Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #398687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-28 05:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800
Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 12:23 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 20:59 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-18 05:03 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory kelleher.gerald@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 21:52 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-19 06:32 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 21:58 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2016-11-19 08:51 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 09:01 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-19 09:13 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 07:00 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 06:08 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-20 10:46 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 20:44 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2016-11-20 15:01 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 18:51 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-21 06:18 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-20 21:47 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 19:52 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-21 05:58 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 21:36 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-21 23:05 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-21 16:12 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-22 07:28 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-21 22:58 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-21 23:13 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-22 05:17 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-23 07:28 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 04:17 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:32 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-23 21:51 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-24 04:28 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 20:17 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 20:29 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 20:42 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-24 08:03 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 08:22 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 09:23 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 09:24 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-24 23:35 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 15:37 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 16:12 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-26 06:55 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-25 22:06 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 04:19 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> - 2016-11-26 12:56 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 15:30 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 07:40 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 07:48 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 16:03 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:11 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:35 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:40 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 16:54 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:03 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 17:16 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-26 20:54 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 13:03 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:49 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-27 04:59 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 20:08 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-27 22:35 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 13:46 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 20:52 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:05 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-27 22:32 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 13:40 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 14:12 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-27 16:28 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-28 05:07 +0100
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800 |
| Subject | Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory |
| Message-ID | <3f19adb2-c919-488e-9184-a3909a749b00@googlegroups.com> |
The apparent inconsistency between Relativity & Quantum Theory is due mainly to their inconsistent views of spacetime. The spacetime of Quantum Theory is a fixed pre-existing container within which events occur. The spacetime of Relativity is also a pre-existing container for events but is dynamically affected by events. The way to unify the theories is to take a computational approach and recognize that spacetime is not a pre-existing container for events but is actually created by quantum events in the form of the dimensional entanglements of elementary particles resulting from their interactions in computational space. Thus spacetime is not a pre-existing container for events but actually the logico-mathematical structure of the entanglement network among all elementary particles generated by quantum events. This theory enables quantum events to construct spacetime on the fly in a manner consistent with general relativity at classical scales. This computational approach solves many problems e.g. the spin entanglement paradox is no longer paradoxical because there is no pre-existing spacetime with respect to which there is any non-locality.. This is all explained in detail in my new book 'Unifying Relativity & Quantum Theory, The Revolutionary New Universe' available at https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=edgar+l+owen .
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 12:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db264f8c-ce5e-47fc-b69c-da8b471d21a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398687 |
Cease & Desist Copying my work for Resale for your own personal profit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0l5nn$1vqs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398687 |
Edgar L. Owen wrote: > The apparent inconsistency between Relativity & Quantum Theory is due > mainly to their inconsistent views of spacetime. The spacetime of > Quantum Theory is a fixed pre-existing container within which events > occur. The spacetime of Relativity is also a pre-existing container for > events but is dynamically affected by events. Incorrect. There is no spacetime, time nor space in QM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 05:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3938991.LvFx2qVVIh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #398722 |
"Edwin Grünner" wrote: > […] There is no spacetime, time nor space in QM. More nonsense from the ’nym-shifting troll. *PLONK* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kelleher.gerald@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 21:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e87ee58-1f04-4dea-8847-a9d01e01e33f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398748 |
Empiricists, at least since Newton, do not distinguish time from timekeeping despite the plain fact that the 24 hour day and watches that register it are an outrigger of the calendar framework. In dynamical terms it is represented as a mismatch between the Lat/Long system and the predictive system of RA/Dec which appeals to a rotating celestial sphere and a homocentric perspective. The year does not equate to one circuit of the Earth around the Sun as one year can have 365 rotations within a circuit or 366 days/rotation and the RA/Dec system ignores this timekeeping aspect for the convenience of predicting astronomical events such as eclipses, transits and the relationship of planets to the background celestial sphere. "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun...This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton What Newton tried to do was double model the observed position of the planets by assigning observations seen from Earth as relative motion and space while motions seen from the Sun represented absolute motion and space - "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,..." Newton https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg Empiricists generally view that perspective of Kepler as geocentric as Newton did so if the Sun is plonked in the middle of the diagram the retrogrades disappear hence Newton's attempt to use the background stars as a common feature for geocentric and heliocentric views however this is at variance with Kepler's description which correctly assigns the retrograde loops as seen from a moving Earth - "Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth, entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, leading the individual planets into their respective orbits ,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler For me personally it is worth untangling the perspectives to get a clearer picture of the whole thing however others will not give up the pretense that they understood Newton's approach to the works of the original heliocentric astronomers even when productive and creative researcher is on offer for those who don't wish to have their time and life wasted following voodoo and bluffing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 06:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9a6fbFbg4cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #398687 |
Am 17.11.2016 15:21, schrieb Edgar L. Owen: > The apparent inconsistency between Relativity& Quantum Theory is due mainly to their inconsistent views of spacetime. The spacetime of Quantum Theory is a fixed pre-existing container within which events occur. The spacetime of Relativity is also a pre-existing container for events but is dynamically affected by events. The reason for inconsistency is, that quantum mechanics has one dimension of time, while relativity is not restricted to one timeline. Most physics theories assume something like the big bang, from where the universe evolves into the state we find now. This require one dimension of time and a timeline, that begins at the point 'big bang' and ends at the point 'now' (from where it goes to the future. But GR allows different timelines. Now we could assume, that our 'universe' is not really the universe, but a certain subset, that we (as human beings on planet Earth) are able to see and observe. This would require, that the topics of quantum mechanics are also a subset of something, which looks under a certain perspective like fields and particles, if we apply one single axis of time to this something. And this axis of time is ours, that we (as human beings) regard as universal, what it in fact isn't. So 'particles' denote 'timelike stable structures' and not 'lasting universal entities'. Changes of the direction of time would make particles disappear and seem to vanish from our field of sight. And such an effect does in fact exist. It is the 'photo electric effect' - in the time reverted version. If light hits a metallic target, this target gets charged. 'Charge' is usually ascribed to electrons, what are particles, while light is - according to QM - composed from photons. Now it is possible to put photons and electrons on similar foundations: as kind of rotation wave. The timelike stable version is called electrons, while 'rolling away' charge is called 'photons'. This 'rolling away' of charge could be interpreted as tilt of the axis of time by 45°, while time reverted this is the opposite and like blocking light. In a way this would make spacetime of GR more fundamental than particles of QM. My assumption goes like this: the world we observe is 'internal structure' of spacetime. I have written kind of book, too. I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can find it here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 21:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d980d34-80a6-44d1-8d2a-927b6adc01be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398888 |
On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 11:32:31 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.11.2016 15:21, schrieb Edgar L. Owen: > > The apparent inconsistency between Relativity& Quantum Theory is due mainly to their inconsistent views of spacetime. The spacetime of Quantum Theory is a fixed pre-existing container within which events occur. The spacetime of Relativity is also a pre-existing container for events but is dynamically affected by events. > > The reason for inconsistency is, that quantum mechanics has one > dimension of time, while relativity is not restricted to one timeline. 6 Spatial with 8 Temporal > > Most physics theories assume something like the big bang, from where the > universe evolves into the state we find now. > > This require one dimension of time and a timeline, that begins at the > point 'big bang' and ends at the point 'now' (from where it goes to the > future. > > But GR allows different timelines. > > Now we could assume, that our 'universe' is not really the universe, but > a certain subset, that we (as human beings on planet Earth) are able to > see and observe. > > This would require, that the topics of quantum mechanics are also a > subset of something, which looks under a certain perspective like fields > and particles, if we apply one single axis of time to this something. > And this axis of time is ours, that we (as human beings) regard as > universal, what it in fact isn't. > > So 'particles' denote 'timelike stable structures' and not 'lasting > universal entities'. > > Changes of the direction of time would make particles disappear and seem > to vanish from our field of sight. > > And such an effect does in fact exist. It is the 'photo electric effect' > - in the time reverted version. > > If light hits a metallic target, this target gets charged. > > 'Charge' is usually ascribed to electrons, what are particles, while > light is - according to QM - composed from photons. > > Now it is possible to put photons and electrons on similar foundations: > > as kind of rotation wave. > > The timelike stable version is called electrons, while 'rolling away' > charge is called 'photons'. > > This 'rolling away' of charge could be interpreted as tilt of the axis > of time by 45°, while time reverted this is the opposite and like > blocking light. > > In a way this would make spacetime of GR more fundamental than particles > of QM. > > My assumption goes like this: > > the world we observe is 'internal structure' of spacetime. > > > I have written kind of book, too. I call it 'structured spacetime' and > you can find it here: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 08:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe026451-0f4b-4a38-9be2-3abd1426e2ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398888 |
Hi Thomas, Yes, you are correct that GR has different timelines for different observers and QT doesn't. Important point. My book "Unifying Relativity & Quantum Theory" demonstrates how a computational approach resolves this inconsistency. The Universal Reality (UR) theory on which the book is based proposes a computational universe in which the universe is a running program that recomputes the entire data state of the universe at every tick of its processor. Thus the universe is not physical but fundamentally a data structure. Within this data structure there is a universal present moment time within which the spacetime of relativity is computed including the individual clock times of different observers. Simply put there is a universal fabric of spacetime all points of which have a c (speed of light) valued intrinsic velocity. All this velocity is through time unless there is velocity through space in which case the velocity through time is reduced accordingly. This model enables all the timelines of different observers to reduce to aspects of a constant intrinsic c velocity of all points in the fabric of spacetime in a single universal present moment time in which the entire data state of the universe is continually recomputed. All points in spacetime move forward in time at the speed of light unless they have some spatial velocity in which case their velocity in time is reduced accordingly (Lorentz transform). This resolves the inconsistency problem you mention between GR and QT. It also simultaneously solves the problem of Newton's bucket (what rotation is relative to) and of what world lines are relative to. Rotation and world lines are relative to the actual computational space in which they are computed. I understand this explication is brief but I can explain any points that are unclear. Best, Edgar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 09:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0372880a-ce9b-417e-b8b8-60ac56bbe017@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398947 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 10:51:25 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Yes, you are correct that GR has different timelines for different observers and QT doesn't. Important point. > > My book "Unifying Relativity & Quantum Theory" demonstrates how a computational approach resolves this inconsistency. The Universal Reality (UR) theory on which the book is based proposes a computational universe in which the universe is a running program that recomputes the entire data state of the universe at every tick of its processor. > > Thus the universe is not physical but fundamentally a data structure. Within this data structure there is a universal present moment time within which the spacetime of relativity is computed including the individual clock times of different observers. Simply put there is a universal fabric of spacetime all points of which have a c (speed of light) valued intrinsic velocity. All this velocity is through time unless there is velocity through space in which case the velocity through time is reduced accordingly. > > This model enables all the timelines of different observers to reduce to aspects of a constant intrinsic c velocity of all points in the fabric of spacetime in a single universal present moment time in which the entire data state of the universe is continually recomputed. All points in spacetime move forward in time at the speed of light unless they have some spatial velocity in which case their velocity in time is reduced accordingly (Lorentz transform). > > This resolves the inconsistency problem you mention between GR and QT. > > It also simultaneously solves the problem of Newton's bucket (what rotation is relative to) and of what world lines are relative to. Rotation and world lines are relative to the actual computational space in which they are computed. > > I understand this explication is brief but I can explain any points that are unclear. > > Best, > Edgar You Speak with Authority
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <89a5e839-0486-40f8-8a22-df826e2fb06b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398947 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 9:51:25 AM UTC-7, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > Yes, you are correct that GR has different timelines for different observers > and QT doesn't. Important point. SR has "different timelines for different observers" and quantum electrodynamics is based on SR. So no, neither he nor you are correct. Furthermore, Seth Lloyd has demonstrated that the GR equations can be derived from quantum theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME He slyly assumes that one can cut off consideration below the Planck length to do it. However, string theory provides the rationale for such a limit through duality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 07:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9csg2Fi9mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #398952 |
Am 19.11.2016 18:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> Yes, you are correct that GR has different timelines for different observers >> and QT doesn't. Important point. > > SR has "different timelines for different observers" and quantum electrodynamics is based on SR. So no, neither he nor you are correct. > > Furthermore, Seth Lloyd has demonstrated that the GR equations can be > derived from quantum theory: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME > > He slyly assumes that one can cut off consideration below the Planck > length to do it. However, string theory provides the rationale for > such a limit through duality. I assume the opposite direction: quantum mechanics as subset of GR. (SRT is mainly wrong) I call the concept 'structured spacetime', where the subjects of QM are such 'structures'. (The question 'What IS spacetime?' I do not cover and have (wilfully) excluded.) So we have multiple possible timelines and any object (like e.g. an observer) belongs to only one. The observer (or any other object) is then 'moving' along his local axis of time and call this simply 'time'. This time is NOT universal, but a local measure. The world seen from the local spot called 'here and now' is then, what the observer calls 'universe'. This 'universe' is not universal, neither, but the local impression under the restrictions of the local axis of time. If the axis of time is tilted, the previous universe would vanish, while another one gets visible, inhabited by different stars. So material objects should somehow vanish and other pop out of nowhere. This is actually visible in the process called 'Growing Earth'. Even the entire universe looks like having been burst out of nowhere. This effect I have called 'ones matter is the other ones radiation'. And its possible to 'morph' matter into radiation (and back) if the axis of time is tilted. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 06:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f302ce6-8925-45ad-a0ca-52bce407ada8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399002 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 19.11.2016 18:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > Yes, you are correct that GR has different timelines for different > > > observers and QT doesn't. Important point. > > > > SR has "different timelines for different observers" and quantum > > electrodynamics is based on SR. So no, neither he nor you are correct. > > > > Furthermore, Seth Lloyd has demonstrated that the GR equations can be > > derived from quantum theory: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME > > > > He slyly assumes that one can cut off consideration below the Planck > > length to do it. However, string theory provides the rationale for > > such a limit through duality. > > I assume the opposite direction: quantum mechanics as subset of GR. (SRT > is mainly wrong) You are free to ASSume whatever you want, but don't expect to be praised for it. QED (the most accurate form of QM) is based on SR, not GR. Do you understand GR? I doubt it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <03deee09-6833-4d91-960e-22e4716f2863@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399015 |
W dniu niedziela, 20 listopada 2016 15:08:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 19.11.2016 18:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > Yes, you are correct that GR has different timelines for different > > > > observers and QT doesn't. Important point. > > > > > > SR has "different timelines for different observers" and quantum > > > electrodynamics is based on SR. So no, neither he nor you are correct. > > > > > > Furthermore, Seth Lloyd has demonstrated that the GR equations can be > > > derived from quantum theory: > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME > > > > > > He slyly assumes that one can cut off consideration below the Planck > > > length to do it. However, string theory provides the rationale for > > > such a limit through duality. > > > > I assume the opposite direction: quantum mechanics as subset of GR. (SRT > > is mainly wrong) > > You are free to ASSume whatever you want, but don't expect to be praised > for it. QED (the most accurate form of QM) is based on SR, not GR. Do > you understand GR? I doubt it. You are stupid again. There is nothing to understand in the models. An example: the event horizon in the GR model - what is this? It's nothing! Other example: what is the time dilation in the SR model? It's nothing! Next: what is the entanglement or a half spin in the QM model? It's nothing!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9eco8Fc2rjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399015 |
Am 20.11.2016 15:08, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> He slyly assumes that one can cut off consideration below the Planck >>> length to do it. However, string theory provides the rationale for >>> such a limit through duality. >> >> I assume the opposite direction: quantum mechanics as subset of GR. (SRT >> is mainly wrong) > > You are free to ASSume whatever you want, but don't expect to be praised > for it. QED (the most accurate form of QM) is based on SR, not GR. Do > you understand GR? I doubt it. Well, I have spent many years on this subject and certainly have some knowledge. On the other hand I'm a hobbyist and do my 'research' mainly for the purpose of entertainment. So: If you do agree or not would not bother me too much. But I can advertise my 'book', since actually I have written it and it is still available online: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 My aim was - of course - objective correctness of the presented ideas (not some sort of sport). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 15:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b98a03ba-fc44-4f7e-bd1f-d8021c4fba99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399031 |
Thomas, Re your book. You are correct that "One's space is the other one's time". The underlying principle is that everything has a combined velocity through space and time of c, the speed of light. Thus if one acquires velocity in space he loses velocity through time (time dilation) so that his total spacetime velocity remains equal to c. In my books I call this the STc Principle and it's a fundamental principle of the universe and relativity. As for your statement that "one's matter is the other one's radiation" perhaps you can explain that to me. It is true that spatial velocity relative to the fabric of spacetime causes photons to appear out of the quantum vacuum to that observer that don't exist to stationary observers (The Unruh effect). It is also true that Quantum Field Theory considers particles as excitations in spacetime. But you seem to be saying that depending on the observer some see hadrons as bosons and vice versa. I don't get that. So can you give me a simple explanation? Edgar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 18:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67e34882-43d3-46e1-9482-60b23e8d9657@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399074 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 6:01:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Thomas, > > Re your book. You are correct that "One's space is the other one's time". The underlying principle is that everything has a combined velocity through space and time of c, the speed of light. Thus if one acquires velocity in space he loses velocity through time (time dilation) so that his total spacetime velocity remains equal to c. In my books I call this the STc Principle and it's a fundamental principle of the universe and relativity. > > As for your statement that "one's matter is the other one's radiation" perhaps you can explain that to me. It is true that spatial velocity relative to the fabric of spacetime causes photons to appear out of the quantum vacuum to that observer that don't exist to stationary observers (The Unruh effect). > > It is also true that Quantum Field Theory considers particles as excitations in spacetime. But you seem to be saying that depending on the observer some see hadrons as bosons and vice versa. I don't get that. So can you give me a simple explanation? > > Edgar There is a Dr Hitoshi Kitada from Japan that took a similar approach to yours with focus on time that unifies quantum and relativity. In his case he is using brute force particle velocity rather than rate of entanglement but the general idea is the same. He also shares your interest in Buddhist philosophy. You guys have a lot in common. In have a feeling you will enjoy reading his words. http://www.kitada.com/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 06:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9fed4Fjfs2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399074 |
Am 21.11.2016 00:01, schrieb Edgar L. Owen: > Thomas, > > Re your book. You are correct that "One's space is the other one's time". The underlying principle is that everything has a combined velocity through space and time of c, the speed of light. Thus if one acquires velocity in space he loses velocity through time (time dilation) so that his total spacetime velocity remains equal to c. In my books I call this the STc Principle and it's a fundamental principle of the universe and relativity. > > As for your statement that "one's matter is the other one's radiation" perhaps you can explain that to me. It is true that spatial velocity relative to the fabric of spacetime causes photons to appear out of the quantum vacuum to that observer that don't exist to stationary observers (The Unruh effect). > > It is also true that Quantum Field Theory considers particles as excitations in spacetime. But you seem to be saying that depending on the observer some see hadrons as bosons and vice versa. I don't get that. So can you give me a simple explanation? Sure: I take the photo-electric effect as example. Atoms are assumed to be standing rotation waves. The outer rim is then the aspect of a potential. This means: from there it goes inwards. The positive side is the 'mass term', from where it goes outwards. So an atom is actually 'one thing' and the various parts are certain aspects of this 'one thing'. We have kind of twin pairs, because the type of symmetry allows two kinds of rotations (left-handed and right-handed). This could be visualized as one clock turning forward and one turning backwards. This gives an overlay pattern and that is an atom. Now this 'forward and backwards time' defines a distinct direction in time, if you have multiple possible directions of time. If you twist the axis of time, the both waves would not fit together any more and 'roll away', what looks like a ray. This could be reverted and turns rays into charge again. Or we could create matter out of nothing, like dust inside a sealed cube. My favourite example is 'Growing Earth', which I have tried to prove for a long time, since if the Earth does in fact grow, than the standard model of Qm cannot be corret. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 21:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ce7b5c1-3518-49ff-898b-fa4defc6d08d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399104 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 11:18:32 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 21.11.2016 00:01, schrieb Edgar L. Owen: > > Thomas, > > > > Re your book. You are correct that "One's space is the other one's time". The underlying principle is that everything has a combined velocity through space and time of c, the speed of light. Thus if one acquires velocity in space he loses velocity through time (time dilation) so that his total spacetime velocity remains equal to c. In my books I call this the STc Principle and it's a fundamental principle of the universe and relativity. > > > > As for your statement that "one's matter is the other one's radiation" perhaps you can explain that to me. It is true that spatial velocity relative to the fabric of spacetime causes photons to appear out of the quantum vacuum to that observer that don't exist to stationary observers (The Unruh effect). > > > > It is also true that Quantum Field Theory considers particles as excitations in spacetime. But you seem to be saying that depending on the observer some see hadrons as bosons and vice versa. I don't get that. So can you give me a simple explanation? > > Sure: > > I take the photo-electric effect as example. > > Atoms are assumed to be standing rotation waves. The outer rim is then > the aspect of a potential. This means: from there it goes inwards. > > The positive side is the 'mass term', from where it goes outwards. > > So an atom is actually 'one thing' and the various parts are certain > aspects of this 'one thing'. > > We have kind of twin pairs, because the type of symmetry allows two > kinds of rotations (left-handed and right-handed). http://i68.tinypic.com/2qjkqxv.jpg Red = Right Green = Left > > This could be visualized as one clock turning forward and one turning > backwards. This gives an overlay pattern and that is an atom. overlay pattern and that is an atom. http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg > > Now this 'forward and backwards time' defines a distinct direction in > time, if you have multiple possible directions of time. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Dual_Cube-Octahedron.svg/2000px-Dual_Cube-Octahedron.svg.png Time = 8 Face Centered Axis on Surfaces of Octahedron Spatial = 6 Face Centered Axis on Surface of Cube 14 Space Time Axis 22/7 > > If you twist the axis of time, the both waves would not fit together any > more and 'roll away', what looks like a ray. This could be reverted and > turns rays into charge again. > > Or we could create matter out of nothing, like dust inside a sealed cube. > > My favourite example is 'Growing Earth', 'Growing Earth' = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch which I have tried to prove for > a long time, since if the Earth does in fact grow, than the standard > model of Qm cannot be corret. > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 19:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93e975b2-0fb8-4894-98eb-b139d3fb76cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399031 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:44:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 20.11.2016 15:08, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > He slyly assumes that one can cut off consideration below the Planck > > > > length to do it. However, string theory provides the rationale for > > > > such a limit through duality. > > > > > > I assume the opposite direction: quantum mechanics as subset of GR. (SRT > > > is mainly wrong) > > > > You are free to ASSume whatever you want, but don't expect to be praised > > for it. QED (the most accurate form of QM) is based on SR, not GR. Do > > you understand GR? I doubt it. > > > Well, I have spent many years on this subject and certainly have some > knowledge. And you didn't know that QED was based on SR? > On the other hand I'm a hobbyist and do my 'research' mainly for the > purpose of entertainment. > > So: If you do agree or not would not bother me too much. And it doesn't bother me that you are just another crackpot among the many that infest this group. > But I can advertise my 'book', since actually I have written it and it > is still available online: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 I have read enough of it to agree with this quote: “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson > My aim was - of course - objective correctness of the presented ideas > (not some sort of sport). > > TH And you didn't know that QED was based on SR and you claim SR is wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 05:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9fd7qFj87aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399095 |
Am 21.11.2016 04:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:44:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> I assume the opposite direction: quantum mechanics as subset of GR. (SRT >>>> is mainly wrong) >>> >>> You are free to ASSume whatever you want, but don't expect to be praised >>> for it. QED (the most accurate form of QM) is based on SR, not GR. Do >>> you understand GR? I doubt it. >> >> >> Well, I have spent many years on this subject and certainly have some >> knowledge. > > And you didn't know that QED was based on SR? > >> On the other hand I'm a hobbyist and do my 'research' mainly for the >> purpose of entertainment. >> >> So: If you do agree or not would not bother me too much. > > And it doesn't bother me that you are just another crackpot among the > many that infest this group. > >> But I can advertise my 'book', since actually I have written it and it >> is still available online: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > I have read enough of it to agree with this quote: > > “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good > is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson > >> My aim was - of course - objective correctness of the presented ideas >> (not some sort of sport). >> >> TH > > And you didn't know that QED was based on SR and you claim SR is wrong? Well, SRT does not fit into the picture, which I have tried to draw. I had come to something similar to particles from a different approach. This concept I called 'structured spacetime'. In QM you concentrate on particles and fields, while I concentrate on the opposite. That is: the gaps in between. It is roughly the opposite to the idea of QM, which is focused on 'things'. So I assume spacetime to be a real physical entity and particles as substructures of/in spacetime. This spacetime is assumed to be of the type of Herman Minkowski or GR, not of SRT. SRT uses one time and kind of Newtonian space, while Minkowski spacetime has three dimensions of time and three dimensions of space for any axis of time. Since it is a real system, it should consist of zero-dimensional, pointlike 'elements'. These elements are assumed to twist each other in a certain way. That causes timelike stable patterns and those are, what we call 'matter'. The concept is a little like string theory, but without strings. I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. This is contrary to the Newtonian idea of space as empty container. So I cannot make use of SRT, since SRT space is more like Newtonian space. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web