increases upto the "impossible speed of light" to be completely incorrect because simply put if a photon has mass then it is under the same rules as any other mass which would lead to light having infinate mass.

 

Hope that makes sense thought about this for a while and cant see a flaw but please feel free to comment

Comments withdrawn. Sometimes it's better to say nothing.

Let's just say, that if you are worried about Korean missle tests, car bombs, kidnappings, or controlling borders...

We do not live in a Star Trek world, of nice cuddly people.

Space=Time

I thought time=money.

I am starting to develop this idea of space-time-energy,

They go together like a horse and carriage (and harness maybe)

you can't have one,

you can't have one,

you can't have one,

without the ooo--ooo-oother.

You cannot demonstrate time without space and energy

You cannot demonstrate space without energy and time

You cannot demonstrate energy without space and time