I would argue that relativity is inconsistent, and am currently proving this point in another thread. Firstly, Einstien rules out absolute time yet gives it to the photon instead, so we still have absolute time. ( if not then relativity fails. because light would no longer be invariant.) Secondly, Einstien failed to realise that the universe also changes with the photon, there for at the same rate as the photon. If not the universe has no time, and doesn't exists. Thirdly, because of the above two points the theory places the universe in an awful mess of time variations and delayed information that would be impossible to sustain universally. It also creates serious obstacles to further research, by the confusion it's inconsistancies create. How ever , relativity as an excersise in the error of observation has allowed us to develop significant mathamatical ability ( trying to fix the syntax) so I guess it has been beneficial by default.
JamesR I would very much like to discuss these inconsistancies and others with you as I think possibly you can prove me wrong...which is really handy ( I might add )
MacM, I have never defended relativity with regard to the physical nature of singularities. There is no reason to, because the theory of relativity has nothing to say about such things. The maths of relativity, for example, predicts a singularity at the centre of a black hole. But we know that the region in question is small enough to require a quantum treatment, so the theory of relativity is not applicable at that singularity. Of course, that doesn't mean that what relativity says about black holes in regions other than at the singularity is wrong. On the contrary, there are good reasons for believing that relativity is right there. Because they are not ad hoc solutions. We can measure the amount of matter in galaxies and can compare that with what is observable. From that, we know that 90% of the mass in galaxies consists of something other than luminous matter. To this something, which we know exists, we give the label "dark matter". Physicists freely admit that they do not know what dark matter consists of, and there are many ideas of what it might be. But there is really no argument that it is there - whatever it is. Dark energy is similar. I am certainly not claiming that QM is ad hoc. You have obviously got the wrong idea, somehow. I am confident that relativity is correct about black holes. As I said, it doesn't say anything about what the centre of a black hole is like, so there's nothing to defend there. I would love to merge QM and relativity, then head off to Sweden for a nice holiday, during which I could catch up with the King and receive my Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, I don't know how to go about that task. And neither does anybody else, though they have some ideas. The limits of its applicability are well defined and well known. I wasn't talking about your education. I was talking about your own "theories". (How's that paper coming along, by the way?) Sorry, but you haven't given me any insight. I've just finished reading a textbook on general relativity, just for fun. Now that has been time well spent for me, because I've learned some new things, and I now understand the subject a bit better than I did before. Sadly, I don't think I could explain in any terms you would understand just how satisfying it is to see some of the implications of GR laid out in beautiful mathematical elegance, supported by accurate observations and careful experiments.
QQ: Which thread? That is not true. Photons travel on null geodesics, which means the spacetime interval between any two events with a light-like separation is zero. Photons, therefore, have no proper time. I don't understand this statement. What inconsistencies?
Good, then we are making progress. Others should follow your lead. I do believe the true nature of the issue is that your measurement of mass is based soley on the assumption that the inverse square law is valid and hence can not account for the rotational velocity of stars without this exotic additional mass of 4 - 5 times what we observe. It is uncanny that you fail to see that current "MATHEMATICS" without a physical cause description is actually the problem and not that there is Dark Matter. There are of course concepts for gravity which predict a different curve, one more consistant with observation, which are not based on the center of mass such as Newton and GR. Which BTW also predicts the absence of Dark Energy. I do think O'Razor agrees. Just follow the yellow brick road. You stated that Relativity could not be changed to fit AD HOC theories. Well if you cannot change Relativity to be more accurate by eliminating arguements about singularities and the infinities it creates, using QM, then you must consider QM AD HOC. So you are denying that Relativity predicts infinite gravity and a singularity and that time stops by GR in a Black Hole?. Careful now you seem to be digging yourself a deeper hole. A Black Hole. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I fail to see any requirement to achieve a unification or TOE theory to make use of more correct views. The issue of singularities can and should be resolved by the mere acceptance of QM as being more correct than Relativity at that scale. Contrary to your statements above, I know very well I have seen it said many times on this forum how time stops in the singularity of a Black Hole, how there becomes infinite gravity, etc. If you didn't say it you certainly didn't correct the persons making those arguement. Funny then how we still see arguements by Relativists about all these ludricrus, if not impossible, conclusions of Relavistic mathematics at the extremes, even when they accept QM as a valid concept, which denies such things. With this Flip-Flop Record I wouldn't recommend running for office. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It would seem logical that this issue would also go to the arguement about Lorentz Contraction and zero dimension in the direction of motion. Maybe that is your answer as to why v = c is unachievable. To do so creates a dimension that is less than predicted by QM - HeHe. Whaaaa? Not as well as I would like but then I am overly anxious. As straight forward as the root calculus for the CoS input's appears to be, computing the proofs is a bit more complex it seems. i.e - integrating Mercury's orbit and/or integrating the masses in rotating galaxies. There seems to be very few qualified to do such calculations. However, I am encouraged in that some very heavy hitters are taking a look at it. Perhaps one will actually follow through. Sorry your ability to envision seems impaired. Yea, I agree the UniKEF mathematics will also bring flutters to my heart. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
MacM, You are partly correct, but all suggested alternatives to the inverse square law have been shown to cause more problems than they resolve, as far as I am aware. No. As I explained before, quantum theory and relativity are fundamentally incompatible theories. Relativity is a classical theory. It turns out to be a very difficult problem to reconcile the two. For example, how would you go about quantising curvature (which is a geometrical concept)? Because Einstein's field equations have curvature on one side and mass/energy on the other. If we quantise mass and energy, as is obviously necessary, how do we solve the problem of quantising curvature? You can't simply patch general relativity with QM. (Note, however, that modern formulations of quantum mechanics do incorporate special relativity already.) Yes. Relativity predicts nothing about the centre of a black hole, because a mathematical singularity occurs there, akin to division by zero. If we extrapolate GR equations to the centre of the hole, we seem to predict infinite spacetime curvature, which most physicists think is unlikely. As for time, the first question in GR must always be time according to who? And in any case, the entire concept of time inside the event horizon is radically different from time in our "normal" space. But quantum theory is not formulated for very high gravity situations, and so quantum theory, as it currently exists, can no more be applied at the centre of a black hole than relativity can. As I said, what is needed is a new theory which unifies the two. So, your claim that we can simply accept QM as being "more correct" and leave it at that is based on a fundamental misconception. We can't make you understand. That requires a little effort on your part. Please don't invent straw-man versions of what I've said and then knock them down. I have always said that the v=c limit exists because it is impossible to accelerate any object to v=c. To do so would require an infinite amount of energy. If it ever comes into existence.
Well, that is progress , albeit minimal. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Again I would agree but only point out not all such views have been given the rigoress tests. But you could agree that an incorrect view of gravity could be the problem and not the existance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy? As I said I don't see the necessity of having a unification to recognize the limitations imosed by QM. As do some alternative views. They have the same curvature predicted. Perhaps, but then my point was aimed at responders here that defend Relativity and argue indeed about the existance of singularities, etc and berate those discussing alternative for not understanding Relativity. It seems according to your statement, either they do not know Relativity or they deliberately distort it to appear to know more than those they are addressing. I would guess then that my comments apply not only to Relativity but QM. If QM disallows dimensions smaller than Planck then they should stipulate that singularites are not physical (real) artifacts and we should not be seeing all this SciFi being advocated as science. I understand you do not want to change anything about Rleativity unless it is completely merged, I am only saying I fail to see that as a realistic approach. We may not know of the many other ramifications but of the ones we know (or think we know) should be applied. If you insist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I thought it was cute. In terms of testing today, we agree. But we do not agree on why. You claim it is because mass becomes infinite. To that I say ludricrus, it is because energy transfer efficiency has decreased. Same observation, same mathematical curve but radically different conclusion. Fair point. But it will I am sure. To many answers to ignore.
I don't think that's right... The proper time between the events is zero, the proper length is zero, but I thought the space-time interval was not zero except for coincident events? I'll check.
My bad. I'm wrong, you're right. It appears my understanding of spacetime intervals is flawed. Hmm...
MacM: Yes. It is possible. I'm not in a position to say whether it is likely or not. But until a better theory of gravity comes along, we're best of sticking with the best theory we have right now, which is GR. I think you are probably right. People who stridently insist that physical singularities exist probably don't know what they are talking about. On the other hand, everybody with some knowledge of GR knows about the mathematical singularities which arise in the theory. But they also recognise that a better theory is required to deal with those situations; they know the limits of GR. QM makes no statements disallowing lengths shorter than the Planck length. I have said before that I am not fond of the concept of relativistic mass. I prefer to think of the energy problem not in terms of an increase in relativistic mass, but due to the kinetic energy required to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. You have given no mechanism for your hypothesis of decreased energy transfer, and no mathematical formulation of that idea. Nor have you explained why time dilation occurs in your model.
I can accept that but at the same time I feel there is a tendancy to reverse priorities. That is ideas are bad until proven good. New ideas should be taken as worthy of consideration until proven bad. Much more progress could be made that way. Well, I know of the predictions and disagree but the tendancy here is to falsely assert one doesn't understand if they don't accept. That is bad logic and insures following a rut. Maybe I am mis-stating or perhaps I am mistaken but I believe that QM holds that the Planck length is the minimum length. I await your correction. We can agree on this. Can you also see where a decreasing energy transfer efficiency and storage of the excess energy in space (as a coil stores energy in space and returns it) gives the same result which could cause one to conclude mass had increased? Not entirely true. However, it would be true that it is hard to extract from the current presentation. I don't think it can be reconstructed here however. I have in the past posted a formula based on a UniKEField and a table of affects compared to Relativty which are in very close correlation. The cause requires a bit more willingness to exercise free thought. You have to envision a dynamic flowing energetic space. Not sure how to put this in proper perspective since I am proposing something which has never been seen, and may never be seen, other than by the implications and observations of its existance. UniKEF may be energy of a higher phase. i.e. solid, liquid, gas, plasma, energy, UniKEF, etc. It may be c^2 or more likely I think over a range of c^c. That is it exists at virtually every quantum energy level increment from rest to who knows how high. It appears to provide a view of grvity that is consistant with observation over the entire range without Dark Matter or Dark Energy. It appears to provide Lorentz Contraction and the illusion of time dilation as well as mass change with relative velocity and light invariance. It challenges v = c as an absolute limit of velocity but holds instead that one ceases to exist in this dimension at v = > c. It is the absolute background (aether) which we have not satisfactorily detected. In part because of its relationship to our pysical world. As we move in space we are always at a level of rest to this background. That is where "I" believe Relativity comes from and that is how dimensional change, invariance of light, mass change, **time dilation, etc., are calculated. **time dilation is tagged because in my view it is merely an illusion (a property of energetic space) and not an enity in its own right. What you have seemed to missed over these many months is not that I hold Relativity is entirely wrong but that we have misinterpreted what the data is telling us and have made improper conclusion from that error. Now I'll be the first to admit it is a long way from proven but the consequence of this view are very satisfying. One can begin (I believe) to understand why we see and measure what we do and it looses its mystery. Perhaps that is why many don't want to give up Relativity. It is to much fun. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
MacM, The Planck length is just the length which is formed by combining the fundamental constants G, h and c in the only combination which gives a constant with dimensions of length. There is some reason to suspect that in a quantum theory of gravity, spacetime itself may be quantised on scales similar to the Planck length. But, since we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, this is really just speculation right now. Quantum theory as it stands right now does not regard the Planck length as special in any particular way. Nor does general relativity (which is not even a quantum theory). A coiled spring does not store energy in space. Energy is stored in the electric fields holding the atoms in the coil together. There is no evidence that any energy can be stored in empty space (in the absence of appropriate fields). Energy is not a phase. And I don't understand your second sentence. Does it mean anything? How do you know? What happens to things which cease to exist in this dimension? Where do they go? And can you justify your statement in any way? Well, if so, it is a wonderfully lucky mistake we seem to have made, since it passes all experimental tests.
I do think this is a rather long winded way of saying it represents the smallest increment of length - doesn't it? Just where did you see "Spring" in my post.? Of course a coil spring doesn't store energy in space, it stores it in the stressed alignments of molecules. The obvious coil intended is an electromagnetic coil and the magnetic field that IS stored in space until the circuit is broken at which time the energy collpases back into the coil and creates a burst of energy release. You don't understand phase as in solid, liquid, gas, plasma, energy? I think we have a problem. Yes it does mean quite a lot but at this juncture without knowing how you don't understand phases of existance I would be at a loss to explain it to you. I do believe I said "appears". That is quite different than "Know". But the conclusion is drawn from a logical analysis of what such concept would result in vs what we observe and the data we have generated. Actually nothing happens to them they simply cease to exist or have any affect or physical relationship to our physics. Just as an observer traveling at 99% c in Relativity sees and undergoes no noticable change from his perspective an observer that exceeds v = c relative to you would simply exist at a higher energy plane and would see other objects which exist at that energy level that we do not see. He would no longer see you nor you see him. UniKEF has two divisions of dimensional extension outside the basic 3D's (no 4th) Qualitative Domain Limit (energy level v = > c). Quanitative Domain Limit (Spatial seperation that exceeds energy transfer via a type of tired light syndrome) These domains can be viewed as other universes within the c band of existance qualitatively relative to us and can and I believed may have overlapped with our universe. Which may explain the finding that some objects appear older than we think our universe is. This is like a pot of boiling water where bubbles are universes and can merge or overlap. However larger bubbles (hotter - higher energy) can occupy the same geocreative domain and not exist to each other if the level of energy seperation is beyond the c band of our physics. BTW: While I do not like "Strings" I found it interesting that they think that perhaps gravity trancends dimensions and have proposed a test to try and prove that. UniKEF sees the field as being the origin of gravity and source of particle entanglement which also trancends the dimensional spectrum. UniKEF is in affect a dynamic (flowing) aether background which every observer has a rest reference to and the relationship between observers rest reference to this background is the basis of Relativity. It isn't so much your relative velocity to the other observer but your velocity relative to his background energy level in UniKEF vs yours. I would hardly claim it to be "wonderfully lucky", unfortunate is perhaps a better term. Do you really believe you can claim to be in error is fortunate?
MacM, That's a somewhat simplistic way of putting it. The answer is: nobody knows. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. Phases refer to particular arrangements of atoms or molecules. Thus, I understand that solid, liquid, gas and plasma are all phases of matter. However, as I said, energy is not a phase. It seems to me that it is you, not I, who does not understand phases. I don't like string theory either, as it happens. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. And it says nothing about gravity trancending dimensions. Relativity has never been shown to be in error in its domain of applicability.
"Knows" may be a bad choice of words but I do believe that is generally what is believed that it means. Of course I understand phases but it is a bad example, or at least wqsn't carried through to its proper conclusion. The point I meant to convey is that UniKEF is simular to the phases solid, liquid, gas as in mass, energy, UniKEF. Actually (I know it is a pop show of science) Brian Greene stated it may in the TV program on the elegant universe, and I have also read a paper within the last 6 months which claimed they may have concieved a test which is designed to try and determine if indeed gravity may transcend into other dimensions. That was by a group advocating the multiverse concept. But you are correct to say that "Strings" itself do not advocate the affect. Only some of those that are working in that area and advocate Strings are saying it. PS: On another note, I would point out that supporting a theory also does not make it true. It does depend on "What the meaning of "IS" is. Doesn't it. You on the one hand have stated that Relativity is not suited to the regime of QM and that QM is not suited to the regime of Relativity. But now you want to parse words and argue "It has not been PROVEN" wrong. While that statement may be valid it conveys a falshood by proxy. You have also said in the past you know relativity is flawed. Using a true statement to obscure another truth is a deceptive practice. Are you deceptive? You have said in the past that you know Relativity is flawed but you now choose (because its suits your arguement of the moment) that Relativity has not been "PROVEN" wrong. While that is true it also tends to misstate the actual status of Relativity, which you know (or strongly suspect) to be flawed.
come on guys you don't really believe that the other is deliberately trying to decieve or be underhanded in some way....you don't really think that surely..??
MacM: I was quite specific. You just forgot the last part of my sentence: "Relativity has never been shown to be in error in its domain of applicability." This may sound like a tautology to you, but it isn't. What I mean is that we know that the theory is unlikely to hold at very small scales, so we don't use it to try to predict anything which happens on those scales. i.e. we limit its domain of applicability. With those exceptions, relativity has proven to be an exceptionally useful and powerful theory.
A singularity if ever existed should have instantly turned into a blackHole, With all that matter of the universe why will it explode instead of collapsing under the gravity of entire universe since nothing is supposed to escape such an G.
