Proof Minkowski Spacetime is Poorly Conceived

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by danshawen, Apr 21, 2016.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    From the responses and research I did based on the responses received here, I understand it would be pointless.

    You're a real math person, so please tell me. If something physical (like time, just as an example) does not really "fit" into predefined categories of mathematical analysis involving algebra, calculus, geometry, trigonometry, complex numbers, vector algebra, quaternions, tensors, linear algebra, discrete math, Lie groups, gauge physics, Noether's theorem, etc, what unmitigated gall or arrogance is it about mathematicians that makes any of them think that they ALWAYS can shoehorn a mismatched observation or data type into something they already know? Why is it are they likely to ignore even valid observations when their math doesn't explain even half of what is observed? I thought I understood this culture. Evidently, I don't.

    I think that time / space is a directed scalar similar in some ways to the Poynting vector but with the element of rotation in every direction added. It (time) allows movement in only one temporal direction, and that direction is the same direction as the propagation of real or virtual energy, bound or unbound. This constraint has no effect on space because energy can rotate/propagate in any direction (backwards, forwards), but that is not the same thing as actually propagating in reverse. Time or space stretches or shrinks based on state of motion, or proximity to other bound or unbound energy. What mathematical analysis of any kind would you suggest that handles that, preferably WITHOUT tossing in every different sized hammer in the bag, or knife in the tool pouch (because that generally confounds understanding instead of helping it).

    This last question is for BWS only, because I never replied. The rest of you, please refrain from having another go at it. I will ignore the rest of you bags of assorted mathematical hammers if I need to.
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    That seems like sound reasoning.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, it's kind of weird that the only evidence we have for the claims that danshawen is making comes from assuming the very theory he rejects.
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Brans-Dicke theory.–Dicke_theory

    "The gravitational constantG is not presumed to be constant but instead 1/G is replaced by a scalar field

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    which can vary from place to place and with time.

    But Brans-Dicke theory still has tensor components where there should be only time.

    If the only way to make the math work is to dilate time to infinity so that everything is static and do all your math there, that's a problem. Of course it will work. It is also brain dead.
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Again, danshawen attempts to produce a piece of evidence for his position but fails miserably. First, the Brans-Dicke Theory, is relativity theory (that is, it is an extension of general relativity). Second, its history provides. a great example of how we can actually use mathematical analysis to produce measurements of how much "Time or space stretches or shrinks based on state of motion, or proximity to other bound or unbound energy" and how to use it to produce evidence to distinguish the success of one theory over another. (Spoiler alert: GR won.)

    In this history, as has come up before on these forums, we can see the use Parameterized Post-Newtonian framework, a beautiful example of how to generate ways to measure different parameters that can distinguish between alternative theories.
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    "Not quite elementary particles" translated from the Russian

    These people are not brain dead. Fundamental particles are not points, and before now, no attempt has been made to extend relativity inside of them by elementary particle physicists. They are attempting to classify the internal structure of elementary particles by various means. I think it is worth a try.
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Apparently the whole "Still with me, or does anyone want this to be my last post?" thing was a tease, since the 100% agreement that that should have been his last post was ignored.
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    What I find distasteful is the inherent dishonesty of his posting style. He chooses not address the majority of points used to refute his assertions; when he does, supposedly, respond he does so by moving off-topic, moving the goalposts, or restating his original claim as if that were sufficient answer. How can someone continue this practice with equanimity when they must know they have been caught?
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Because he's got bats in the belfry. He's admitted as much - an obsession with this issue about Minkowski. He's going to be like Fute - unstoppable.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    You understand, there are no "points" in your post?

    You understand, I stayed on topic throughout this thread, (and still am, even after I declared it dead)?

    "Moving the goalposts?" Okay, maybe I did some of that. It's supposed to be a learning experience, if you are doing it right.

    "Restating my original claim?" I wouldn't have to, if someone would do me the courtesy of reading it before posting answers that don't address it.

    The claim that space is related to time, in the way Minkowski claimed, is, all by itself a logical fallacy, perhaps several at once.

    Let's check the list:

    "Black or White"
    Either space is related to time in this way, or not at all.

    "False Cause" (also, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc -- after this, therefore BECAUSE of this)
    Presuming that a real or a perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. One person might notice that there is a relationship between wealth and dimensions of possessions. This means longer stretch limos or bigger yachts. Thinking the relationship is a law of the nature of wealth, they might just go out and buy themselves a bigger yacht, or limo, or house, and then wonder why they are not any richer.

    I think that the relationship between time and space is much simpler. Time IS space; all THREE dimensions, all INFINITE rotations capable of propagating energy, bound or unbound. This is new. This is not Minkowski. If you wish to refute something, refute that. Assign it a fallacy or something.

    "Appeal to Authority"
    Minkowski taught Einstein everything he knew, therefore whatever Minkowski said must be true.

    A related fallacy is "Appeal to Association"
    Because Minkowski's work is associated with Einstein's, it carries all of the authority of Einstein's

    "Appeal to Nature"
    Oh, if only he had tried this fallacy, I might not be arguing against anything he ever wrote. In fact, it might be the only logical fallacy he missed.

    "Special Pleading" (also known as "Moving the Goalposts")
    I never moved the goalposts. The goal is, and has been for the length of this thread and others like it, to save the parts of relativity that pass muster and discard the parts (mostly Minkowski's parts: Minkowski rotation, Minkowski interval) that make no sense. His rotations HAVE NO INERTIA, HAVE NO FIXED AXIS OF ROTATION UNDER ANY COORDINATE SYSTEM, HAVE NO MEANS, OTHER THAN BY MATHEMATICAL CONVENTION TO DETERMINE FROM WHICH END THE LENGTH OF A RELATIVISTIC PROJECTILE OF RANDOM DENSITY CONTRACTS OR ROTATES. GD it, Opiolite, I repeated this at least 20 times in this thread alone. The goal didn't change, and the charges of "FOUL" were never answered in a satisfactory manner either. Not even by rpenner.

    Want more? Make them up for yourselves.
    Last edited: May 20, 2016
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    You are right, point has only mathematical notion...No material property can be assigned to a point, accept possible coordinates. But then we have no dearth of story spinners in all the fields of life, science has its good share of such quacks. The horrendous foolishness is millions of mass collapsing to a point singulaity, and no one is realising it !

    On your thread, as I told you, you have put is badly, but you certainly have a point about bound energy. I will give you one more clue.....see in standard model, the Protons and Neutrons are made up of quarks....there is no evidence of existence of free quarks, but three quarks are are bound by gluons to form a Proton or Neutron. The energy analysis of such bonding says that 90% is the energy and only 10% is the rest mass of Quarks....So somehow that 90% energy which gives a materialstic shape (or mass to Nucleons) is bound by something, that certainly can qualify as bound energy, in unbound state it does not have any mass.

    PS : You can use this idea, free of cost.
    danshawen likes this.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And most thankfully are confined to forums such as this, or at least ignored and apart from the real reputable science wallowing in trying to maintain some semblance of credibility..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Even though danshawen put me on ignore because I can usually identify his mistakes clearly and right away, I enjoy going through these obvious mistakes.
    This is what we call a "category mistake". Claims cannot be fallacious, only arguments are fallacious because fallacies are types of arguments. If danshawen wanted to say that something Minkowski wrote is a fallacy, he would have to address an argument that Minkowski actually wrote. However, danshawen has demonstrated that he is unfamiliar with the writings of Minkowski.
    This is a fallacy if it is offered as an argument. It is not a fallacy to support a particular theory that has a specific relationship; every scientific theory makes specific claims about physical relationships and it cannot be fallacious merely to support a scientific theory on the basis of evidence.
    The claim that space is related to time in the manner laid out by Einstein is not a causal relationship, it is a relationship about cause and effect. This is another category mistake on the part of danshawen.
    As this supposedly new idea stands, there is nothing to refute, since it has no content. Despite being asked repeatedly to show how his ideas of space and time could actually be used in a physics application, danshawen does not do this. If there is no content, then there is nothing to refute.
    Minkowski did not make this argument and neither did anyone else in the history of this Earth. Indeed, there is historical evidence to show that they worked on the problem independently and there were, once their work was known to each other, disagreements between them about the choices that each made in describing the theory.
    Again, nobody makes an argument based on this idea, certainly not Minkowski. If danshawen really wanted to address the arguments that Minkowski makes, he would read the arguments that Minkowski makes and address them. Yet it is clear that danshawen really wants to work out the anger and resentment that he has towards his past physics teachers and perhaps his past career.
    Here we see some of the mania infecting danshawen: the refusal to accept that a geometrical transformation from one system of coordinates to another (a "rotation") is not the same as a literal physical rotation and, as such, is not expected to follow the rules of physics of literal physical rotations. The fact that these problems he sites arise wholly in Einstein's work---and even in the work of Lorentz---regardless of the work of Minkowski seem completely lost on him, at least in those times when he grudgingly admits to accepting the Lorentz transformations ("rotation").
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Of course, quarks are only able to exist INSIDE a nucleus, and there is a simple relativity-related reason for that. Time dilation is increased in proximity to other quarks, gluons, color charge, electroweak, and EM fields. Basically, any other form of energy. That is just one of the ideas short circuited by Minkowski's insistence on triangulating spacetime geometry from outside of elementary particles, as if time dilation was not the most important Lorentz transformation effect (hint: it most certainly is).

    Elementary particles would not exist at all without the time dilation effects of proximity to other bound or unbound energy.

    You are entitled to do anything you wish with any of the ideas I have presented here also, subject to any copyright limitations imposed by sciforums, of course.
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
  19. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    His rant is ignorant of even Euclidean geometry since Euclidean rotations also don't have the properties he describes. Euclidean rotations are not in general identified by an axis and an angle of rotation for instance. That construction only works for rotations in 3-dimensional space. 4-dimensional rotations for instance can leave all the points on a 2-dimensional plane invariant or leave nothing except the coordinate origin invariant. For example, the rotation

    \(\begin{bmatrix} w' \\ x' \\ y' \\ z' \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta) & 0 & 0 \\ \sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta) & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} w \\ x \\ y \\ z \end{bmatrix}\)
    leaves the (2 dimensional) \(y-z\) plane invariant, while the rotation

    \(\begin{bmatrix} w' \\ x' \\ y' \\ z' \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta) & 0 & 0 \\ \sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta) & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \cos(\phi) & -\sin(\phi) \\ 0 & 0 & \sin(\phi) & \cos(\phi) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} w \\ x \\ y \\ z \end{bmatrix}\)
    doesn't have an invariant (nonzero-dimensional) subspace (this can be seen from the fact that the latter rotation matrix doesn't have any real eigenvalues except for the trivial case where \(\sin(\theta) = \sin(\phi) = 0\); invariant subspaces like an axis of rotation are associated with eigenvalues of 1).

    One can identify all the specific errors one wants in what danshawen says, but by far what discredits him the most is that his criticisms of Minkowski have right from the start had nothing recognisably to do with Minkowski geometry. His posts just consist of an endless succession of one strawman* argument after another, based on ignorance and completely irrelevant to the many people who actually do understand relativity.


    *Link, for the benefit of the one person who needs to learn what that is and stop doing it.
    Ophiolite, PhysBang and Dr_Toad like this.
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    I don't know any of the details of the way energy propagates inside of an elementary particle. There may be more than a single center of rotation and oscillations involving more exotic forms of energy such as neutrinos.

    I never suggested that the interior of elementary particles were subject to the rules of a Euclidean geometry. The Ehrenfest paradox (a relativistic rotating rigid disc) does not even have the same value for the constant pi for observers attached to the outside of the spinning disc as it does for observers on the outside, or at the center of rotation. Time dilation increases with increasing radius also, just as it does for relative motion in a straight line. The time it takes for the disc to complete a single rotation cannot be agreed upon by observers situated at different radii, and for the same reason.

    I am aware that Minkowski's geometry allows the math to do exactly as you suggest: "leave all the points on a 2-dimensional plane invariant or leave nothing except the coordinate origin invariant." There is no theorem I know of that states that when you cannot find a satisfactory covariant relationship between space and time geometry in a lower number of dimensions, you must resort to using higher dimensions in order to

    1) make more / new quantities invariant in addition to the invariant speed of light, and
    2) render a relationship between spatial dimensions and time when fundamentally, all spatial dimensions are entirely explained and understood as a dynamic of energy propagation in a single Poynting vector directed scalar relationship with time.

    It is ludicrous to undertake item 1) without a more complete understanding of the dimension of time. Don't pretend that Minkowski did. Don't pretend that you do, either.

    It is even more ludicrous to undertake 2) because the 4D geometry it yields depends heavily on an understanding of SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS, and does so without adequately defining what a simultaneous event actually is. In a universe of energy transfer events taking place where time dilations are different everywhere, what real sense does it make to deal with TIME INSTANTS of time instead of TIME INTERVALS? The derivation of the Lorentz transformations are the only place this kind of analysis belongs or actually works as it should, but it is not a complete description of the geometry that rendered the MM null result. Relative time dilation always works whether you can find a coordinate system that makes sense or not. The speed of light is invariant in Minkowski's proper time and it doesn't matter a whit whether a 4D interval related to a pair of simultaneous events makes sense or not. Measuring the speed of light isn't done in an instant. It requires a measure of a TIME interval. In other words, time dilation is more important than Minkowski's dreams of simultaneity or invariant intervals.

    As Peter Lynds, among others, has pointed out, considering a time instant instead of an interval renders a universe where energy does not propagate, and matter does not move or have inertia. Who really needed such a geometry? For what, exactly?

    It is further asserted that Minkowski's formulation is not the only one that yields the correct answers to similarly stated issues in relativity. Brans-Dicke theory is only one.

    There are literally DOZENS of other such theories, and they are not hard to find. There are flaws with every one of them, including Minkowski's. Einstein himself was seeking a better description of spacetime in the form of De Sitter space in the 1930's as a replacement for Minkowski's formulation, which is the one General Relativity simply defaulted to as a result of the race against Hilbert publishing his equivalent formulation of GR first.

    But if you wish to go on believing that I am just any other ignorant prat or crank who knows nothing of Minkowski's proper time, rotation, intervals, because it was part of the curriculum where I studied freshman physics and managed to pass the tests on it leading to a physics degree, please don't let any of this dissuade or deter you. I take no offense.

    A certain geologist here who fancies himself a philosopher of science has rather a lot more to learn about relativity than you do. I do like your math. It is easy to understand.
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
  21. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    danshawen, your response is more of the same: an irrelevant mish-mash of jargon from different areas of physics that doesn't even begin to address Minkowski geometry in any meaningful way.

    I'm going to be blunt here: your understanding of physics in general (not just relativity) is poor and far inferior to what I'd expect of someone holding a physics degree. Your only mitigating excuse is that you've had more than forty years to forget what I can charitably hope you might have once understood. Maybe the people you encounter in your daily life don't know much physics and you're used to being able to impress people just by throwing a lot of physics jargon around. Since you don't seem to have picked up on this: that isn't going to work here.

    You keep bringing up your history as a physics undergraduate and the professors you knew forty years ago as if you expect it to lend you some credibility. It doesn't. Holding a bachelor's degree in physics isn't going to impress or intimidate anyone. You're not the only person here who has one. Likewise, name-dropping academia-related activities like defending a thesis or publishing an article in a physics journal isn't very clever. There are forum members here who, unlike you, have actually done both of these things.
    Last edited: May 22, 2016
    danshawen likes this.
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Dan, when will you understand two things:

    1. If you are going to assign characteristics to individuals make sure they are accurate. I neither am, nor fancy myself as, nor believe I shall become, a "philosopher of science".

    2. Stating the bleeding obvious carries no weight. I have made no claims to a grasp of relativity. (Although, to my surprise, I have discovered on this thread that in some aspects I have a better grasp than you.)
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    This thread is not about me. It never was. Threads that are not made into ad hominem attacks on the OPs are rare here, and I certainly don't blame you if you decide to read and side with someone her who doesn't buy into (or address) specific arguments, and resort to the only thing they know.

    And what about the other 20 or 30 relativity theories that are candidates for replacing Minkowski?

    Why do you suppose Einstein himself wished to replace it with something like De Sitter space?

    FYI, I'm not trying to impress anyone here. I gave up on that a very long time ago.

    You are right that a BS in physics earned 42 years ago doesn't mean very much today. Well, neither does working as a PhD physics theorist in string theory or SUZY for the last 30 years. Each and every day, I'm thankful for not wasting my time chasing those mathematical equivalents of wild geese and writing papers about them. A long and solid hands-on engineering career in satellite telecom was enough. May you fare as well in whatever endeavor you have chosen for yourself.

    I would recommend, you take whatever they teach you with a grain or two of salt, but each to their own taste.
    Last edited: May 22, 2016

Share This Page