EthanT
Member
Actually, I may beable to locate a free PDF from another QFT text that talks about this too, if I can I will post it up later
Is the cosmic microwave background from the Big Bang?
- Thread starter David Bailey
- Start date
Actually, I may beable to locate a free PDF from another QFT text that talks about this too, if I can I will post it up later
Michael Larkin
Member
Ethan, I read your last post with great interest, but have to admit that 90% of it flew right over my head due to aforementioned deficiencies in my understanding, in the end, of mathematics. I note that you seem to be more a practitioner than a theoretician, and that you rely on scientific theory insofar as it works. I actually applaud that: if it works and we can produce useful technology on that basis, all well and good. Maybe your circle of peers is quite open-minded; but by now you should have seen the videos that LS posted in which respected academics concerned about empirical anomalies voiced their concerns about how Halton Arp was treated. These guys know their theoretical onions, and feel that something important is being overlooked.
As a non-expert, I have to weigh things up as best I can. I still feel that there is something seriously amiss with current cosmological theory. I can't readily accept that 96% of the universe is made up of stuff we can't detect, and note that that idea didn't really become popular until deficiencies in the standard models were discovered. If that's not a humongous epicycle, I don't know what is.
I mean, look at how convenient that is, and how it enables people to carry on doing what they want to do and believing what they want to believe, all funded by Joe Public. In any other human endeavour, making such an outrageous claim would be derided, but because these guys have facility in the arcane machinations of maths, untutored minds can't debate with them. So we have to apply whatever sniff tests are open to us, and to me, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
That says nothing about you and the work you do, nor your ability or integrity. I'm quite convinced that if you say something works, it does; I'm also convinced that your understandings are nuanced: wish I knew enough to understand more of what you are saying and could offer technical arguments, but alas, I can't.
I do have one technical question. Suppose a bolt of lightning comes from the sky and divides into two. One branch goes off and hits an ammunition dump, causing it to explode. The other branch does the same thing to another dump ten miles away. We will assume that the path length from the forking point to the dumps is identical, and that each of the forks travels at the same speed. Now, we have the one event (occurring the instant the lightning forked) causing the two consequent events, namely the dump explosions, which we will assume happen instantaneously.
Different observers will register the explosions as having occurred simultaneously, or one before the other, depending on where the observation was made. Okay, that's an example quoting lightning, whose speed of propagation, though fast, may not (I'm not sure) be at relativistic speeds. Let's propose something similar that does occur at such speeds: e.g. a beam of light falling on some device that generates in the one event two beams going off at an angle, each beam then causing an effect at an identical distance. We'll say that the whole thing occurs in the same medium, e.g. the near-vacuum of space. In layman's terms if possible, how would that be explained and what would different observers observe?
I've been trying with little success to grok the light cone thing. Maybe the answer to my question will help, or maybe it's irrelevant. I'm just trying to determine if there's some difference because of the relativistic speeds involved.
As a non-expert, I have to weigh things up as best I can. I still feel that there is something seriously amiss with current cosmological theory. I can't readily accept that 96% of the universe is made up of stuff we can't detect, and note that that idea didn't really become popular until deficiencies in the standard models were discovered. If that's not a humongous epicycle, I don't know what is.
I mean, look at how convenient that is, and how it enables people to carry on doing what they want to do and believing what they want to believe, all funded by Joe Public. In any other human endeavour, making such an outrageous claim would be derided, but because these guys have facility in the arcane machinations of maths, untutored minds can't debate with them. So we have to apply whatever sniff tests are open to us, and to me, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
That says nothing about you and the work you do, nor your ability or integrity. I'm quite convinced that if you say something works, it does; I'm also convinced that your understandings are nuanced: wish I knew enough to understand more of what you are saying and could offer technical arguments, but alas, I can't.
I do have one technical question. Suppose a bolt of lightning comes from the sky and divides into two. One branch goes off and hits an ammunition dump, causing it to explode. The other branch does the same thing to another dump ten miles away. We will assume that the path length from the forking point to the dumps is identical, and that each of the forks travels at the same speed. Now, we have the one event (occurring the instant the lightning forked) causing the two consequent events, namely the dump explosions, which we will assume happen instantaneously.
Different observers will register the explosions as having occurred simultaneously, or one before the other, depending on where the observation was made. Okay, that's an example quoting lightning, whose speed of propagation, though fast, may not (I'm not sure) be at relativistic speeds. Let's propose something similar that does occur at such speeds: e.g. a beam of light falling on some device that generates in the one event two beams going off at an angle, each beam then causing an effect at an identical distance. We'll say that the whole thing occurs in the same medium, e.g. the near-vacuum of space. In layman's terms if possible, how would that be explained and what would different observers observe?
I've been trying with little success to grok the light cone thing. Maybe the answer to my question will help, or maybe it's irrelevant. I'm just trying to determine if there's some difference because of the relativistic speeds involved.
Last edited:
EthanT
Member
Not really, other than similar concerns to yours, lol. The imaginary number, i, is everywhere in physics/engineering. Sometimes it's an indication you're using a theory in a domain that it isn't valid (like in SR), sometimes it's just a mathematical tool that has no meaning at all (like in certain aspects of engineering), other times it seems to be an integral part of the math and is perhaps hiding a deeper meaning (like in QT).
It believe the main reason it shows up in QT is because the wave function is really a state vector that lives in an abstract, infinite-dimensional, complex vector space called Hilbert space. But, Hilbert Space is a mathematical space, not a real space we find in reality. So, i's showing up is probably just an artifact from using a wave function. Maybe some new theory will replace the wave function with some deeper insight that eliminates i. Or maybe, the i's are hinting at some deeper insight we need to gain. Hard to say, but I expect it's just a result of the math, with no meaning. The i’s definitely don’t factor into QT’s predictions, because to calculate probabilities you take the absolute square of the wave function and that eliminates any i's hanging around.
Either way, yet another reason to waver in one's thoughts ;-)
Last edited:
David Bailey
Member
That would be nice - but I'd probably only read the above mentioned Chapter 8. I remember once reading an intro to QFT which began by taking the ordinary Shroedinger equation and saying let ψ be an operator!!!!!!!!!!
I get the feeling that you are more or less at one with LS about cosmology!
David
EthanT
Member
I think I might be able to explain this in a way that is simple (I hope!) and perhaps even shed light on the light cone idea. It also covers the "general" case. Let's not worry about whether lightning, or a beam of light, triggers the events. Let's just say in the end we get an Event A and an Event B, whatever they may be or wherever they may be located in spacetime.
Let me throw one more ingredient into the mix - an attempt to send a beam of light, traveling at c, going from A to B. So, we'll assume a particular frame where Event A happens before Event B, but we've got this additional signal trying to travel between them.
(1) If the beam of light can make it to the spatial location of Event B before Event B happens, then Event A and Event B are causally-connected events. Their temporal ordering will be the same for all observers. They may disagree on the time interval between A and B, but they will all agree on which one came before the other. And, they lie within the same light cone, which is a region of events that can be potentially causally-connected. It doesn't necessarily mean A caused B, it just means A could cause B
(2) If the beam of light cannot make it to the spatial location of Event B before Event B happens, then Event A and Event B CANNOT be causally-connected events (ever). The relativity of simultaneity kicks in and there is no absolute temporal ordering of the two events that will be agreed upon between different inertial observers. However, one of the events cannot possibly cause the other (as viewed by any observer), so cause-and-effect is preserved, regardless. And, they will not lie in the same light cone.
So, to sum that up, the real key is whether, or not, the events can be causally connected, or whether some causal influence (restricted to <= c in SR) can connect the two events. If they can, temporal ordering is absolute. If they cannot, temporal ordering becomes relative.
Throughout all this, for either (1) or (2), ALL observers will ALWAYS agree upon the interval, or spacetime distance, between the two events, as predicted/measured by the spacetime metric. This is where SR claims the deeper symmetry of reality lies - not in spatial separations alone, not in temporal separations alone, but rather in spacetime separations.
Last edited:
EthanT
Member
I looked at that paper and it's a bit more technical than I had remembered. It's about the easiest QFT text around, but unfortunately in this area it's not as good as Chapter 8 of PnS. It doesn't even cover the parallels with statistical mechanics.
PnS was on Amazon with the "look inside" option, but only up to Chapter 3.
Maybe next time you're at the library? ;-)
LoneShaman
Member
GPS in light of relativity - Velocity Effects upon the Clock Rates.
I originally did not want to discuss SR and GR. Only the explanations of observable features of the cosmos and big bang. But I have become quite interested in these questions. It is a great puzzle for the mind to play with, and it is ultimately related to the big bang after all.
Anyway here is a couple of claims that are utterly refuted by the GPS system.
The claim here is that relativistic effects arise from relative motion of GPS satellites and users.
The claim follows that clocks in relative motion suffer time dialation.
Both of these are untrue of GPS. GPS and receiver clocks are not adjusted in relation of relative velocity to each other. They are adjusted in respect to the chosen frame of reference, the Earth centred non rotating inertial frame. The ECI.
Example. One space craft, with GPS receiver is in orbit following a GPS satellite. In this case both the space craft and the sattelite are at the same velocity relative to the Earth centred frame. So there will be no apparent relativistic effects on the signal. This is true also of SR since there is no relative velocity between them.
But if we have another space craft in the same orbit but moving in the opposite direction we have a problem. Again both the space craft and satellite have the same velocity in respect to the Earth centred frame regadless of the fact they are moving in opposite directions. Which means the frequency shift is exactly the same as the first space craft. However the relative velocity between the satellite and the second craft will be twice the orbital speed. But there is NO relativistic shift in frequency between them.
Relatavists will claim that frequency shift balances out when relativistic clock shift combined with doppler and aberation effects are included in reference to the Earth centred frame. But this is actually more of a Lorentzian view. Hidden in that solution is something that undermines SR that is demonstrated by the sagnac effect. Which is...
That whenever a frame is chosen which does not coincide with the receiver or observer, as in this case being the ECI, the speed of light must be treated as being non-isotropic as far as the receiver or observer is concerned. But this is a direct contradiction of SR that says the speed of light is always isotropic relative to the observer.
I hope to post on the sagnac effect as well that clearly shows this is the case. A fascinating experiment and subject.
The conclusion is that Lorentzian relativity Aether theory or some form of it, is a better fit to the empirical data.
I have summarised this information based on the work of Ron Hatch, A distinguished GPS scientist and a pioneer in GPS systems. There is much more than just this one aspect that is at odds with both SR and GR in light of GPS. The relatavists can make excuses. But people like Hatch are responsible for making things work. As he says...
Reliable experiment trumps theory.
And rational and logical reasoning should trump any magical explanations.
BTW I do not see how invoking yet more metaphysical concepts can be justified to solve the paradoxes that emerge from other metaphysical concepts. Sure looks like epicycles to me. Magical explanations have little to offer.
I originally did not want to discuss SR and GR. Only the explanations of observable features of the cosmos and big bang. But I have become quite interested in these questions. It is a great puzzle for the mind to play with, and it is ultimately related to the big bang after all.
Anyway here is a couple of claims that are utterly refuted by the GPS system.
The claim here is that relativistic effects arise from relative motion of GPS satellites and users.
The claim follows that clocks in relative motion suffer time dialation.
Both of these are untrue of GPS. GPS and receiver clocks are not adjusted in relation of relative velocity to each other. They are adjusted in respect to the chosen frame of reference, the Earth centred non rotating inertial frame. The ECI.
Example. One space craft, with GPS receiver is in orbit following a GPS satellite. In this case both the space craft and the sattelite are at the same velocity relative to the Earth centred frame. So there will be no apparent relativistic effects on the signal. This is true also of SR since there is no relative velocity between them.
But if we have another space craft in the same orbit but moving in the opposite direction we have a problem. Again both the space craft and satellite have the same velocity in respect to the Earth centred frame regadless of the fact they are moving in opposite directions. Which means the frequency shift is exactly the same as the first space craft. However the relative velocity between the satellite and the second craft will be twice the orbital speed. But there is NO relativistic shift in frequency between them.
Relatavists will claim that frequency shift balances out when relativistic clock shift combined with doppler and aberation effects are included in reference to the Earth centred frame. But this is actually more of a Lorentzian view. Hidden in that solution is something that undermines SR that is demonstrated by the sagnac effect. Which is...
That whenever a frame is chosen which does not coincide with the receiver or observer, as in this case being the ECI, the speed of light must be treated as being non-isotropic as far as the receiver or observer is concerned. But this is a direct contradiction of SR that says the speed of light is always isotropic relative to the observer.
I hope to post on the sagnac effect as well that clearly shows this is the case. A fascinating experiment and subject.
The conclusion is that Lorentzian relativity Aether theory or some form of it, is a better fit to the empirical data.
I have summarised this information based on the work of Ron Hatch, A distinguished GPS scientist and a pioneer in GPS systems. There is much more than just this one aspect that is at odds with both SR and GR in light of GPS. The relatavists can make excuses. But people like Hatch are responsible for making things work. As he says...
Reliable experiment trumps theory.
And rational and logical reasoning should trump any magical explanations.
BTW I do not see how invoking yet more metaphysical concepts can be justified to solve the paradoxes that emerge from other metaphysical concepts. Sure looks like epicycles to me. Magical explanations have little to offer.
Last edited:
Michael Larkin
Member
Thanks, Ethan: that helps a lot. I'd just say one thing: a lot depends on whether c is the fastest speed that anything can go, or any signal be transmitted. Wal Thornhill claims that that isn't true:
From 14:27--he claims Einstein bequeathed us an incoherent view of the universe based on the "slow speed of light as a speed limit", whereas in QT, entangled particles (however far apart they are) can have instantaneous effects on one another. He also says that gravity must have its effect instantaneously, because if it didn't, then the earth would be attracted to where the sun was 8 minutes ago (the sun being 93 million miles, or 8 light minutes, distant). Were this the case, the planets would not remain in stable orbits. According to him, electric forces are instantaneous, and gravity is ultimately an electrical phenomenon. In fact, he claims, all the major forces (including strong and weak nuclear forces) are electrical in origin.
There's much else. Now, I don't know whether EU theory has the potential to unify/reconcile a lot of apparently disparate phenomena. All I can say is that I find it intriguing, and there certainly appears to be at least some inconsistency that needs to be resolved that may currently be "resolved" by a combination of ad hoc epicycling and dismissing out of hand anything that challenges current paradigms.
If you in your work are dealing largely with phenomena that are dependent on c, then I could see, even if it isn't a universal limiting speed, it could, with mathematical ingenuity, be woven into a useful explanatory framework within which to operate. The areas you've hinted where things begin to break down could be indicating flaws/limitations within that framework, but maybe those don't affect the usefulness/applicability of your predictions/results. Analogously, as I mentioned, Ptolemaic astronomy, completely wrong though it was, was and still could be usefully used for some purposes, e.g. maritime navigation.
Maybe you are working in an area where a similar consideration applies and things hang together well enough in your conceptual framework for you to have doubts about something like EU: and if you do, I don't blame you. After all, if Ptolemaic astronomy were still in use, you could demonstrate to me that it pretty reliably and repeatably helped seamen to get from point A to point B, and you might (justifiably) have reservations about some new-fangled idea about the sun being the centre of the solar system, that accounting for the retrograde motion of planets in a different way than epicycles do.
We may forget that heliocentrism wasn't actually proved until 1838 by Friedrich Bessel, who succeeded in measuring stellar parallax using the diameter of the earth's orbit as a baseline. There could only be such parallax if the heliocentric model were true. Though there was already strong circumstantial evidence that that was the case, Bessel's measurement clinched it.
We shall have to wait and see whether and to what extent EU theory upsets the applecart. It's irrelevant whether I want the applecart to be upset, of course: the truth of the matter is whatever it is regardless of my wishes. All I can say is that I smell a rat and a few empirical observations have trembled my BS meter. I can't argue with you about your mathematical understandings, which seem to me to be refined, doubtless carefully considered and used with integrity, and to lead to what for you is a coherent and useful model, albeit that you acknowledge its possible limitations.
BTW, there are many more videos from the EU 2014 conference available on YouTube: just search for "electric universe 2014 conference". I haven't watched them all yet, but I'll gradually be going through them. Presenters don't seem to me all to be wild-eyed nutjobs; your opinion might be different, of course.
LoneShaman
Member
Sagnac and the absolute frame.
For such a simple experment the Sagnac effect has been the subject of much controversey with many different attempts to explain what is actually going on. I have been looking at the arguments on both sides. Some even claiming it is relativistic. Some say it is an artifact of rotation. That is the main one. Some say it is explainable by way of the shared frame that is the axis of motion. None of these stand up as far as I can tell. Rotation is only incidental. GPS uses one way Sagnac for corrections over distances that do not not circumnavigate the globe. Ives had also shown that the effect can also be translational.
I will give a brief summary of Sagnac and it's logical implications from one of the better and simpler explanations, found here.
In the Sagnac experiment two photons are sent around the circumference of a disc in opposite directions to return to a detector where differences in the speed of light would be shown in a fringe pattern that can be measured. The source and detector are fixed to the disc.
If the disc is stationary the photons arrive at the detector at the same time. (Apparently). But If the disc is rotating one photon arrives earlier and one later.
Lets say we have two observers. Observer A who is positioned on the disc and rotating with it and observer B who is standing on the ground looking at the rotating disc.
Now depending on the frame of reference we have different points of view in regards to the speed of light. For a observer A on the disc, he would say that the speed of light is different, from his perspective he is stationary and the speed of light varies.
But for Observer B on the ground observing the disc it is a different story. He sees that the paths the light is taking is changing because of the rotation, one photon has a longer path because the detector is moving away in respect to it while moving towards the other photon making its path shorter. To this observer the speed of light seems constant only the distances are changing. But for observer A on the disc the distances are the same but the speed of light varies.
So which view is the correct one? The problem is according to Einstein there are no prefered frames of reference only relative frames of reference. So you can't say one is better than the other because the position of the observer is arbitrary. And if we say A is correct then we obviously undermine the second postulate of SR.
It gets more interesting. For Observer B on the ground the speed of light is not exactly constant either due to the much smaller disc and the observer rotating with the Earth on it's axis. Up to 15 degrees an hour. In fact a higher order sagnac effect.
Stepping up a level we can have the light path circle the Earth instead of the disc. Observer A is in the lab with the source and detector rotating along on the surface of the Earth. And Observer B is positioned stationary, not rotating, hovering above the pole of the Earth. Or you could say the ECI frame used in GPS.
The same is true here as in the smaller disc experiment. Observer A who's perspective is stationary but rotating with the Earth would say the speed of light is different, (if he did not know he was rotating.) But observer B at the pole would see the distances changing but would say the speed of light is the same. Is the speed of light truly isotropic in the ECI?
Apparently not, because the Earth is orbiting the Sun and that extra rotation, (another higher level sagnac effect) just as before gives a slight difference in the speed of light. GPS system use the ECI under the premise of the isotropic speed of light. But apparently the computations to adjust for the ECI have the sagnac corrections within them so for the system we have isotropic values.
You can step this up again, with the light path extending from the Earth and circling the sun along Earths orbital path. Observer A is on Earth and Observer B is stationary above the Sun. Again it is the same. And this time the tiny difference in the speed of light for observer B is from the motion of the solar system around the galactic center.
We can only conclude that there is but one true frame of reference where the speed of light is actually constant. The absolute frame of reference that is space itself as Newton first proposed. Or observer B hovering above the entire universe!
It was previously mentioned that Maxwells equations were hinting at the constancy of C. I remarked that Maxwells equations were founded on the assumption of an Aether. Both are true. Maxwell’s theories hold that the speed of light in the vacuum depends on the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. Therefore the speed of light in vacuum is a property of the vacuum. Not from the metric properties of coordinate space. So the speed of light in vacuum can be an isotropic constant only with respect to a reference frame which is at rest or fixed in the physical space.
An absolute frame of reference.
For such a simple experment the Sagnac effect has been the subject of much controversey with many different attempts to explain what is actually going on. I have been looking at the arguments on both sides. Some even claiming it is relativistic. Some say it is an artifact of rotation. That is the main one. Some say it is explainable by way of the shared frame that is the axis of motion. None of these stand up as far as I can tell. Rotation is only incidental. GPS uses one way Sagnac for corrections over distances that do not not circumnavigate the globe. Ives had also shown that the effect can also be translational.
I will give a brief summary of Sagnac and it's logical implications from one of the better and simpler explanations, found here.
In the Sagnac experiment two photons are sent around the circumference of a disc in opposite directions to return to a detector where differences in the speed of light would be shown in a fringe pattern that can be measured. The source and detector are fixed to the disc.
If the disc is stationary the photons arrive at the detector at the same time. (Apparently). But If the disc is rotating one photon arrives earlier and one later.
Lets say we have two observers. Observer A who is positioned on the disc and rotating with it and observer B who is standing on the ground looking at the rotating disc.
Now depending on the frame of reference we have different points of view in regards to the speed of light. For a observer A on the disc, he would say that the speed of light is different, from his perspective he is stationary and the speed of light varies.
But for Observer B on the ground observing the disc it is a different story. He sees that the paths the light is taking is changing because of the rotation, one photon has a longer path because the detector is moving away in respect to it while moving towards the other photon making its path shorter. To this observer the speed of light seems constant only the distances are changing. But for observer A on the disc the distances are the same but the speed of light varies.
So which view is the correct one? The problem is according to Einstein there are no prefered frames of reference only relative frames of reference. So you can't say one is better than the other because the position of the observer is arbitrary. And if we say A is correct then we obviously undermine the second postulate of SR.
It gets more interesting. For Observer B on the ground the speed of light is not exactly constant either due to the much smaller disc and the observer rotating with the Earth on it's axis. Up to 15 degrees an hour. In fact a higher order sagnac effect.
Stepping up a level we can have the light path circle the Earth instead of the disc. Observer A is in the lab with the source and detector rotating along on the surface of the Earth. And Observer B is positioned stationary, not rotating, hovering above the pole of the Earth. Or you could say the ECI frame used in GPS.
The same is true here as in the smaller disc experiment. Observer A who's perspective is stationary but rotating with the Earth would say the speed of light is different, (if he did not know he was rotating.) But observer B at the pole would see the distances changing but would say the speed of light is the same. Is the speed of light truly isotropic in the ECI?
Apparently not, because the Earth is orbiting the Sun and that extra rotation, (another higher level sagnac effect) just as before gives a slight difference in the speed of light. GPS system use the ECI under the premise of the isotropic speed of light. But apparently the computations to adjust for the ECI have the sagnac corrections within them so for the system we have isotropic values.
You can step this up again, with the light path extending from the Earth and circling the sun along Earths orbital path. Observer A is on Earth and Observer B is stationary above the Sun. Again it is the same. And this time the tiny difference in the speed of light for observer B is from the motion of the solar system around the galactic center.
We can only conclude that there is but one true frame of reference where the speed of light is actually constant. The absolute frame of reference that is space itself as Newton first proposed. Or observer B hovering above the entire universe!
It was previously mentioned that Maxwells equations were hinting at the constancy of C. I remarked that Maxwells equations were founded on the assumption of an Aether. Both are true. Maxwell’s theories hold that the speed of light in the vacuum depends on the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. Therefore the speed of light in vacuum is a property of the vacuum. Not from the metric properties of coordinate space. So the speed of light in vacuum can be an isotropic constant only with respect to a reference frame which is at rest or fixed in the physical space.
An absolute frame of reference.
Last edited:
EthanT
Member
Definitey, same applies to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc. A ton of effort is being spent to do just that.
I don't quite agree with the second thing there, though. There are some experiments that don't distinguish between LR and SR, but the evidence as a whole does. The two aren't mathematically equivalent, which can be seen from the very two postulates Einstein started with. The first one establishes the constancy of c, which has been tested. The second basically says no experiment can trump one intertial frame over the other. LR says there's an absolute frame, which is contradicory to that experimantal prediction of SR.
Just to note again, Einstein's constancy of the speed of light could be called a bit shortsighted. I think I mentioned this already, but SR doesn't really say the speed of light, specifically, has to be the "c" found in the metric. It just says massless particles have to travel at c. Meaning, the speed of light could actually have mass and vary, but a (very slightly) modified form of SR could still be valid. However, if it was shown that a truly massless particle had varying velocities that would spell doom for SR, overall, I believe.
Like I said, I personally don't prefer one over the other, rather both together The Universe is a mathematical universe, in that it behaves in a mathematical way, at least at the level for the physics we're discussing (the "physics" of consciousness has to be another story at some point, imho). But, only a subset of math actually has bearing on reality. Therefore, corroboration with observation is important. So, I weight them equally. It's the two together that's important. Either left alone, has the potential to be misleading. Not too mention, it's awfully hard to conduct physics experiments w/o math!
Anyhow, I don't really care to dig into the experiments too much - I just don't have the time to get up to speed to speak on many of them (and there's a ton) in the depth required and with any real confidence that I am actually conveying accurate informaton, even having a physics background. But, for folks who are interested, here's a link summarizing experiments in light of Relatvity. As you can see it is quite a list. The bottom section address experiments that don't seem to validate SR, and offers the "other side" to some of what the EU crowd is saying about those experiments. There are probably better summaries out there, but it's just one I happened to remember.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3. Tests of Einstein's two postulates
We do have some agreement here too, as you probably noticed from my earlier thread. But, my idea of an "aether" there would be so different, I'm not sure it its valid to even call it by the same name. It wouldn't be a medium for waves to travel in, for one. [Although, Rudolph Steiner, as well as Cayce andothers, did refer to the spiritual sphere just beyond the physical, using the term "etheric"!]. Where we disagree is that rather than negate SR, I think it will offer a more comprehesensive view of reality. It won't hark back to old ideas (except maybe in name, or analogy), but rather offer new revolutionary ideas that are hard to imagine all the details at this point.
Anyhow, that's my take on it.
Last edited:
EthanT
Member
Glad it was helpful! After I wrote it and re-read it I wasn't so sure it would be! To your other point, that's why I keep stressing evidence for the isotropy of c (some of which you can find at the link in my post above). But, note as I said to LS in the last post, SR does not really specify that c has to be the speed of light.
My work doesn't involve Special Relativity at all. It all fits nicely within the domain of applicability of Newtonian Mechanics. I'm just goiing off my understaning of it from school and many years of self-study.
Here's my current take on EU. To be fair, I need to look into it more. I want to look into it more. It sounds aesthetically pleasing in some ways. I have also heard some valid points/concerns raised.
However, my initial feeling is that it's on the wrong path. In addition, I have heard some misrepresentations of what modern physics is saying, which reminds me too much of what we say the psi-skeptics do to parapsychology - set up a strawman (presumably because it makes it easier to defeat it, or for whatever other reasons?). I'm not blaming this on LS at all - as far as I can tell, he is accurately conveying what the EU folks are trying to say. Maybe it's not even be a bad thing. I mean, get String Theorists and Loop Quantum Gravity Guys in the same room and you're bound for disagreement (maybe even a brawl?).
I guess what seems most concerning to me is that it may very well be creating problems where there are none (at least not to the scale claimed), while missing the important developments in physics (like TSQM, etc) that actually show some promise in opening up avenues where we can start to talk about psi and how it might fit in. In other words, it looks like backwards progress to me.
Anyhow, that's my take. I kind of mentioned all that to LS already, but just repeating so you know where I stand too.
Last edited:
LoneShaman
Member
And a tonne of money. Taxpayer's money. Good deal getting paid to look for something that doesn't exist. No end of buisness.
Yeah well we are talking past each other at this point. All that is required is the notion of an absolute frame instead of the abstraction of spacetime. We agree the vacuum is not nothing. It is defined by the electromagnetic properties of permittivity and pemeability. It is really just a conceptual shift. And the big list of experiments are just fine but the interpretations are another thing. I don't see any demonstrating the distortion of spacetime though? And none of them address the things I have mentioned that contradict them including the major claims of success such as the bending of light.
I cannot think of a more valid test than the GPS navigational system. After all the myth is that it could not work without it. Here we can clearly see how theory stacks up against observation. Well worth looking at. It doesn't stack up.
A single falsification shatters a thousand proofs. Of course my opinion is contrary to the concensus. But the information is there for anyone to check for themselves. If they are willing.
That is all good, but that is not the issue. I can see how it could be thought of that way. The real issue on this aspect is as it relates to the observers frame, and distorting time and space to preserve this relationship. Something that has never been demonstrated. Someting I think is refuted by the evidence. And light being the actual speed limit for everything else in the universe of course.
But then we have all the other issues which this thread has looked at. Just the tip of the iceberg really. Maybe stars next?
Last edited:
Michael Larkin
Member
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, which of course I respect. Actually, I agree with you to some extent now that I've watched more of the EU videos. They had a couple on global warming, for example. One of the presenters appeared to be a so-called "Skydragon", who seems to think that the admittedly misnamed GHG effect doesn't exist. Now: I'm a CAGW sceptic, but along with the vast majority of sceptics, I accept that it exists and that anthropogenic CO2 will have made some contribution to global warming: I just don't think it's very significant or will lead to catastrophe.
It's also very speculative to say that within human history, we were at one time within the atmosphere of a brown dwarf and that other planets of the solar system were there along with us. Ancient rock carvings, mythology and so forth, are interpreted as based on actual observations recorded by our forebears, due to similarities of the images with those of plasma phenomena as observed in the laboratory, which are maintained to be scalable over cosmological distances. I don't know so much about the validity of such interpretations, but I do find the idea of scalability, giving rise to the unification of many cosmological phenomena, very appealing. I also respond to their general iconoclasm when it comes to modern science and the way it has gone off into realms of seeming hocus-pocus, not to mention to their open-mindedness.
I'd say they want to promote a situation where it's okay to challenge existing paradigms; where it's okay to broaden the church and look at new ideas. They embrace the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake, for example, and seem to want to interrelate science, philosophy and the arts, even spirituality. And you know what? Even if they are wrong about some things, I warm to that idea. There's a certain humour, humanity, and inclusivity in their approach. How nice it would be to have a reformation in science leading to a new kind of enlightenment in which there was a return to the values of classical natural philosophy, and a basic understanding of cosmology that could be grokked by intelligent laymen: because the cosmos actually is capable of being grokked in that way, and not merely because it would be nice if that were so.
If we live in a cosmos that can only be grokked by high priests with facility in mathematics, who are seemingly prepared to endlessly epicycle away every confounding observation, I'd be very surprised. It's the general ethos of the EU movement, even if not all of their assertions happen to be true, that I find appealing. Science and the scientific establishment needs to loosen up, and I actually think that many scientists would welcome that, so that they could investigate with impunity, indeed with encouragement, new approaches and concepts.
EthanT
Member
Well, I'll just say one more thing and then shut up
I'm just not sure folks are grasping the idea that the notion of an absolute frame is incompatible with the constancy of c. If you look at the list of experimetns I posed above, this has been confirmed in a myriad of different ways many times. Something else you mentioned is yet another aspect of why Maxwell's Equations that were hinting at this. c does not have to show up in Maxwell's Eqs. Rather the wave velocity shows up in terms of only two constants called the vacuum permittivity and permeability. Since these are constants for all observers, it's telling us so is c, because the 1 over the square root of these guys is equal to the speed of light, or c. Maxwell's Eqs have no need for an aether, as far as a medium to travel through.
That list of experiments doesn't even include the last 7 years, which is probably a whole bunch more experiments missing. You gotta realize due to the fact that issues in quantum gravity hint at Lorentz Invariance being broken, folks have been literally trying to prove Special Relativity is wrong (at a certain scale). I would say rather desperately too, because if they could, it would be a big breakthrough for quantum gravity, the hoped for new theory. But, you know what? To date, they haven't been able to do it. It's only put tighter and tighter bounds on the isotropy of c and the validity of SR.
Anyhow, that'll be my last word (wait didn't I say that before? lol for real this time!)
Sure. I've been fortunate to have some spare time this week to contribute, so don't know how it will look later. I'll contribute where I can, but since I feel no real desire/need to be the defender of modern sciene, I will probably pick and choose a scant number of topics that sound fun to me when I can squeeze the time.
Last edited:
EthanT
Member
Skydragon? I hadn't heard of that one before!
I forgot about this. As a guy who loves comparative mythology (as much as physics, probably even more) I did find this kind of appealing. I don't think I agree with the interpretation either, as it seemed like some aspects of it goes against what the field of comparative mythology seems to say ( at least from the likes of Watts, Campbell, Jung, etc). Nevertheless, one of the aesthetically pleasing aspects.
I like all that too. I think modern theory should be and needs to be challenged. Like I just said to LS above too, it's not like SR is written in stone. Folks are literally trying to prove it wrong these days, at least at a certain scale. To do so, could be wonderful news for progress in some fronts.
I think, with or without EU, physics will become simpler. I like QFT and all the abstract math for the intellectual challenge and because it is interesting, but at the same time, I think it's a real mess. I don't think physics should ultimately be like that and the only reason I think it is with QFT is because the QFT (or the Standard Model) is incomplete, which we well know.
Last edited:
LoneShaman
Member
That is not the issue! An absolute frame can explain the constancy of c. Or rather the isotropy of C which depends on the frame as sagnac clearly shows, contrary to Einstein.
The GPS data shows that light is constant in reference to the ECI frame but not to observers/receivers moving in that frame! Again contrary to SR.
There are two ways the word constant is used here. As in constant to the observer and as a cosmological constant.
As a cosmological constant the C we measure is not so constant. I don't think it is a true constant, either is gravity. Einstein implies light varies in the gravity field. This is consistant. As are clock rates effected in the gravity field. The speed of light may be many times greater in intergalactic space.
There is nothing in Maxwells work that suggest time and space warp to keep c for all observers. It gives no validation to the concept of space time at all.
Last edited:
LoneShaman
Member
The Saturn myth and things such as the Alien Sky are definately speculative extrapolations. However some things do ring true for me. The studies comparing petroglphs to plasma formations is very compelling. They managed to triangulate where abouts in the sky it would have been seen from varying glyphs that represented slightly different angles of view based on location. Also I think there was a time of orbital instability and the velikovsky ideas have some merit. Venus may be a relative new comer, appearing as a giant comet and having a close encounter with Mars. The solar system does look a bit like a crime scene in this way. Even today Venus's magneto tail stretches almost to Earth. Certainly could have influenced myth. I am sure comets in general have a role to play. But not the whole story most certainly. I think when it comes to myth they could definately use some more interdisciplinary involvement.
Velikovsky predicted the extreme temperatures of Venus btw, when others were saying it was comparable to Earths. That is where the term greenhouse gas effect comes from. Perhaps even the theory itself? The study of Venus.
Interesting connection with Velikovsky and Einstein.
http://www.fourcornersmagazine.com/sedonaconsciousmag/the-velikovsky-herasies-laird-scranton
David Bailey
Member
Doesn't the extreme temperatures on Venus come from the fact that it has a pressure of 92 earth atmospheres at the surface? The Magellan spacecraft measured a temperature profile, and at the point corresponding to earth surface pressure the temperature was only 50 C above the average temperature on earth. Given that it is a lot closer to the sun, that doesn't seem to take much explaining unless Velikovsky explained the high atmospheric pressure.
David
LoneShaman
Member
We are talking about 450 degrees Celsius. Night or day, equator or pole. The predictions of greenhouse effect missed by a few hundred degrees. It recieves about 1.8 times the amount of thermal energy from the sun but 80% is reflected back by the thick atmosphere.
David Bailey
Member
Donald Scott makes a remark about the greenhouse effect that is interesting. He points out, what in retrospect is pretty obvious, that a greenhouse really works by stopping heat escaping by convection!
If a greenhouse really worked as suggested, I think the glass panes would be hot - just as if the CO2 was having an appreciable effect, the troposphere would be warmed up - and that hasn't been detected. I think it is conceivable that referring to this phenomenon as the greenhouse effect, was a false analogy, which accidentally or deliberately exaggerated the effect - so those who say weak AGW might/should be real, might be right, but the effect doesn't resemble the operation of a greenhouse.
I got sick of Tom Findlay's book (fortunately I got the free PDF version), because he seemed to assume essentially no science knowledge on behalf of his readers. He was explaining things at a level that I knew at about age 10! I don't really know why people write books like that, because someone who never bothered to learn basic science, just isn't going to want to read a book about alternative cosmology!
However, the above Donald Scott's "Electric Sky", seems a much more interesting read. I must say, the EU (I wish it didn't have that acronym!) is a very thought-provoking concept. I'd really like EthanT to read it and tell us what he feels. I do feel a sympathy for those who feel mathematical abstraction has led cosmology astray. It is vividly apparent when people discuss a time 10^(-36) sec after the big bang! As Scott comments, in most areas of science (he is an electrical engineer) equations with singularities are recognised to be invalid at or near those points (I think EthanT said as much somewhere above).
BTW, We probably should not dwell on CAGW, or we will scare EthanT and others away, and the CAGW vultures will move in instead :) In any case, the nature of the universe is a much more interesting topic.
David