Observers

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by arfa brane, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Dan,

    I find you quite intelligent, but you seem to be pushing your ideas in every post. It becomes difficult to decipher which posts of yours is science and which is Danscience.
     
    danshawen and exchemist like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    ??

    You need to unlearn...you have read, yes read, too much.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,484
    A very true observation!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Post# 200 references Minkowsi's paper equivocating the speed of light (a velocity, time interval) with time, including an instant of time, which is neither a ratio nor a velocity. Qualifying v<= c does not remove the error in this case, from which point he proceeded to construct 4D spacetime intervals, Minkowski simultanaeity and rotations, and light cones, which compounded upon this error.

    He had the audacity to include Lorentz transformations (which are correct to the extent that a roadbed has inertia) into his error, and in doing so, just made the error worse. Pseudoscientists do this all the time; provide a grain of truth combined with a lot of hogwash. Go ahead and say it, trolls: takes one to know one. You bet it does.

    Inconsistency in math is not permitted. Inconsistent math may not be used to support science. Superstition is not allowed in science, and neither are ideas that cannot be falsified. Inconsistency in science or pseudoscience may be provisionally permissible while a better theory is in the works. Incompleteness is permissible in all three, due to the deeper nature of knowledge of which they are only a part.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Thanks, but I know my own ignorance all too well. It is very deep, and lasted for most of my life.

    I believe Minkowski was intelligent as well. Hard to believe he built all he did on top of a division by zero, but evidently he did.

    I needed to unlearn a lot to figure out where his error was. Even fake knowledge, if it is taught to everyone, has inertia, and a whole lot more than you might think it does. This was in place for over 100 years.

    I don't expect it will be soon forgotten; too much of science just moved along like it was okay to scaffold more reasoning on top of what was in essence as inconsistent as any pseudoscience.
     
  9. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    Dan,
    (Anyone else is welcome to play)
    Let's start with (my) familiar spacetinme interval and see where we go.
    Where s is the invariant spacetime interval
    s²=-x²-y²-z²+c²t²
    As a quick check..
    Looking at the muon experiment, where v is the muon velocity we have x=vt,y=0,z=0.
    From Earth frame time t (and muon frame time T)...
    s²=-v²t²+c²t²
    In the muon frame s²=c²T²
    so c²T²=-v²t²+c²t²
    Or T=t√(1-v²/c²)
    So far looking good to me.
    Minkowski starts with the same thing
    (replace s with τ )
    τ²=-x²-y²-z²+c²t²
    now set c=1 unit/sec
    τ²=-x²-y²-z²+(c²)t²
    substitute variable s=t√-1 // this isn't the same s I started off with
    τ²=-x²-y²-z²-(c²)s²
    c² has dimensions [LENGTH]²/[TIME]²
    s² has dimensions [TIME]²
    OR we could say (if we wanted to)
    3E5km/sec = √-1
    or
    3E5km = √-1 sec

    Edit √-1 not √1 (makes more sense like that)
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I see no reason to change the speed of light from 3 x 10^5 km/sec to anything proportional to a complex number, nor to assume that time itself is proportional to a velocity, unless you are simply determined never to consider quantum entanglement as the definition of simultanaeity.

    The muon experiment doesn't need any spacetime geometry like this. The Lorentz formula for time dilation is sufficient all by itself, and while Minkowski had nothing whatsoever to do with its derivation, he used it liberally after his division by zero to lend just the right pinch of truth to his nonsense.

    The dimensional analysis is correct, of course. Anyone would have spotted that error, if there was one. Mathematicians would be quick to point out that while dimensional analysis is a good sanity check for doing physics, it means exactly nothing to them. Minkowski proved it meant nothing to him when he went ahead and set an interval of time proportional to an instant of time. Oh yes, the dimensional analysis of that procedure works just fine.

    In particular, he performed this dimensional analyis:

    velocity = (distance) / (time) = (light travel time) / (time) = (time) / (time) so VELOCITY is dimensionless

    This dimensional analysis demonstrates that time is NOT the same as a velocity, not even the invariant velocity of light.

    And Minkowski knew this analysis as well, and evidently didn't care that it made no sense. Velocity is not dimesionless, and it is not proportional to an instant of time either, unless you have inadvertently divided by zero.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  11. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Dan, I agree with you that Minkowski's idea of using the imaginary number i to reverse the polarity of a sign in the equations was unnecessary, and somewhat deceiving as to the meanings involved.

    However, we can still draw Minkowski diagrams without using any imaginary numbers by simply restoring the polarity of the changed sign.

    Sorry, but I don't see how quantum entanglement can be the definition of simultaneity.

    Let's assume that there are two identically constructed clocks, both stationary with respect to reference frame K. The clocks are some distance apart, and both synchronised to each other using Einstein's synchronisation method. Let us further assume that you "somehow" use quantum entanglement to obtain the two times shown on each clock simultaneously. For simplicity we shall assume the obtained times on both clock readings are identical, for now.

    Next, consider that we can also add two identically constructed clocks, both stationary with respect to a different reference frame K' which is moving with respect to K in the conventional SR manner. These two new clocks can also be synchronised to each other using Einstein's synchronisation method in frame K', and they can be strategically (or fortunately) located in such a way that they happen to be co-located with the other pair of clocks at the time(s) that you "somehow" used quantum entanglement to obtain the two times shown on the other clocks. If you had obtained the two times from these two new clocks instead of the other ones, SR tells us that you could have obtained two different readings for these two other clocks.

    That looks just like relativity of simultaneity to me. Do you see the problem there?

    Surely you don't really think that measuring distance in something like "light years" magically changes the concept of velocity into anything other than distance divided by time? That would just be a chosen convention.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    No problem with that at all! Bless you for remembering Einstein's synchronization method. The all pervading quantum field that makes entanglement possible works just like Einstein's synchronized clocks, except that they work by means of quantum entanglement (which means, they are all connected by photons before they are synchronized.

    But the light travel time between the clocks is not the limit of simultanaeity or synchronization. The real lower limit, the instant of 'now' of absolute time can synchronize them from one end of the universe to the other.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Of course not. EVERY distance is light travel time; even and especially Minkowski knew that. Each point in space is at the vertex of its own light cone, the rest of the universe only accessible to it, supposedly, by means of light travel time.

    To Minkowski, time itself was set proportional to light travel time, which only works until you have real simultanaeity, and then you must either divide by zero, or posit that something travels "faster" / "slower" than light, or both. Entanglement doesn't really need to travel faster than light to do what it does. "Faster" or "slower" is really a matter of relativity as well. Even the speed of light must be measured relative to some other reference frame that is at rest. Since light is invariant, the rest frame is not unique, but the speed of light measures the same in all of them.

    Point in fact, EVERY dimensional analysis like the one I did to show that velocity is dimensionless, will yield a similar result, and it needn't be associated with relativity. This is why mathematicians just ignore things like dimensional analysis. But there is a nuance of meaning in the way the one I did ended. Minkowski really was trying to pull a fast one by equivocating time itself with a velocity. Proportional math on something like similar triangles becomes meaningless at the point that a triangle becomes an ideal geometrical point. Likewise, proportional math that ends with the velocity of light being proportional to or equivocated with entanglement is a rather serious mistake.

    What Minkowski COULD HAVE done was to ask the question: "Is there anything that is "faster" / "slower" than the propagation of light with respect to the quantum field that pervades the universe, that could be the basis of time itself? As far as he knew, there weren't even any candidates.

    In the 21st century, we know better. Einstein had posited Special Relativity based on the null result of the Michaelson-Moreley experiment, so the luminiferous aether, and the aether wind that had been thought to accompany it, had been slain. Perhaps Minkowski simply didn't wish to try and resurrect the luminiferous aether as a quantum field? Neither do I. Whatever other properties it may have, that quantum field doesn't have any linear inertia of its own, although it actually may have quantum spin to support entanglement.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,859
    When we speak of measuring time, it is always from our point of observation and we live in time (time emerges) because we do not travel @ "c".
    Therefore every measurement we take must recognize distance as distance/time, but that is inevitably always from our perspective.

    As I understand it, for a particle (or a person) travelling @ "c" time does no longer exist and everything stands still relative to the "c" (Einstein?).

    Question 1; If we eliminate human observation (and measurement, does time exist for two entangled particles travelling @ "c" ?

    Question 2; If time does not exists when travelling @ "c", why should an entangled pair be required to recognize distance (a measurement of distance/time) at all ?

    Sorry for the simplicity, but it seems clear that @ "C", we enter a different kind of dimension which anything travelling at less than "c" can never experience. All we can do is measure from our perspective and somehow that seems to present an inherent and unavoidable unbalanced measurement, from two different dimensional perspectives.

    "Our dimension" necessarily experiences time as a duration of an event.
    But how can a "timeless dimension" be measured as experiencing duration of an event ?

    As layman, I find this discussion and various arguments absolutely fascinating, but the fact that with every argument seems to contains the qualification, "from our perspective and measurement".

    Comes to mind the person running up an escalator which moves @ "c" does not get to the top any faster than if he were standing still.

    Is it possible that relativity does not hold @ "c" ?
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Not Einstein. That would be Minkowski, and his mistake of equivocating the speed of light to the basis of time. He didn't know there might be something "faster" / "slower" that was actually the basis of time, and that it was not proportional to any velocity, the speed of light inclusive.

    The estimates currently range from a minimum of 10,000 x c. I'm holding out for c^2, but it may be a while before that idea can be tested.

    It holds, just not the way Minkowski imagined it. Time dilation works just like the Lorentz transformation he adopted, BUT THERE IS A RESIDUAL amount of passage of time that remains, even for a photon.

    If a photon is circularly polarized (possessing a type of quantum spin), it doesn't stop being circularly polarized, or propagating by means of time varying electric and magnetic field vectors in space along its Poynting vector, just because Minkowski decided nothing was "faster" / "slower" than the propagation of light.

    Yes, this is still true. The speed of light doesn't stop being invariant just because entanglement is "faster" / "slower".

    Never equivocate an instant of time with a time interval. An instant of time may turn out to actually have duration, but since nothing else is "faster"/"slower", we'll never have anything else to compare that instant to.

    After the instant of 'now', which is only the absolute origin of time everywhere in the universe, time proceeds at different rates (lengths of time intervals) based on relative velocity, proximity to gravitational fields, etc.

    Yes. Conservation of mass/energy (E=mc^2) is what assures us this is true, and this only works if there is both time and inertia (energy).

    Quantum physics was formerly incompatible with relativity because relativity excluded entanglement. Because there were too many divide by zeros, quantum physics opted to substitute unitarity for time for the last 50 years. Here we have mended time in relativity so that it can be used again in quantum physics.

    Bound energy persists in time only because entanglement is the instantaneous force that actually binds them into matter, antimatter (due to hansda's analysis). Before it was realized by hansda that Newton's laws could be applied to entanglement with a crack left in the door for entanglement simultanaeity as the basis of time for instantaneous force / inertia / acceleration, I had no clue this analysis might be possible.

    Unbound energy propagating in space persist in time while propagating because entangled particles produced the photon(s) to begin with, and all of the quantum field permeating the universe is entangled with itself.

    Time DOES still exist when a pair of entangled photons are traveling at c.

    And you here you have won the prize for the best question about entanglement posted in the entire thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
    Write4U likes this.
  16. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    You are not the first character at SF to make such a fundamentally meaningless and inherently wrong claim. Wrong firstly because dimensional analysis forbids any 'velocity' to have units (L/T)^2, which is what c^2 implies. Secondly, because the magnitude of any such 'velocity' will be entirely dependent on which units for length and time are chosen. For instance, it's common to normalize c to unity. But it could be e.g. megaparsecs per nanosecond, or microns per century. Guess what that does to your c^2 you are holding out for.
    And, as I have emphasized on previous occasions that kind of error crops up, there is no such conundrum in an expression such as E = mc^2 - as long as consistent units are used throughout.
    All a touch ironic, given your reference to dimensional analysis in #227
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yes indeed. "Faster" / "slower" are relative.

    So are "Longer" / "Shorter", and even

    "Less time" / "More time".
     
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    More or less....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,859
    One last question and then I'll just listen quietly.
    I understand the theoretical value expressed in E = mc^2, but is that a true presentation of "necessity and sufficiency"? Or does it need to be?
    Wiki;
    IOW, whereas Energy is manifestly expressed in reality, no massive object can ever exceed "c" in reality, then how can we reverse the equation to show mc^2 = E ?

    I just realized I may be misinterpreting (mc)^2 as m(c^2) . Which is it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Algebra assuredly takes care of that (mc^2 = E), but this of course is the invariant "rest" energy. When the mass has relative motion, the added kinetic energy in the form of momentum has a contribution to the relativistic mass.

    Necessary and sufficient is a mathematical construct, not generally needed for algebra or manipulation of left, right sides of an equation if you follow all of the rules.

    http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60701.html
     
    Write4U likes this.
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,484
    This is dreadful! Do you really think it makes a difference to the sense, if you write E on the right hand side instead of the left?

    Do you think 2+2 = 4 has a different meaning from 4 = 2+2?
     
  22. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    Sorry I thought I had covered the area where the division by was supposed to occur but I seem to have missed it - could you be even more specific about the location of the division by zero?
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    Such a naughty question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page