eytan_il
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by eytan_il
-
-
Hi everyone I am a observer of everything in life. I like to study everything around me that I see since I was small. I also like to invent things through my mind. Every day my brain constantly thinks of how things are behaiving and how it become what it is. I dont calculate by using math skills but I calculate by using my imagination to put them together like a puzzle.
To my understanding of everything. It all started from one single particle with one single energy, then it add up in to different groups creating different particles and energy.
sample: everything starts from a single particles. This single particles then combine within eachother creating other particles then creates different energy, not only one type but alot. You have to remember that these particles will only combine if the energy of that particle is the same or a little less or little more in order for the particle to combine.They can combine but has to happen one time. What I mean is when they were single particles, 2, 3, 4 or more has to combine at the same time. Ounce it combines it creates another particle with a different energy. When 2 single particle combine it will only combine with particle that has 2 single particles. What I am saying is a particle with 2 single particle inside will not combine with particles that has 10 single particles in side.
If you understand what I just explain then you should see how things are what they are. This explains how gravity works and also why there are many different object.
I can go on explaining alot but I would prefer hearing any question anyone like to ask, then I can answer it one at a time.
Thanks
Dear colleague, no one knows how it started and what were the conditions. Quantum Mechanics has creation and destruction
operators such that locally energy does not have to be preserved, however, globally energy is not created ex-nihilo.
Will it help if I say that the source of the physical world is metaphysical ? I don't think so, physics has its own inherent limits
for example, it is based on mathematics and mathematics has a great "geological fault" in the form of Kurt Goedel's/Godel's
incompleteness theorem or even worse, Goedel/Godel Tarsky theorem. As for your impression on particles interactions,
such interactions comply with Group Theory.
0 -
Dear readers,Here is a list of events that lead to an offered theory I would like you to comment on.1) The main idea was that a particle clock measures time from the big bang to each event.From all such particles we pick up (problem with axiom of choice unless only recursive curvesare allowed) the ones that measured the maximum proper time. Geodesic curves measurelocally maximal proper time. So our selection is apparently from all geodesic curves connectingan event to the big bang. This idea leads to a scalar field of time but the gradient of thefield has unacceptable singularities where there is matter. To resolve this problem we mustassume that our test particles will not move along geodesic curves everywhere but only invacuum. We are coerced to accept that the motion of our particle clocks will not be geodesic inmatter. Our Lagrangian must demand that the curvature of the curves will be minimized alongwith the Ricci scalar curvature of space-time. One outcome is physics without matter becausematter will be simply non zero curvature of the gradient of the time field. Einstein'sequation will become geometric with curvature functions on both sides.That lead to a theory based on an operator I used in US patent : 7,424,462 that was submittedin 2004 and accepted in 2008. My boss, Mr Yossi Avni approved my action operator in handwrittensignature recognition software as a minimum cost function in 2003. The offered action istherefore interesting also in applied mathematics.2) In the past I focused on representation of perpendicular time in order to avoid Kerr likemetric tensors of space-time. That is possible at least locally but referees hated theidea and therefore it was almost totally removed from my original paper.3) In the papers I previously submitted to Foundations of Physics, Canadian Journal of Physics,and Physical Review Letters D. Referees objected that it will use absolute time. Part of it is myfault that I didn't make it clear enough that the gradient of the discussed time field is local.They had objected the idea of using a value that is not locally calculated but they had failed tonotice that the offered action does not explicitly use such a value but rather its local gardient.This explanation was added to the current paper.4) I am dyslexic and that fact leads to extreme difficulties in manipulating mathematical symbols. Thatcaused many errors in Euler Lagrange equations that took me years to fix, also thanks to professorDavid Lovelock. After the errors were fixed, I could at last show conservation laws and geodesicalmotion of the curvature. That is a surprise. The particle clocks are not geodesic in motion but thefield of their curvature (perpendicular to their motion) is !!! These calculation are of highimportance and they are now in the paper.5) It is apparent that the theory predicts Dark Matter. That subject was included.6) Finally there is a test to the theory. If the theory is "correct" then photons must slow downin sub atomic level. It is a clear cut test. Either the theory works or not !!!The bad news are that no such effect has ever been observed. That doesn't mean the effect isuntrue. Known slowing down of light in matter is mainly due to emission chains. One photon isabsorbed and a new one is emitted. No single photon has ever been observed slowing down in atomicor in sub-atomic level, I have no idea how to devise such an experiment or if it is possible at all.It is quite possible that due to this prediction, my research for the last 10 years will go downthe drain but that is physics and its difference from mathematics. A theory must agree withobservation.Here are links to the paper. If it works, it is a breakthrough. If not then at least take it asan attempt. Eitehr way I'm not different than any other researcher in the field. The only differenceis that the circumstances lead to a theory that started in computerized vision and not in physics.If there is a Journal that accepts the paper, it will be granted copyrights and therefore the linksin this message will have to be removed.Here are links. Most important is if there are any ideas of how to show 6 is correct !!!
Warm regards,Eytan Suchard.0 -
Hello all,
here you may find article draft http://tp-theory.net/tpt_eng.pdf where I prove that:
1) light has always "c" speed for any observer and there is no ether, but...
2) photon is explained as disturbance in time-space structure, traveling through this time-space with field equations exchanging Maxwell equations
3) Schwarzschild metric is recapitulated with proper time increment related to field, that works for any field
4) I define Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics for generalized field
5) Minkowski Metric is explained as the result of keeping constant light speed for rotating reference frames
I appreciate if you validate it.
P.S. I am looking for reviewers for peer review publication. Would anyone come forward?
Regards
pogono
Hi, why didn't you write 73 in the covariant form. The 4-speed is (c,0,0,sqrt(R/r)) * Gamma. Gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Then the divergence has to be zero.
Hi, why didn't you write 73 in the covariant form. The 4-speed is (c,0,0,sqrt(R/r)) * Gamma. Gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Then the divergence has to be zero.
Forgot to tell you that in the calculation of the divergence you must use the metric tensor because differentiation
is done by coordinates. These cope with the projection of local coordinates on the coordinate system of a far
observer because you use the Schwarzschild metric tensor.
0 -
The singularity in which our cosmos begins can have two sides. Since time begins in that singularity
it can have a negative axis. Along the negative side of the axis the time will grow in the negative direction.
Negative time in this sense does not mean it goes backwards. It will be the time just like time is measured
on our side of the singularity. Please try to imagine two cones glued one to the other by their point.
0 -
I really feel that in view of your research , you have something very valuable to offer here on the nature of Entropy.
I am not sure i have managed to get my head around what it is you are saying.
Could you possibly make a summary in simple yet accurate form .If you could be so kind. I think there is a fundamental truth lurking in here somewhere and would like to hear more.
When I was doing a degree in telecommunications,we were going through a Fourier analysis of some waveform or other.The professor drew on the board a complete spectrum from negative to positive about the zero axis.( zero hertz ) The positive frequencies were a whole set of lines of various heights. He drew an opposite set of lines on the negative side, saying at the time "we only use the positive ones." ( I think it was something to do with broadband ). I was curious at the time ' how can you have negative frequency ?, it does not make sense '
I never did find out.
Has this anything to do with the past in time ? and entropy , in the past . ? But past to who ? or What ( the relentless march of time, universal time or local time ? )
1) Let us begin with the end, " ( the relentless march of time, universal time or local time ? ) " the universe does manifest some irreversibility in terms of universal time
Universal time can be measured as maximal proper time along all geodesic curves connecting an event to the big bang.
Each geodesic curve measures local maximum of proper time. From all such curves connecting an event 'e' to the big bang, we choose the ones
along which absolute maximum proper time is measured. In that way, to each event in space time we can attach a number.
Since this number grows along curves we can say that such a model of space-time has memory. You have to understand, however, the physicists do not like such an
idea because it shows time which is absolute and not relative. For this reason my paper was rejected for several times despite mathematical beauty and simplicity.
On the other hand it is possible that Nature does not really remember what is the absolute maximum time to each event because the theory I presented uses only
the gradient of that time and the gradient is purely local.
2) "how can you have negative frequency ?". This question is tantamount to mine. How can we have absolute time ? We can in a mathematical description where the
outcome with physical meaning is the gradient of such a time. The meaningful outcome of negative frequencies will be the reconstructed signal.
A mathematical model has to work. Whether its intermediate products have a physical meaning or not, does not have to bother you as long as the outcome makes sense.
3) QM used imaginary functions above the Hilbert space with the self adjoint opertor. The value with physical meaning will not be the imaginary functions. It will be the
square norm of such functions. There are many such examples in physics.
0 -
The subject under discussion here is relativity, not QM.
"And one more question; if anything with a mass of zero has to move at C, it would seem to make sense that anything with a mass greater than zero would have to move also. This is not exactly worded like a question, but it is a question".
This understanding is correct only in QM i.e. zero state energy. That is why it seems to me correct to make this information available.
Considering that I defined the system to be at rest, I'd say I had taken care of that.
"if the object is moving" succeeded to confuse me.
1 -
The phenomena that you are referring to is called "superpostion", but I don't think you are interpreting it correctly. Superposition is just the property of a field. A field such as a gravitational field automatically exists in every location that it has propagated to at the speed of light, there is no physical motion involved in this, and particles can be described as fields in quantum field theory and so are predicted to also possess this property. Everything else you're saying just seems to be more like fringe extrapolations, the universe has no scientific need to observe itself and with our current physics the universe would have had to existed prior to the existence of any life in order to create conditions to form life, and the universe doesn't fit under the current biological definition of a living thing.
Quantum theories don't need you to support them, there's many tests that speak for themselves.
Nope, “supercahfed” talks about a quantum state machine. It has nothing to do with locality and non locality or with superposition of waves that solve any linear partial differential equation. He addressed the problem that a quantum state machine has all the states possible until observed. Whether the observed state can exist without an observer is a very deep question that is not within the reach of physics. Will a photon hit a detector if there is no observer ? If there is no observer, then there is no detector. An observer is implicitly conscious. That fact can’t be swept under the carpet just as a matter of convenience. As a friend of mine once said, “philosophy is the watchdog of science”.
Indeed I agree that this subject is not only on the fringes of physics but out of its jurisdiction. The term “observer” is often used in quantum mechanics but to fully understand it we have to be familiar with the excellent work by the deceased neurophysiologist philosopher and MD, professor Yeshyahu Leibowitz and his prodigious essay, “Foundations of the Psychophysical Problem”.
If a subject is stabbed in his toe by a needle, then the pulse from the wound to the brain can be measured by both an external observer and by the tested subject. So are the neural activities, say 20 pulses per second from neuron 31 to neuron 15, 10 pulses from neuron 26 to neuron 65 etc. The entire neural process is accessible to the observer just as it is accessible by measurement to the tested subject. However, the pain is felt by the tested subject alone. If the observer wants to out-wise the problem and objectively feel the pain that the tested subject feels, the observer connects a neural fiber from his/her brain to the tested subject’s brain. But then the observer will experience the pain through his media/brain and thus his feeling will be subjective again. The experience is split between two worlds, publicly owned physical world and privately owned psychic world. There is apparent correlation between the two. More pulses per second mean more pain. However, does correlation mean causation? The answer is no. We can roughly say the pulses per second are a “report” from the physical report. This report can be disrupted by drugs or by illness, however, pain and pleasure will never be accessible by physical units of Volts, Meter per Second, Joules or by pulses per second. There is no meaning to the phrase “the neural network generates pain” or “the neural process generates pain/pleasure”. It has no comprehensible meaning. The neuro-sensory integration theories - and there are many - fail to grasp this problem. All the integration and the processing that the brain does can’t describe pain and pleasure in terms of mathematics and/or in terms of physics. I would finish with a known sentence from Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “Its not the brain that thinks, it is the owner of the brain who thinks with the brain”. Our brains or maybe we, are capable of more than just using mathematics as a prosthetic tool of consciousness. Physics is not a science whose goal is to make us fail the Turing test.
0 -
If it's interacting, that interaction and the partner in that interaction generally have to be considered part of the system.
An object is at rest in its own frame. No interaction required.
Here you touched a very sensitive problem. We see a system of interacting particles as an object with
rest mass regardless of weather there are moving parts in it or not. For the physicist, such a system is
a packed black box. However, the laws of physics are totally local and a "system of particles" is not.
If we look at the parts of a system of interacting particles, we will see that indeed no part is at rest, ever.
That simply means that classical physics only approximates such a system. Only when there are effects
that can't be ignored, we look at the parts of the system, e.g. Stern - Gerlach experiment.
Objects at rest are nothing more than figments of the imagination and so are objects in general. The
amazing fact is that we can represent an entire system of particles as one object by a wave function of
that system. The act of putting the pieces together to form an object at rest is purely conscious, not
phenomenological !!! The fact that quantum mechanics agrees with that conscious synthesis is simply
a miracle.
1 -
The total energy of anything at rest is not zero — it is mc^2. The is not a momentum equation, it is an energy equation.
If the object is moving, the relevant equation is [math]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/math]
The momentum of a photon, which is massless, is E/c. Conservation of momentum and energy involving a photon and a massive object is a path for deriving E=mc^2 and lets you see where the c^2 comes from.
E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 is correct only if you mean m(0), the rest mass.
m(0)^2 c^4 + p^2c^2 = ( m(0)^2c^4(1-v^2/c^2) + m(0)^2v^2c^2 ) / (1-v^2/c^2) = m(0)2c^4/(1-v^2/c^2) = E^2.
Without writing explicitly m(0), the equation is pedagogically wrong.
1 -
As far as I know, negative mass is physically impossible with respect to current established physics. A negative mass implies that something can have a negative kinetic energy which, in turn, (I'd assume) implies a temperature below absolute zero.
By General Relativity, negative rest mass means positive Ricci curvature of space-time. Imaginary wave
functions will not lead to negative rest mass.
if that was the purpose of the original question. My work was on that exact subject for the last 10 years.
It seems that there is a way to use a curvature operator that was part of my work in computerized vision in
2003, such that Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (~Negative mass) will be all solutions of the same
basic equation. Dark Energy as I see it, does not appear as matter and it does not involve purely
imaginary wave functions. I strongly recommend that you read about Chameleon scalar fields to achieve
a more illuminating idea of how dark energy may exist without the need of imagery functions..
0 -
Hi, I've already written an answer.
links deleted
Dear moderator,
Look at the end of the paper Dark Matter at page 28.
Please return the link.
Kind regards,
Eytan (Ethan).
!Moderator Note
eytal_il, a paper that does not mention imaginary mass really can't be an answer to a question about imaginary mass. As such the links have been deleted. Your previous response was split off into a new thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72247-emergent-time-split-from-imaginary-mass/#entry724209
Please review our rules, especially the one on thread hijacking.
Real physics is not dogmatic. I worked on that exact subject for the last 10 years.
0 -
Can there be imaginary mass resulting from negative mass instances? And how would it alter the point origin of the universe? Would it bring time before origin into life?
Hi, I've already written an answer.
links deleted
0 -
The second law of thermodynamics says that from any point in time, entropy increases toward the future. But the law of physics are time invarient, that is, they treat forward and backward in time the same. Therefore this implies that entropy should increase in the direction of the past, as well as the future. And yet, we see that entropy is indeed lower in the past. So the question is, why was entropy lower in the past?
We can't be 100% sure that there are no mechanisms in Nature that violate the second law of thermodynamics.
For example, it is possible that a super massive black hole has an upper mass limit such that mass absorbed
by the black hole that exceeds this limit, is emitted in an unfamiliar form which later turns back into hydrogen.
Such possible effects are not related to Hawking radiation !
We simply don't know. We should never forget that physics is a collection of models that quantitatively
predict observations and as such, they are not the absolute truth but rather serve current and future
technologies. We can't be sure about the second law of thermodynamics as long as we do not understand
black holes in the quantum level. However, the accelerated cosmic expansion is a clue that in the cosmic level
there is an irreversible process.
0 -
I don't understand that.
Me neither. Entropy, without using logarithms and deep mathematical interpretations
simply deals with statistically irreversible processes. For example, if half of the molecules
of some gas have high thermal energy and half have low energy but they are mixed
together, it will require energy to separate the mixture to hot gas and to cold gas.
By the way, that is the form of energy that creates wind and storms, for example,
tornado. In big words, entropy is a mathematical exprssion of mixture of physical states.
It is easy to mix and the system releases energy as a result. To bring the system to
its pre-mix state, it requires energy. The claim that entropy is symmetric with time seems
to have no sense at all.
0 -
I've heard many physicists put forward the second law of thermodynamics as an explanation of the vector of time. Can someone explain to me why that is not circular reasoning? It seems that it merely says that entropy increases with time therefore time must increase with entropy. How is that not circular? Isn't a better proposal needed for an explanation?
Yes it does,
Entropy is some sort of statistical memory of spacetime and matter. In big words it means "mess"
always grows in Thermodynamic systems. For the last 10 years I've been working exactly on your
question. Yes, we can say time grows with entropy because we can define a field of time !!! From
each event we can connect a curve to the "big bang" such that the proper time it measures along
it will be maximal. On ordinary geodesic curves on the Lorentzian manifold of spacetime, only local
maximum of proper time is measured. The field of time is absolute maximal time. As such, it defines
a scalar field on the manifold of spacetime. This scalar field has a gradient. Where there is
matter, more than one such curves of absolute maximum proper time intersect and the gradient
becomes discontiuous. Spacetime resolves the discontiuity by quantum uncertainty. A limit
to the quantum theory is a classical one which I also worked on. The theory uses tensors but
is so simple and so revolutionary that I find it very difficult to publish though there is a physics professor
who likes the idea. Currently I try to publish the theory in the Canadian Journal of Physics which
is expected to reject the paper and not due to professional reasons.
If they accept the paper I will have to delete the following link:
http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time
The theory not only explains that spacetime has memory in the form of scalar field but also shows
how the field is defined by matter which is simply a geodesical conflict in spacetime.
Entropy is simply a result of motion of singularities of the gradient of the time field.
The theroy also discusses Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as ordinary matter as
3 solutions of one equation.
0 -
Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy result from the existence of a field of time,
For the last 10 years I've been working on your question along with, entropy and memory
of spacetime. From each event we can connect a curve to the "big bang" such that the proper time
it measures along it will be maximal. On ordinary geodesic curves on the Lorentzian manifold of
spacetime, only local maximum of proper time is measured. The field of time is absolute maximal
time. As such, it defines a scalar field on the manifold of spacetime. This scalar field has a gradient.
Where there is matter, more than one such curves of absolute maximum proper time intersect and
the gradient becomes discontiuous. Spacetime resolves the discontiuity by quantum uncertainty. A
limit to the quantum theory is a classical one which I also worked on. The theory uses tensors but
is so simple and so revolutionary that I find it very difficult to publish though there is a physics professor
who likes the idea. Currently I try to publish the theory in the Canadian Journal of Physics which
is expected to reject the paper and not due to professional reasons.
If they accept the paper I will have to delete the following link:
http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time
The theory not only explains that spacetime has memory in the form of scalar field but also shows
how the field is defined by matter which is simply a geodesical conflict in spacetime.
Entropy is simply a result of motion of singularities of the gradient of the time field.
The theroy also discusses Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as ordinary matter as
3 solutions of one equation.
0
Emergent Time (split from imaginary mass)
in Speculations
Posted
****************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: All copyrights reserved to JMP - Journal of Modern Physics !!!
****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: All copyrights reserved to JMP - Journal of Modern Physics !!!
****************************************************************************************