A Revolutionary Idea: Rethinking Time Measurement in Physics

[Doctordick]

Only interaction by direct physical contact requires "same time." Interaction by quanta of force field is limited by light speed.

You are presuming your theory of "interaction by quanta of force" is correct. If you express the presumed interactions directly (that is, creation of the interacting quanta as an event and the effect of that interacting quanta as a second event) then each of those events occur at exactly the same time as either the causing event or the consequence event. It is your error to presume there is no difference between the two events.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

If you wish, I will give you my derivation of general relativistic quantum mechanics. But, before I do so, I need to know your education as without that knowledge I would have to start with freshman physics.

Have fun -- Dick

I am a part time college student of electrical engineering, age 42. I have taken all of the prerequisite "calculus" courses along with self study.

Your derivation of general relativistc quantum mechanics sounds very interesting.

Please proceed.

 

[Doctordick]

I am a part time college student of electrical engineering, age 42. I have taken all of the prerequisite "calculus" courses along with self study.

Your derivation of general relativistc quantum mechanics sounds very interesting.

Please proceed.

Ok, the first step is for you to tell me if you can follow my post #3 on the thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23266

If you have had no more than the prerequisite "calculus" courses, you may have difficulty following the derivation. Please post your responses to that post on that thread. I will do my best to clarify any problems you have. Once you accept the fact that the equation is fundamental, I will show you how to solve it step by step.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Is that an opinion or a fact? If it is a fact, then I would like to see your derivation of general relativistic quantum mechanics. If it is not a fact, then it is only an opinion.

In a Schwarzschild spacetime via an analogue of the Schwarzschild spacetime of the Rindler vacuum state, for which static observers detect no particles, the expected stress-energy tensor becomes singular on two distinct portions of the intersecting null planes. This is known as the Hartle-Hawking vacuum, and the vacuum state will become a thermal state with respect to the notion of time translations with temperature T = hbar*c^3 / 8pi*k*G*M .

The vacuum state gives rise to a generalized entropy law, where the entropy S' never decreases:

S' = S_m + A/4

The area of a spacetime surface and the maximum amount of information contained in a finite region of space, cannot be greater than one quarter of the area in Planck units. Spin networks can describe the quantum geometry of space at the intersection of horizon boundaries, where the spin networks intersect with the boundary at a finite number of points.

There is a finite amount of energy contained by a given region of spacetime. A finite amount of information. A finite number of quantum phase entanglements and random fluctuations.

A phenomenon is random if individual outcomes are uncertain but there is a regular distribution of outcomes in a large number of repetitions.

The Hawking-Unruh effect is therefore the consequence of the noise spectrum for a massless scalar field along an accelerated trajectory in Minkowski space. It would appear to be a Fermi-Dirac form. The Unruh effect then becomes an integral part of a quantum field theory.


If the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum states cannot leak out of the closed system. So the density of entangled quantum states, continually increases, as the entropy must always increase. While to us, it is interpreted as entropy or lost information, it is actually recombined information, to the universe. Shannon entropy.

Spacetime Memory = Compression Waves = Interpretation of Increased Entropy = Shannon entropy.


Einstein's equation basically says

Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]

[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.

[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.

.
Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.

[spacetime tells mass]<==[geodesic]==>[mass tells spacetime]

An object following a geodesic has no unbalanced forces acting on it. Its energy-momentum is a constant. In order for the object to deviate from the geodesic, it must be accelerated. Energy must be expended, for example, its rocket boosters could fire, or an outside force like a meteor impact .


Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of the vacuum itself.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" .

Actually, spacetime can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous[causally connected].

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


Quantum mechanics leads to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is interesting with the caveat that if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. It is Shannon entropy, to an information processor with huge computational capabilities.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Doctordick,

The events happen in spacetime. The speed of traveling in space and the speed of traveling in time are related. These combined motions always equal the speed of light. If the interaction go faster in space then it will slow down in time, vice versa. No particle can travels greater than c in space, only light can do that. When light is traveling at exactly c in space then its speed in time is zero. Light does not age and time stands still.

 

[Doctordick]

Doctordick,

The events happen in spacetime. The speed of traveling in space and the speed of traveling in time are related. These combined motions always equal the speed of light. If the interaction go faster in space then it will slow down in time, vice versa. No particle can travels greater than c in space, only light can do that. When light is traveling at exactly c in space then its speed in time is zero. Light does not age and time stands still.

Please define exactly what you mean by "speed"!

 

[KingNothing]

I think you know what speed is. He's not talkin 'bout meth.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

This appears to be Dr. Stafford's definition of the problem with "time":

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm

The fundamental problem is two very different concepts of time. One concept of time is the idea that there is a state called the present which divides the universe into two different realms: the past which cannot be changed from the future which cannot be exactly known. The second concept of time is that it is the reading off a clock. These concepts are fundamentally inconsistent with one another.

Two issues ignored by the scientific community should be looked at very closely here. First, any competent physicists knows that it is impossible to construct a device which will provide a universal division between past and future for all possible reference frames. This being the case, they simply ignore that concept of time as being of no scientific significance. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, seriously confronts that concept.

The second issue is the fact that all clocks are dynamic physical entities controlled by the laws of physics. Since the fundamental axiom of relativity is that the laws of physics are not frame dependent, the readings on a clock cannot possibly be frame dependent! Note that the only measure in the theory of relativity which is totally independent of the reference frame is Einstein's invariant interval which, as luck would have it, is exactly what all clocks measure. Scientists avoid thinking about this issue by placing their reference clocks in specific reference frames as if these frames are of special significance.

Time is a sequence, or interval, separating events on a "timeline/worldline". It is governed/determined by the laws of physics, it is not of itself a law of physics, since it is a measurement. Then again, c is invariant!

There can be no preferred frame of reference.

Space-time becomes Euclidean as distance between two arbitrarily different "frames" becomes very small. So two events become simultaneous as their space-time separation goes to zero.

Dr. Einstein's theory is still correct.

 

[Doctordick]

Dr. Einstein's theory is still correct.

I am glad you are so sure of that! I think you just find my work to be beyond your comprehension; as I suspect, so is Dr. Einstein's.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

I am glad you are so sure of that! I think you just find my work to be beyond your comprehension; as I suspect, so is Dr. Einstein's.

Have fun -- Dick

Thank you for the vote of confidence Dr. D.

A person can perform an experiment in a reference frame traveling at a velocity that is a significant fraction of the velocity of light or in a frame traveling at a low velocity. The results of the experiment will be the same at both reference systems.

There is no preferred frame for systems traveling at a constant relative velocity.

So what the heck do you mean? when you say:

Scientists avoid thinking about this issue by placing their reference clocks in specific reference frames as if these frames are of special significance.

 

[Netme]

Time has infinite dimensions. We live in our own dimension of time as do atoms and planets the universe and so on.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Doctordick,

My general definition of "speed" is rate of change of something with respect to something else. The something else is assumed not changing in any sense of the word. In other words, the something else takes the value of zero. This is the definition of a derivative in calculus.

This "not changing" is not the same as what we mean by a "constant." Constant is a value for all time (past, present, future).

 

[Doctordick]

I think you are trying to muddy the waters.

Doctordick,

My general definition of "speed" is rate of change of something with respect to something else. The something else is assumed not changing in any sense of the word. In other words, the something else takes the value of zero. This is the definition of a derivative in calculus.

This "not changing" is not the same as what we mean by a "constant." Constant is a value for all time (past, present, future).

Then I would presume you would find a reference to the "speed of the roof of my house" to be a very reasonable use of the term? Or is it rather that you don't want to confront the issue of exactly what you mean by "time"? I have a feeling it is the latter.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Time has infinite dimensions. We live in our own dimension of time as do atoms and planets the universe and so on.

I suspect you are not interested in logical thought. You are using the word "dimensions" where a more analytical person would more probably use the word "aspects". English is not a very exact language. If you want to express "exact" concepts, mathematics is a much more exact language: i.e., what is meant by an expression is usually much better defined than expressions in English.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Thank you for the vote of confidence Dr. D.

Thinking is not an easy thing to do. A lot of people value knowledge very highly because it relieves them of the need to think. I am afraid you are getting sufficiently long in the tooth that you would rather depend on what you "know" than think about it. If that is a false impression and you want me to change my opinion, you need to make some comments can be taken differently and not just quote academic catechism.

So what the heck do you mean? when you say:

Scientists avoid thinking about this issue by placing their reference clocks in specific reference frames as if these frames are of special significance.

They demand that dx, dy, and dz of the space-time lines of their clocks vanish in their reference frame! They make no such constraint on the character of their rulers. All they ask of their rulers is that (dx/dt +dy/dt +dz/dt) vanish for any specific measurement in that frame of reference (a subtly different issue). Of course, they don't expressly put that in their catechism as it might draw attention to this special treatment and open questions about the use of clocks as measuring devices.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Antonio Lao]

Doctordick,

Time is relative. Spacetime is absolute. To me, any future consideration of using the derivative has to be rate of change of something with respect to spacetime. I really don't know how to do this, mathematically speaking. In other words, I don't understand when spacetime takes the value of zero. Is this the singularity? Where all physical variables are known to be infinite (density, energy, temperature). But the time, volume are all zero at the singularity. I know cosmologists, like Hawking and Penrose, refuse to talk about the naked singularity. They censor it.

 

[Doctordick]

Doctordick,

Time is relative. Spacetime is absolute. To me, any future consideration of using the derivative has to be rate of change of something with respect to spacetime. I really don't know how to do this, mathematically speaking. In other words, I don't understand when spacetime takes the value of zero. Is this the singularity? Where all physical variables are known to be infinite (density, energy, temperature). But the time, volume are all zero at the singularity. I know cosmologists, like Hawking and Penrose, refuse to talk about the naked singularity. They censor it.

Thank you very much for clarifying your position. I think I may have a better understanding of where you are coming from. When you say "spacetime is absolute", I suspect you are complaining about something I often complained about when I was a graduate student. I used to say that Einstein's representation of the universe was not dynamic but static and none of my professors seemed to comprehend what I was talking about.

I often bring up the issue of magicians and how they hide what they are doing through misdirection of attention because I think most professional scientists are guilty of the same ruse. (I only said that because people get tired of me saying it, especially if they don't understand why I say it.)

When I would say the relativistic picture was not dynamic they would point to the "time" axis and say "here is the dynamic component of the relativistic picture". But, when I said it was just a coordinate like any other coordinate in the representation and, in Einstein's picture, it is no more a source of change than is x or y, they would say "Oh, but it is quite different as, in Einstein's picture the geometry of the universe has quite a different metric and 'time' is quite different from 'space'; that is why it is called a space-time continuum!" And I would say, "Ah, yes; in Einstein's picture, time is imaginary!" Now there is a joke in there which no physicist I have ever met sees.

The issue of course is that there is no explicit parameter of change in Einstein's picture. That makes talking about how things change very difficult. Professional physicists handle the situation by moving from subject to subject to subject until the student gives up questioning the validity of their position and accepts their representation as free of difficulties. I call that procedure "misdirection of attention" and it is very effective at quelling investigative examination.

To me, any future consideration of using the derivative has to be rate of change of something with respect to spacetime. I really don't know how to do this, mathematically speaking.

That is because you really want to consider how things change with respect to time. In Einstein's picture, all things are space-time entities. In other words, you want to know how "space-time entities" change in time.

Now the physicists, being well trained in misdirection of attention will point out that all you want is the collection of space like cross sections of those space-time entities. If you then point out that, if one looks at space like cross sections of entities, they are no longer looking at space-time entities as the time coordinate has vanished, they will (driving home that spike of misdirection) point out that it is still a space-time entity which can be seen by transforming to a different frame of reference (and time will come right back into the description of the entity): i.e., it is as much of a space-time entity as it ever was.

When I was a first year graduate student I brought up that issue with one of the theoretical professors whom I held in high respect. I showed him the Euclidian representation of a correct relativistic space which I brought up on this thread (message #40). I showed him how it allowed a "dynamic" view of what was going on. He told me that, so long as it gave me the correct answers to problems there was nothing wrong with using the view but "please don't show it to the other students, it will just confuse them!" (By the way, he gave me the best grade in the class and, as far as I am aware, he held me as the best student he had.) I respected the man enough that I did not tell any of the other students about my observation.

Now in some respects, that advice could be seen as the worst possible advice he could have given me. On the other hand, it is also possible that I managed to get a Ph.D. in theoretical physics simply because I didn't try to fight the system until well after I graduated.

At any rate, I personally think you can trace your problem to the fact that the accepted picture of the universe supported by the current academy is just simply not convenient for analyzing the things you want to analyze. As a map maker, you should recognize the advantage of choosing the best coordinate system. (The Mercator projection is wrong but it sure serves its purpose so long as one remembers its shortcomings. In the same vein, I would hold that Einstein's space-time continuum is an invalid representation of reality but also provides very valuable service so long as one remembers its shortcomings.)

With regard to singularities, I am firmly of the opinion that a correct mental image of the universe should be totally without singularity. People forget that "infinity" is not a "number". "Infinity" is a tag attached to the description of a procedure allowing quick and easy reference to a special, rather common, circumstance in mathematics. Singularities arise when ever one attempts to push a mathematical representation of a problem beyond the applicability of the model behind that representation. It follows that any competent "physicist" wants you to switch models before you get there. Rus_Waters gave an answer to someone's question on this forum which was essentially a statement that what the person was talking about was not a quantum mechanical system. Compartmentalized thinking is much more conducive to misdirection of attention than is generalized conceptualization.

I say that any answer which is wrong in the limit of its definition is the wrong answer and professional physicists don't like that.

Sorry about my overly long answer!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Antonio Lao]

Thanks for your overly long answer.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Thinking is not an easy thing to do. A lot of people value knowledge very highly because it relieves them of the need to think. I am afraid you are getting sufficiently long in the tooth that you would rather depend on what you "know" than think about it.

Yes, you are correct. I am getting long in the tooth.


The key to "unification" is symmetry.



A timeless symmetry?

An infinite number of coin flips gives an equal amount of heads and an equal amount of tails.

[1/2 H and 1/2 T]*n, for n--->oo

A radioactive nucleus decays in accordance with probability P within time t_0 to time t_1

Probability P becomes a timeless mathematical entity governing the future iterations of events at time t. There exists a spectrum of possibilities for the observed quantities. Certain deterministic factors become contingent with respect to uncertainty, DxDp >= h .

An infinite number of observations of the radioactive decay, converges to an exact number for t?

Wave function probability density = |psi (r, t)|^2


The physical meaning of the expectation value is simple. It is the value that would be found by taking the average of many measurements of the observables in question on a large collection of systems all in the state psi. the individual results are weighted by the probability.

As Hawking says, the laws of physics must hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe. A triumph for the principles of democracy. Ergo, no singularity.

The one inch equation:

[<-[-><-]->]

The brackets, or parentheses, represent cotangent bundles. The arrows represent tangent vectors.

U stands for "universe", or, quantum particle. Energy conservation is time symmetric. This is a self similarity that holds for any aspect, or the "whole".

The "tau" parameter becomes a function of three coordinates on the surface of the embedded 3 dimensional manifold.

 

[Doctordick]

I have no idea what you are talking about!

And I see no connection between what you are saying and what I am trying to communicate. Sorry I am so dense.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Where are those pesky viruses coming from?

There seems to be a pesky virus infecting my computers when I visit the physics forums!

I discovered that it is called the "Sasser Worm".

Hopefully we will be able to talk without interruption, about these great physics ideas Dr. D.

 

[Doctordick]

Hopefully we will be able to talk without interruption, about these great physics ideas Dr. D.

Now that would be a boon and a half! I should be so lucky.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

The thermodynamic arrow of time appears to be equivalent to a logical "if-then" statement.

If A then B
A
therefore B

Conscious awareness is moving along fourth dimensional extensions of three dimensional space.

The increase in mass of a body moving at relativistic speeds can also be interpreted as a type of rotational perspective effect, and when time is explained as a dimension, "ct", by combining one of the c's with time to convert it to a length, E = m_0 c^2 becomes m_0 c , a momentum, specifically, a momentum of an object's motion down its time axis. Sets can be represented by Venn diagrams. Venn diagrams can be represented as light cone cross sections. Relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation become rotational perspective effects.

A photon traverses the path from A---> B at the same velocity as from
B--->A

A--->B = X

B--->A = X '

X / T = X ' / T ' = c

X*T ' = T*X '



One asks oneself the question "What the heck does it mean for a wave function to collapse?"

According to Einstein, there is no instantaneous action at a distance!


Distance is a property between objects in space. Space is a structure, which is postulated to be constructed of discrete units. The structure of space is possibly a distributive lattice. A set of properties, being a "complementary logic?", expressing difference in wholeness.
On one level of existence two photons are separate. On another level, of existence[spacetime boundary], the photons have zero separation.

Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.

 

[Hurkyl]

Reading through a couple more times, it seems to me that this is what you have done:

You've added a proper time dimension so that proper time is now a coordinate rather than a quantity computed from a path, and I think I understand the point to doing this, and it seems clever, but I haven't worked out the consequences yet. Allow me to present what I think you mean, and tell me if I'm close:

The basic idea is to have all particles traveling at a constant speed through space. In order to achieve this, you are adding a 4-th dimension to "soak up" the excess speed.

The actual position in this 4-th dimension is irrelevant for the kinematics, only the differential in this direction. Interestingly, this differential coincides with [itex]d\tau[/itex] from relativity.

(Note: the next paragraph is somewhat being pulled out of my hat; my knowledge of the details of QM and up is fairly limited, so I'm half-speculating hoping my understanding of things is right. )

Furthermore, for pratcial purposes we could consider this 4-th dimension rolled up and our particles smeared across this dimension so that they have no definitie position, thus making this dimension irrelevant for macroscopic kinematics.


Anyways, I can't see anything else you've done besides add this gadget; your reintroduction of a universal time parameter seems to be nothing more than picking some inertial reference frame and cutting it into space-time slices. I can't see any reason why the gadget couldn't be attached to Minowski space, maybe with the Lorentz transformations resizing the circumference of the tau dimension in order to keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant. Of course, the 5-velocity becomes more complicated.


Anyways, this brings up the question of what kind of coordinate transforms occur in your system. You deny Lorentz boosts, but what about Galilean boosts? Are anything but rotations and translations permissible?

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Hurkyl, I have been hoping to see a response from you.

You've added a proper time dimension so that proper time is now a coordinate rather than a quantity computed from a path, and I think I understand the point to doing this, and it seems clever, but I haven't worked out the consequences yet. Allow me to present what I think you mean, and tell me if I'm close:

Interesting here that you use the phrase 'rather than a quantity computed from a path' as I have explicitly pointed out that [itex]\tau[/itex] is exactly what is measured by clocks while t (the parameter to be used in the calculation of the evolution of physical systems) is a quantity which must, in general, be computed.

In order to make that statement clearer, let me describe a hypothetical experiment where this issue is significant. Consider a pilot flying a spaceship in the vicinity of the Earth with windows which allow the experimenter to see exactly what he is doing (or perhaps a television camera broadcasting an image of his actions at the control panel of the ship). The observer will use the three dimensional coordinate system which is consistent with his definition personal definition of simultaneity.

Now let relativity be a significant issue (we don't really need high speeds for this, we just need accuracy sufficient to require including relativistic effects). Because the radio waves from the broadcast take exactly the same time to reach us as the light image of things like rocket on or rocket off events, the one way speed of light becomes an insignificant issue. We will see the consequences of the pilots actions as simultaneous with those actions (if we want to know when the events happened in our rest coordinate system, we just use the finite speed of light to back track the issue to the "correct" time: i.e., do a calculation).

When it comes to dynamic phenomena on the ship, we need to use the clock on the ship and the known rest measurements on the ship. In fact, there is a very astonishing consequence of using the ships clock in your calculations. I don't know if you have the math background to prove this but I can prove it: if you use a three dimensional coordinate system at rest with the observer and time as measured on the ships clock, the position of the ship along its path is exactly given by a direct integration of a(t)dt along that path. Now I call that a surprisingly simple result considering the complexity of the relativistic problem. (Actually, it's trivial if you think about it a little!)

The basic idea is to have all particles traveling at a constant speed through space. In order to achieve this, you are adding a 4-th dimension to "soak up" the excess speed.

I guess it could be seen that way but it is not the way I came to it. When I was in high school (back in the early 50's), I read a popular presentation of Einstein's ideas. Of course I didn't know sufficient math to understand it very well; however, I was very impressed by the twin paradox and its resolution. What I got from the presentation was that the reading on the clock had nothing to do with whether or not he and his twin could talk.

Since one twin stayed home and the other traveled, I saw the issue as being one of going forward in time. The rest twin went forward in time at some rate (clearly defining "how fast he went into the future" was a meaningless thing – he did, that’s all). The traveling twin went into the future at a considerably faster rate. In fact, the "distance" he went into the future was a result of the combination of the reading on his clock and how far he had traveled. This led me to the conclusion that, going into the future was caused by moving.

Now Einstein had proposed that the universe was a four dimensional continuum where the fourth dimension was time. Well that made sense, time was what we read on the clock. So my mental image of the universe was a four dimensional space (Euclidian because that's all I knew at the time). When we thought we were standing still, we were actually moving in this fourth dimension: i.e. we could neglect our motion in the observable three dimensions. (And certainly setting everybody's clock to read the same was a ridiculous idea.) Furthermore, the dimension would have to be projected out (the readings on the clocks had nothing to do with being able to interact). When I was in high school I saw no need for a mechanism to yield the projection, it just was that's all.

Well, I used that mental image of the circumstance and it always gave me the right answers. When I began to study relativity, it became very clear that my mental image was not at all what Einstein had in mind and I was quite surprised that it always gave the correct answers to any relativistic problem I was given. (In fact, I often used it to give me a quick and dirty insight as to what to expect.)

When I reached graduate school and found that the image even worked with regard to some general relativistic problems I really began to think about it. It was then that I proved it was mathematically 100% equivalent to standard relativity (through the parametric representation I showed you guys). I also saw quantum as providing the projection mechanism. I showed it to a professor at the time and he agreed it was equivalent but required me to promise not to tell the other students as "it would confuse them".

The actual position in this 4-th dimension is irrelevant for the kinematics, only the differential in this direction. Interestingly, this differential coincides with [itex]d\tau[/itex] from relativity.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant. It is only irrelevant when discussing objects which are momentum quantized in that direction: i.e., when the rest mass of the devices of interest (our laboratory and measuring devices have a quantized rest mass). The position is irrelevant for contact interactions but very significant to the kinematics.

(Note: the next paragraph is somewhat being pulled out of my hat; my knowledge of the details of QM and up is fairly limited, so I'm half-speculating hoping my understanding of things is right. )

Furthermore, for pratcial purposes we could consider this 4-th dimension rolled up and our particles smeared across this dimension so that they have no definitie position, thus making this dimension irrelevant for macroscopic kinematics.

Again, I would say it is irrelevant to the display of events but not at all irrelevant to the kinematics of the events.

Anyways, I can't see anything else you've done besides add this gadget; your reintroduction of a universal time parameter seems to be nothing more than picking some inertial reference frame and cutting it into space-time slices. I can't see any reason why the gadget couldn't be attached to Minowski space, maybe with the Lorentz transformations resizing the circumference of the tau dimension in order to keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant. Of course, the 5-velocity becomes more complicated.

The single most significant aspect of what I have done is that quantum mechanics must be brought in at the initial level and flows through the whole thing from the word go. Actually, once you see the correctness of the perspective, which I think you are close to seeing, in order to see the real general consequences you need to be able to solve my fundamental equation in the "Why you should like my perspective' thread.

Anyways, this brings up the question of what kind of coordinate transforms occur in your system. You deny Lorentz boosts, but what about Galilean boosts? Are anything but rotations and translations permissible?

I am ignorant of this term "boosts". All I am doing is analyzing the kinematics of interacting entitles in a four dimensional Euclidian space presuming there exists no such thing as action at a distance (only virtual exchange interactions note my Dirac delta function interaction) and no such thing as mass (mass turns out to be no more than a quantum mechanical effect).

But you have to be able to solve my fundamental equation in order to see the consequences. I will lead the forum through the solution if I feel there is enough interest to make it worth while.

Hope you have the where with all to follow me – Dick

PS right now I have places to go and things to do. See you all tomorrow.

 

[Doctordick]

Hurkyl, a little more on your post!

Anyways, I can't see anything else you've done besides add this gadget; your reintroduction of a universal time parameter seems to be nothing more than picking some inertial reference frame and cutting it into space-time slices.

Ok, as long as it is clear to you that this can always be done and does provide a mental picture of how things are happening.

I can't see any reason why the gadget couldn't be attached to Minowski space, maybe with the Lorentz transformations resizing the circumference of the tau dimension in order to keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant. Of course, the 5-velocity becomes more complicated.

Think about what you have just said here. You are going to keep the Minkowski representation of space and add another "time" parameter, then "keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant". Aren’t you sort of complicating your life with a lot of additional (and unnecessary) mathematical baggage? And, are you sure it is going to give you the right answer?

I like to keep things as simple as possible and always remember, the real question is, does it give the right answer -- Dick

 

[geistkiesel]

Clock gedudenken - relative motion detector . . .

Somewhere the clock has a a tick-tock-tick going on. If this clocks compares the ticking of a clock that is in a frame at rest, or slower, then by comparing the delta time of the ticks, in his moving frame, the moving clock can determiine which of the two frames are moving the fastest!. By recording faster ticks and slower ticks, the moving clock frame can infer he is not stationary wrt to an absolute stationary frame.
Let us say that on the moving frame the ticking goes thus:

| | | | | | and some input signal is recorded | | | | | | | | and a third

| | | | | | |. If the moving clock knows he is recording clock ticks at a minimum he can determine which oif the input clock ticks are on platforms that are faster, slower or moving at the same speed.

Cranking it up a notch, if the test frame detects shifts in the different pulses that were constant in recorded frequency, he can determine accelerating platforms moving toward him or away.

 

[geistkiesel]

Knowledge, physics and models buried in complexity and other fogs . . .

And I see no connection between what you are saying and what I am trying to communicate. Sorry I am so dense.

Have fun -- Dick

Tis should be a trivial exercise for such an agile and fruitful mind.

Consider the possibility that those formulating quantum theory circa 1926 and thereafter analyzed Stern-Gerlach transition experiments and two hole diffraction incompletely. For instance, under what conditions was the '' rigidly attached randomly oriented angular momentum vector" model discarded? The model failed to account for the two spots on the collecting surface instead of a smooth smear, which is what was classically expected.

Some implications of these findings are with us yet , in a fundamental way. I suggest that theose who discarded the "classical soin vector model" were a bit hasty and abrupt. They missed an opportunity to go forward instead of backward. Let me show you why.

Lets us instead of throwing out the baby with the wash, retain a modified vesion of the classical vector. The vector is solidily attached to the particle, and even randomly pointing, but there is a subtle difference. Let us put the vector on a universal joint such that when the particle enters the field and gradient volume the vector simply rotates until it aligns itself with the field and gradient direction. For a spin-1 particle we have an added input. Only three distinct directions of motion are observed. Therefore, intrinsic to the particle 'spin generating function' the +, 0 or - value are imposed on the motion. The vector 'lines with the field, the 'spin state' or direction of observed motion wrt the Stern-Gerlach segment is 'chosen' perhaps randomly by the particle.

OK this is heresy, but remember the analysis is a relook at pre-modern quantum physics. In fact the 'spin state' need not be randomly genertated. A measure of identical particles will verify that the three different directions slavishly follow a 1/3 egalitarian sharing of direction wrt to the segment field/gradient direction. So why not just 'hard code" the diferent spin states as one after the other.

The standard model countering in all this heresy, has the spin state of the particles "set in he heat of the tungsten filiament'" which means that even in the most complex higher order spin states this "random" state generator works as flawlessy as does a simple generator intrinsic to the particle host. The 'tungsten filamnet' sorce cannot be proved, but the interinsic generatior model can be proved. Liikewise, one never gets to the contrived "quantized space" sometimes referred to as the measure of constant angular momentum regardless of the orienatation of the measutring device.

OK, so far we are at a free moving spin vector generating its own spin states nonrandomly.

I have not seen any serious analysis other than Feynman's in his "Lectures on Physics" Vol III chapter 5, which is not slightly flawed it is incompetent. Sorry, Doctordick, I saw some reference to Feynman that indicated he was a physicist you resepcted. Maybe he deserves his fame and fortune, but it isn't from his "inteference amplitude" model en gave us. Nor was it his analytsis of two-hole diffraction where he states that any substutute for the prevailing quantum mechanical view means, among other things, that the electron would have to pick the hole it was going through before it entered, wow what an impossibility, if there ever was one, right?

Of course the electron picks the hole it is going through, of course a base state +S particle transitioning through an unobstructed T segment returns to its input state in the S - > T -> S trasnition. Heck, comapss needles always return north after perturbed don't they? We must see that the simple transition written here described a particle tansitioning from a fied/gradient free region into a field/gradient region whre it is polarized into one of three T states for the duration of the travels through the segment. When exiting the field/gradient the 'spin state' of the particle returns to the +S pre-polarized state.

This is a short discussion abot the reformtion of base states.. A +S state has the polarization of the particle aligned with an S segment we will say is up parallel with the lab frame. T is rotated around the direction of travel of the particle, hence the 'maganetic monopole' (my definition not yours, which you denied exist) orients iteself to one unique +, 0 or - T state. Then when leaving the T segment, in field free space, the +S compass returns. Obviously the +S notation does not define the spin styate of the particle and is incomplete for a void of any reference to those elements of the +S state that guarantee the reformationm of the +S state.

Now the orientation sa nd reorientation of the magnetic monopoles leads me to describe the systems as an inertial system, you know llike a three directional gyroscope.

There is much more, so I have assembled a simple minded webpage to go through some of the pertinent details. So see

http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/ all to most theoreticians displeasure.

In the experiments Feynman discusses, which I have analyzed in the tuitoriall, the states of the particles are either known at all times or can be determined after transition through the segment. There isn't any magic that Feunman refers to, not any reason for his statement that "physics has given up" and "we just don't know".

An +S particle entering a T segment and takes the -T channell will always exit that channel in the +S state, which can be easily verified. Feynman is downright silly in his discussion of the four crucial experiments which are the coda of his presentation of chapter 5. It seems to me, a natural skeptic, tha Feyman deliberately distractedthe reader from a proper reading of the experimental results, which I agree with 100%. Any medium intelligent and half way curiious undergradute can discover Feynman's siliness, or was it just an oversight, a missing of the forest from a few mispalced trees, maybe a bad hair day?

Doctordick, I am one of those that haven't grasped the essence of your thesis, but in reading the full text of the h=tread I will get it, I am not cmpletely at sea.

I would klike to see your take on the webpage, titled "Experimental Quantum Ttransition Pysics'' Google won't get it as the page was only recently publiched. Partly from this webpage I find myself exiled here. Its all the same to me. Chroot and some of the others will visit us from time to time to set us straight on our lack of proper QT etiquette, twisted physics and any other deplorable state they can conjur up fpr us.

It must be a truky satisfying state of mind tio know that you're there. Its like someone who claims he/she knows god, therefore they quit searching, what a loss,don't you agree?

Guess where I picked up this rather free wheeling prosaic style?

Doctor Dick, can your knowledge machine come up with this knoweldge? I suspect not.

At this point I agree with the post that said "if you can't explain it to your grandmother . . " you get the drill, don't you?. I'm like the grandmother I want to know what it is, methodology is playing second fiddle.

I am somewhat ambivalent abiout your reference to thinking. On the one hand it does take a lot of hard work and time for mental sluggards like myself, but then as the song goes, "what else can poor old country boy do?"
Geistkiesel

The enemies of truth. Convicitons are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

 

[Hurkyl]

(For the record, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist)

Interesting here that you use the phrase 'rather than a quantity computed from a path'

I guess the natural phrasing depends on the model from which you're working. Since every event can be labelled with an x-y-z-t(-[itex]\tau[/itex]) in your system, it seems natural, to me, to start from this.

the position of the ship along its path is exactly given by a direct integration of a(t)dt along that path

Could you expound on this? It's a little vague, and I suspect that you made a typo.

I guess it could be seen that way but it is not the way I came to it.

Ok, I didn't mean to suggest that "soaking up the excess speed" was the point of your gadget; it just happened to be the point that struck me as interesting.

The position is irrelevant for contact interactions but very significant to the kinematics.

Hrm. I don't see yet how anything but the differential in the tau direction matters, but I guess it shall be made clear later? Or was I just sloppy in my phrasing again?

I am ignorant of this term "boosts".

A boost is a transformation representing a change of frame. So, a Lorentz transformation from one (SR) inertial frame to another is a Lorentz boost. One from one classical inertial frame to another is a Gallilean boost.

Think about what you have just said here. You are going to keep the Minkowski representation of space and add another "time" parameter,

At the moment, I don't find it silly, since I currently perceive you doing the same thing with the classical space.

For the record, I don't find suggestions of a difference between a time parameter and a time coordinate particularly convincing; one can always swap back and forth between the two, and the mathematical representations of each are virtually identical. E.G. the only difference between a worldline and a position function with respect to time is the grouping of the ordered tuples.

 

[Doctordick]

This should be a trivial exercise for such an agile and fruitful mind.

I would not argue with that except for the fact that wouldn't refer to my mind as either agile or fruitful. Oh, maybe agile forty years ago (at least compared to what it is today) but, even then, I don't think it was as much fruitful as it was luck. I just happened to look at things in a way no one else did.

Sorry, Doctordick, I saw some reference to Feynman that indicated he was a physicist you respected.

I do not know Dr. Feynman's work well at all. I have read some of his homey comments on physics and found them all both very down to Earth and entertaining. He also won my heart by being the only "recognized" authority who ever agreed to discuss my ideas with me. I talked to him once back in 1986 and he said he would get back to me when he finished the Challenger thing. The next thing I heard was that he had died.

What I am getting at is that, due to my rather unorthodox perspective, I do not doubt at all that many of the accepted concepts of physics may be erroneous. In particular, I am convinced that the whole standard approach to science is flawed. I don't feel any need to examine any specific explanation closely and, as I am now an old man, I really see no purpose to learning more physics from the orthodox perspective. I don't think the scientific community is doing a good job of handling the problem of internal consistency and I am too old and mentally decrepit to cast the whole field into my perspective for them. Hell, I can't even communicate the portion which I have cast into my perspective.

Doctor Dick, can your knowledge machine come up with this knowledge? I suspect not.

What I can do is lay out a trustworthy foundation on which physics can be confidently built. But I am too old to build it myself.

The enemies of truth; Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

You've got that right! I guess I ought to apologize for being wrong (if it turns out I am) as I certainly have strong convictions that I am right and I really don't want to be an enemy of truth.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[NileQueen]

Doctordick, I like your philosophy.

 

[Doctordick]

Doctordick, I like your philosophy.

Well thank you very much, I really do appreciate it .

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

(For the record, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist)

Thanks for that information. It gives me a little better idea of how you will take things. I understood exactly why you used the phrase 'rather than a quantity computed from a path' (which you make clear yourself). The only reason I made the comment was to draw your attention to the issue.

the position of the ship along its path is exactly given by a direct integration of a(t)dt along that path

Could you expound on this? It's a little vague, and I suspect that you made a typo.

Yeah, sometimes what I write down isn't what's in my head; an extremely sloppy presentation with no attention given to the details. I am just so used to thinking from my perspective; it's the way I see the universe and has been since I was a teenager. Of course what I meant was obtaining velocity from the integration of acceleration and then obtaining the position from integration of the that velocity.

What I had in mind was the pilot of the ship working from a map created when he was at rest. Now the map is "simultaneity" as seen by him before the trip started. The first significant constraint is that nothing can be moving in that map (otherwise it really doesn't qualify as a "map"). Now, working off that map, and identifying his spatial position from that map and his time from his personal clock, he can use straight old Newtonian analysis.

Now there are some subtleties which must be kept in mind here. First, since his visual image of what is around him is distorted by relativistic effects on the propagation of light, he needs to take great care to make sure his position on the map is where he thinks it is. In essence this amounts to taking into account the fact that his measuring sticks on the ship are giving him the wrong information as to where he is on the map (only actually arriving at a known object is proof of where he is): i.e., he must operate as if the Lorenz Fitzgerald contraction were real. The same effect must be taken into account when he evaluates his acceleration.

In effect, when he goes to calculate his velocity, he uses his rate of change of position on the map as a function of his time. Of course, when he does that, his acceleration must also be determined by that same means. If you think about it for a moment, you will see that the outcome is simply the fact that we are defining everything such that the old Galilean variables correspond to the integral we need to do in order to calculate our position.

There is another way to see what is happening. Observe that the pilot on the ship (by working with that fixed map) is doing exactly the calculation the rest observer would be doing except for the time correction. Now the rest observer would define the ships velocity as ds/dt and calculate his position by multiplying by dt and integrating. Here, we are using the "wrong" dt in both situations and the instantaneous correction between rest time and ship time end up factoring out.

The acceleration is basically a cheat because it is simply defined as whatever it has to be to give the correct velocity to be used in the picture. After all, what is acceleration if it isn't the time rate of change of velocity? Here we are just using the ships time in the definition.

No, it does not provide a trivial solution to the general problem but there do exist problems which will allow this procedure to give you a quick and dirty result which is relativsticly correct. Particularly if all you are after is a mental image of the result and not an actual number. It just gives one a very different mental picture of what is going on. Actually, I am sorry I brought it up.

With regard to the issue about "kinematics", I guess I regard conservation of momentum and energy as something different from consequences of differential tau. The smearing out of the wave function is the cause of the projection of tau out of the problem. Essentially, I see the situation as one where you must first solve the problem and then look at the momentum quantized result.

In my eye, you are just trying to see the thing in the standard perspective and I would rather calculate the result of my perspective. The outcome should always be the same so long as we are both taking care to do the correct calculation.

At the moment, I don't find it silly, since I currently perceive you doing the same thing with the classical space.

But the standard Minkowski space already provides us with tau (what all clocks measure anyway).

For the record, I don't find suggestions of a difference between a time parameter and a time coordinate particularly convincing; one can always swap back and forth between the two, and the mathematical representations of each are virtually identical. E.G. the only difference between a worldline and a position function with respect to time is the grouping of the ordered tuples.

Well, I don't think you should unless you can see the consequences. Why don't you just follow along with what I am trying to explain to Russell in "Why you should like my perspective" and either tell me when I make a stupid mistake or help me get what I am trying to say across (with comments to me or others, which ever better serves the purpose).

Thanks for your attention -- Dick

 

[DrChinese]

What I am getting at is that, due to my rather unorthodox perspective, I do not doubt at all that many of the accepted concepts of physics may be erroneous. In particular, I am convinced that the whole standard approach to science is flawed.

I like a lot of what you are saying in the science you are presenting here. With some development, there might even be some really good ways for it to add to our body of knowledge. But what does the above statement really have to do with that?

Logically speaking, existing science provides highly accurate and useful descriptions of our world. I know you are not saying that established science says the speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second when it is really 450,000. So why say something like "accepted concepts are erroneous"? They cannot be erroneous because they are useful. Even if a better theory comes along - inevitable, in my opinion - the old one would still be useful.

All new theory is unorthodox by definition. And the scientists who create that theory are often vilified before the ideas are generally accepted. Einstein certainly was. But even that does not make the existing science "flawed". It does mean that scientists are human. Your point would only make sense if the existing scientific establishment said that further study was unnecessary because the answers have all been provided. And that is not the case.

 

[McQueen]

I further make the claim that all observers will find the reading on that clock at the moment it is smashed to smithereens will also have a specific value. And once again, they will all agree as to what that reading was. Once again, that reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference.
This is really ridiculous , because what you are saying in effect is that the observers would all be in the same frame of reference , in order to see the time on the smashed clock. On the other hand if the clock was smashed in a fast moving elevator and an observer happened to look at the event from outside the lift his clock would record a different time. So what's new ?