Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376420 > unrolled thread

Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
    Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:08 -0800
      Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:06 -0800
    Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-18 09:13 +0100
      Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 18:39 +0100
        Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 10:04 -0800
          Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:42 -0800
            Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 22:10 +0100
    Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 11:51 -0800

#376420 — Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
 Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
 "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 
 New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 
 "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
 "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." 

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
 "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#376422

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 3:13:00 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
>  What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
>  Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." 
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
>  "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 
>  New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 
>  "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
>  "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." 
> 
> http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
>  "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." 
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
>  "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Which reminds me:
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Executive summary:

1. The links Pentcho posts are mostly legitimate,

2. He usually doesn't read them in any depth, so don't be surprised if the linked articles do not match his commentaries to them,

3. His motivation is that he thinks Einstein's relativity will go away because of new developments in physics. Since neither Newton nor Maxwell went away following the quantum tectonic change, his quest is almost certainly doomed.

4. Whether Pentcho recycles his links is a good exercise for the enterprising reader.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376432

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:08:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 3:13:00 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
> >  What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." 
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
> >  Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." 
> > 
> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
> >  "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
> > 
> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 
> >  New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
> > 
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 
> >  "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." 
> > 
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
> >  "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." 
> > 
> > http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
> >  "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." 
> > 
> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
> >  "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." 
> > 
> > Pentcho Valev
> 
> Which reminds me:
> http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
> 
> Executive summary:
> 
> 1. The links Pentcho posts are mostly legitimate,
> 
> 2. He usually doesn't read them in any depth, so don't be surprised if the linked articles do not match his commentaries to them,
> 
> 3. His motivation is that he thinks Einstein's relativity will go away because of new developments in physics. Since neither Newton nor Maxwell went away following the quantum tectonic change, his quest is almost certainly doomed.
> 
> 4. Whether Pentcho recycles his links is a good exercise for the enterprising reader.
> 
> --
> Jan

Well, gravity as absolute would see an "aether" 
just as much as some "waves of frames", people 
talk about frame A and frame B but really it's 
frames everywhere, that basically establish a 
space and aether.

Somehow it's both: relative (relative to light 
speed: fixed) and absolute (relative to position: 
fixed).

It quite clearly appears to be somehow both 
"big bang" and "steady state", and not from 
expansion but attenuation (why big bang).  

Even if your space-time is curved, which is 
not an unreasonable model especially to 
explain light, there's still a straight 
direction called "down" and gravity (or 
its "waves") doesn't have a speed, as the 
effect of the absolute distances is of 
the instantaneous, then in terms of frames 
moving up to c that affect (and bring with 
them) the frames they cross.

Of course, frames don't "move", per se.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376437

Am 18.02.2016 00:12, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
>   What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
>   Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

Well, how about 'nothing'?

'Nothing' does not sound very much like 'building blocks', but is (at 
least) more primitive.

But apparently nature utilises a mechanism, which is similar (in a way) 
to the splitting of zero into plus one and minus one:
0= +1 + (-1)

Now you see only the plus things and discard the negatives. Then things 
(ones) pop out of nowhere.

The 'negative world' does not recognise positives, hence has it's own 
'big bang' (though negative).

You apparently don't believe similar is possible ?

But simple question: where is all the anti-matter?

Answer: there is a world we cannot see (and better stay away from) which 
is entirely negative (in our view). And this world balances our 
positives (or: we theirs).



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376778

Am 18.02.2016 09:13, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
>> What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings:
>> "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an
>> underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these
>> into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical
>> spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
>> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time
>> doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by
>> some more primitive building blocks."
>
> Well, how about 'nothing'?
>
> 'Nothing' does not sound very much like 'building blocks', but is (at
> least) more primitive.
>
> But apparently nature utilises a mechanism, which is similar (in a way)
> to the splitting of zero into plus one and minus one:
> 0= +1 + (-1)
>
> Now you see only the plus things and discard the negatives. Then things
> (ones) pop out of nowhere.
>
> The 'negative world' does not recognise positives, hence has it's own
> 'big bang' (though negative).
>
> You apparently don't believe similar is possible ?
>
> But simple question: where is all the anti-matter?
>
> Answer: there is a world we cannot see (and better stay away from) which
> is entirely negative (in our view). And this world balances our
> positives (or: we theirs).

Most people dislike such ideas. But 'creating stuff from nothing' is 
actually what 'big-bang' means.

We could also take occult symbols and interpret them as coded physics:

"As above so Below"

So (in the views of such occultists) there is a 'negative world', which 
is like behind a mirror, with time flowing into another direction.

So the death of their universe is the beginning of ours - and vice versa.

There is actually a book about this concept called 'Zero to Infinity' by 
professor Peter Rowlands. There he describes the process, by which 
nothing could be split into two opposing components.

http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142

It is similar to 'pair production', but on a (much!) larger scale.

My own 'book' about a similar concept you find here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376783

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 9:39:04 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.02.2016 09:13, schrieb Thomas Heger:

Einstein chose to keep his aether starting in the 1920's.

He also had a problem with his Nobel Photon...
He claimed there was another model that was the truth in 1937.

The world of science didn't go along with him over his 
rejection... You can claim he didn't say it but the
truth is the world wasn't going to go along with him
on his latter stance. There wasn't a peep from science
on that... it wasn't going to allow him to be accepted...

Mitchell Raemsch


> >> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
> >> What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings:
> >> "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an
> >> underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these
> >> into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical
> >> spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
> >> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time
> >> doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by
> >> some more primitive building blocks."
> >
> > Well, how about 'nothing'?
> >
> > 'Nothing' does not sound very much like 'building blocks', but is (at
> > least) more primitive.
> >
> > But apparently nature utilises a mechanism, which is similar (in a way)
> > to the splitting of zero into plus one and minus one:
> > 0= +1 + (-1)
> >
> > Now you see only the plus things and discard the negatives. Then things
> > (ones) pop out of nowhere.
> >
> > The 'negative world' does not recognise positives, hence has it's own
> > 'big bang' (though negative).
> >
> > You apparently don't believe similar is possible ?
> >
> > But simple question: where is all the anti-matter?
> >
> > Answer: there is a world we cannot see (and better stay away from) which
> > is entirely negative (in our view). And this world balances our
> > positives (or: we theirs).
> 
> Most people dislike such ideas. But 'creating stuff from nothing' is 
> actually what 'big-bang' means.
> 
> We could also take occult symbols and interpret them as coded physics:
> 
> "As above so Below"
> 
> So (in the views of such occultists) there is a 'negative world', which 
> is like behind a mirror, with time flowing into another direction.
> 
> So the death of their universe is the beginning of ours - and vice versa.
> 
> There is actually a book about this concept called 'Zero to Infinity' by 
> professor Peter Rowlands. There he describes the process, by which 
> nothing could be split into two opposing components.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
> 
> It is similar to 'pair production', but on a (much!) larger scale.
> 
> My own 'book' about a similar concept you find here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 
> 
> TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376788

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:04:29 AM UTC-8, james...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 9:39:04 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 18.02.2016 09:13, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> 
> Einstein chose to keep his aether starting in the 1920's.
> 
> He also had a problem with his Nobel Photon...
> He claimed there was another model that was the truth in 1937.
> 
> The world of science didn't go along with him over his 
> rejection... You can claim he didn't say it but the
> truth is the world wasn't going to go along with him
> on his latter stance. There wasn't a peep from science
> on that... it wasn't going to allow him to be accepted...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 
> > >> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
> > >> What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings:
> > >> "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an
> > >> underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these
> > >> into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical
> > >> spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
> > >>
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
> > >> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time
> > >> doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by
> > >> some more primitive building blocks."
> > >
> > > Well, how about 'nothing'?
> > >
> > > 'Nothing' does not sound very much like 'building blocks', but is (at
> > > least) more primitive.
> > >
> > > But apparently nature utilises a mechanism, which is similar (in a way)
> > > to the splitting of zero into plus one and minus one:
> > > 0= +1 + (-1)
> > >
> > > Now you see only the plus things and discard the negatives. Then things
> > > (ones) pop out of nowhere.
> > >
> > > The 'negative world' does not recognise positives, hence has it's own
> > > 'big bang' (though negative).
> > >
> > > You apparently don't believe similar is possible ?
> > >
> > > But simple question: where is all the anti-matter?
> > >
> > > Answer: there is a world we cannot see (and better stay away from) which
> > > is entirely negative (in our view). And this world balances our
> > > positives (or: we theirs).
> > 
> > Most people dislike such ideas. But 'creating stuff from nothing' is 
> > actually what 'big-bang' means.
> > 
> > We could also take occult symbols and interpret them as coded physics:
> > 
> > "As above so Below"
> > 
> > So (in the views of such occultists) there is a 'negative world', which 
> > is like behind a mirror, with time flowing into another direction.
> > 
> > So the death of their universe is the beginning of ours - and vice versa.
> > 
> > There is actually a book about this concept called 'Zero to Infinity' by 
> > professor Peter Rowlands. There he describes the process, by which 
> > nothing could be split into two opposing components.
> > 
> > http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
> > 
> > It is similar to 'pair production', but on a (much!) larger scale.
> > 
> > My own 'book' about a similar concept you find here:
> > 
> > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> > 
> > 
> > TH

Rowlands' seems interesting:

"The author proposes a fundamental description 
of process in a universal computational rewrite 
system, leading to an irreducible form of relativistic 
quantum mechanics from a single operator. This is not 
only simpler, and more fundamental, but also seemingly 
more powerful than any other quantum mechanics formalism 
available. The methodology finds immediate applications 
in particle physics, theoretical physics and theoretical 
computing."

That's quite a broad effect, I'm interested 
in reading this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376807

Am 21.02.2016 19:42, schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:

>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
>>>>> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time
>>>>> doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by
>>>>> some more primitive building blocks."
>>>>
>>>> Well, how about 'nothing'?
>>>>
>>>> 'Nothing' does not sound very much like 'building blocks', but is (at
>>>> least) more primitive.
>>>>
>>>> But apparently nature utilises a mechanism, which is similar (in a way)
>>>> to the splitting of zero into plus one and minus one:
>>>> 0= +1 + (-1)
>>>>
>>>> Now you see only the plus things and discard the negatives. Then things
>>>> (ones) pop out of nowhere.
>>>>
>>>> The 'negative world' does not recognise positives, hence has it's own
>>>> 'big bang' (though negative).
>>>>
>>>> You apparently don't believe similar is possible ?
>>>>
>>>> But simple question: where is all the anti-matter?
>>>>
>>>> Answer: there is a world we cannot see (and better stay away from) which
>>>> is entirely negative (in our view). And this world balances our
>>>> positives (or: we theirs).
>>>
>>> Most people dislike such ideas. But 'creating stuff from nothing' is
>>> actually what 'big-bang' means.
>>>
>>> We could also take occult symbols and interpret them as coded physics:
>>>
>>> "As above so Below"
>>>
>>> So (in the views of such occultists) there is a 'negative world', which
>>> is like behind a mirror, with time flowing into another direction.
>>>
>>> So the death of their universe is the beginning of ours - and vice versa.
>>>
>>> There is actually a book about this concept called 'Zero to Infinity' by
>>> professor Peter Rowlands. There he describes the process, by which
>>> nothing could be split into two opposing components.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
>>>
>>> It is similar to 'pair production', but on a (much!) larger scale.
>>>
>>> My own 'book' about a similar concept you find here:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>
> Rowlands' seems interesting:
>
> "The author proposes a fundamental description
> of process in a universal computational rewrite
> system, leading to an irreducible form of relativistic
> quantum mechanics from a single operator. This is not
> only simpler, and more fundamental, but also seemingly
> more powerful than any other quantum mechanics formalism
> available. The methodology finds immediate applications
> in particle physics, theoretical physics and theoretical
> computing."
>
> That's quite a broad effect, I'm interested
> in reading this.
>

You should read also this:
http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf

The book of Mr Rowlands I have found, because he uses the same symbol on 
the cover of his book as I do: a 'star tetrahedron'.

I found his concept quite similar to my own idea and have contacted him.

He replied and sent some friendly comments. This was remarkable for me, 
since that was really rare.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376799

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/ 
 "Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

So spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. Einsteinians reject the "immediate consequence" but continue to worship "the postulates and their consequences": 

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/apr/17/time-reborn/ 
 QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. 
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. 
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? 
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well. 

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html 
 "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web