Relativity+ : The Theory of Everything

[CraigD]

There's no maths because it's analysing the underlying ontology.

Much as I suspected. No math = No testable predictions = Relativity(Minus).

Issues of +/- naming/branding aside, IN makes, I think, an important point. That which makes no testable prediction is by the modern definition not a scientific theory. That which doesn’t explicitly map a simulacrum – be it based in mathematical formulae, colored flowcharts, rituals taught via oral traditions, or variations and combinations of these and other means - to measurable events is not a model. The distinction between a theory and a model – according to my personal reckoning, but not, I think, far from that of most people who deal with such things – is in extendibility: a theory provides a means of generating models, while a model is an application of a theory to produce testable predictions. For example, the component theories of quantum physics (eg: wave-particle duality), which can be used to make models that map very poorly to observetions, are applied to a collection of observed events to create the Standard Model of particle physics.

 

A third class of science writing consist of interpretations, writing that seeks to expression a formalism in analogies that allow the reader to use her or his everyday intuition to use – or at least be more capable of using – the theory. Interpretations can be very important, because even well-know theories can be so difficult to use that even their experts disagree on how to use them. Standard interpretations answer the question “what do I, a human with my experience and ability, do now to use this theory to do something I want to do?” The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is an example of an interpretation that allowed theorists and experimentalists to pause the act of puzzling what quantum physic meant, in some intuitive sense, and assuming it meant something that nearly everybody was and is sure isn’t quite correct, use the theory to write lots of science, and invent practical artifacts such as nuclear reactors, transistors, computers, and much of what we take for granted in our modern world.

 

My guess is that Farsight’s book is an interpretation. Unlike theories, which people tend to quickly learn (with the help of their attendant standard interpretations) and apply where useful, ignore where not, interpretations are historically controversial, hated and loved bodies of ideas. For example, 40 years after its writing, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, even among well-trained physicists, is regarded as practical truth by some, and as a waste of cognitive effort “not even good enough to be wrong” by others.

 

Other than small, pedagogical ones, most interpretations have an associated agenda – that is, they seek to steer the development of theories toward a goal their authors believe, but can’t prove, is right and true. The MWI, for example, sought to promote acceptance of solutions to relativistic mechanics that imply a violation of causality (eg: the grandfather paradox) by showing that causality itself is an interpretation of physics, not an intrinsic prediction.

 

Having vented nearly a page of philosophical musings, I’ve come back another of Infinitenow’s points:

He DID post this in the Physics & Mathematics forum, and then explicitly conceded he had no math. If speculative philosophy is going to be discussed, then at the very least you guys may wish to consider moving this to an appropriate forum for doing so.

I’m unsure if “Relativity+” is an interpretation of the theory of relativity, a work of ontology, or something else, but I’m suspect it’s not a what a physics or math reader would call physics or math, not a philosophy reader philosophy.

 

What’s certain is that “Relativity+” is a book. So I’ve moved this thread to “Books, movies, and games” forum. If discussion turns theoretical, a thread can be spun off into “Physics and Math”, if it turns philosophical, into “Philosophy and Humanities” or “Philosophy and Science”.

[modest]

I don't have anything down for movement, velocity, or acceleration. To tell the truth I haven't thought about it. Maybe I ought to, and give more priority to movement.

 

Relativity is about movement. Having a book about relativity that doesn't address movement and velocity is like having a cookbook that doesn't get into food. I think it would be more than beneficial, but essential, to give priority to the basics of position, velocity, and acceleration.

 

The rest of your post is very confusing. I'll just quote one sentence so we can get into specifics.

 

Gravity is an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress, wherein the speed of light varies resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.[/i]

 

You use the word "tension" and "stress". What is being strained? You say "opposing matter/energy", can you give me an example where something gets opposed. Similarly, what is being refracted and please give a specific example where refraction causes gravitational attraction.

 

~modest

[Farsight]

Craig: I'm disappointed at that. But I'm under no illusions about this. The model has attracted considerable antagonism from people who are unwilling to discuss its contents, and seek to prevent others doing so. It would appear to pose some form of threat, in part because the end product is mundane. The model explains clearly and lucidly why time travel is a fallacy, why FTL travel is impossible, why gravity cannot be quantized, and why the Many Worlds Interpretation is incorrect - along with the Copenhagen Interpretation. In addition, as an analysis of mathematical terms it's perhaps seen as something that could prove embarrassing to those who focus on theoretical physics rather than experimental physics. IMHO the desire to suppress relativity+ does not exist because the model is wrong - individuals like InfiniteNow who raise complaints can offer no substance concerning the model itself. Instead that desire exists because of a fear that the model is right.

 

Would anybody like to ask me any questions on the model?

[modest]

Craig: I'm disappointed at that. But I'm under no illusions about this. The model has attracted considerable antagonism from people who are unwilling to discuss its contents, and seek to prevent others doing so. It would appear to pose some form of threat, in part because the end product is mundane. The model explains clearly and lucidly why time travel is a fallacy, why FTL travel is impossible, why gravity cannot be quantized, and why the Many Worlds Interpretation is incorrect - along with the Copenhagen Interpretation. In addition, as an analysis of mathematical terms it's perhaps seen as something that could prove embarrassing to those who focus on theoretical physics rather than experimental physics. IMHO the desire to suppress relativity+ does not exist because the model is wrong - individuals like InfiniteNow who raise complaints can offer no substance concerning the model itself. Instead that desire exists because of a fear that the model is right.

 

Here's a thread that would be a good place to discuss that:

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/15040-science-is-close-minded.html

Otherwise, it seems most productive to talk about your model.

 

Would anybody like to ask me any questions on the model?

 

You said something about time having to do with speed relative to light. How fast am I going compared to light right now according to your model?

 

~modest

[Farsight]

Relativity is about movement. Having a book about relativity that doesn't address movement and velocity is like having a cookbook that doesn't get into food. I think it would be more than beneficial, but essential, to give priority to the basics of position, velocity, and acceleration.

The book certainly gives priority to these things. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier question - it doesn't give definitions because I felt them unnecessary. Here's an excerpt to illustrate the importance of motion:

 

..It takes cold rational thought, and you need to examine something you take so much for granted that you never ever think about it. First of all we need to look at your senses and the things you experience. Let’s start with sight. Look at the picture below:

 

(Figure)

 

This is another optical illusion. Apart from the shading where they meet, the two large rounded blocks are actually the same colour. Fold the paper a little to compare them. Then you can see that the difference is merely an illusion. What this tells you is that colour is subjective. It isn’t a real objective property of things in the world. It’s a perception, it’s in your head. Colour is a “quale”, one of the “qualia”, the way things seem. Light doesn’t actually have a colour. It has an energy, an oscillation, a frequency. What it’s got is a motion.

 

Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.

 

(Figure)

 

Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. This pressure of air or water is not some property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases[29], tells us that pressure is derived from motion.

 

You can also feel kinetic energy. If a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s impacted your chest you would feel it for sure. But apologies, my mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's you. So where's the kinetic energy now? Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, which is energy, and motion.

You can also feel heat. Touch that stove and you feel that heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of atomic and molecular motion.

 

(Figure)

 

Taste is chemical in nature, and somewhat primitive. Most of your sense of taste is in fact your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But a theory from a man called Luca Turin[30] says it’s all down to molecular vibration, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.

 

The point of all this is there’s a lot of motion out there, and most of your senses are motion detectors. But it probably never occurred to you because you’re accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how you experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, ontological things that are there.

 

The rest of your post is very confusing. I'll just quote one sentence so we can get into specifics.

Gravity is an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress, wherein the speed of light varies resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.

 

You use the word "tension" and "stress". What is being strained?

Space.

 

You say "opposing matter/energy", can you give me an example where something gets opposed.

Action is opposed by reaction. For example the action of a photon is described by E=hf where h is Planck's constant of action. The dimensionality of energy can written as stress x volume. Stress is the same as pressure, and "tension gradient" is used in favour of pressure gradient in deference to a rubber sheet analogy. The use of the words tension and pressure are cautioned against.

 

Similarly, what is being refracted and please give a specific example where refraction causes gravitational attraction.

Light is being refracted by a gradient in the impedance of space wherein Z0 = √(μ0/ε0) and c = √(1/ε0μ0).

 

Pair production can be employed to convert a +1022keV photon into an electron and a positron. The electron can be modelled as a photon trapped by itself in a tight twisting circular path. Simplify this to a square (□) and place it in a gravitational field, and the refraction operates on the horizontal elements but not the vertical elements, which only suffer blueshift and redshift. Hence matter is attracted half as much as light.

[Farsight]

You said something about time having to do with speed relative to light. How fast am I going compared to light right now according to your model?

c.

[modest]

the rest of your post is very confusing. I'll just quote one sentence so we can get into specifics.

gravity is an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress, wherein the speed of light varies resulting in gravitational time dilation and attraction through refraction.

 

you use the word "tension" and "stress". What is being strained?

space.

 

Good. Worse answers there are. However, in relativity space is hardly curved. It's mostly time. In the weak field limit (as for example, our solar system), there is nearly no curvature of space. This can and has been tested with the path of photons in our solar system.

 

you said something about time having to do with speed relative to light. How fast am i going compared to light right now according to your model?

c.

Were I an astronaut in space (in orbit let's say) how fast would I be going compared to light?

 

If the answer is "c", which it must be at this point otherwise we've introduced a preferred frame—how do clocks act differently in these two locations? What is my speed relative to light (which is apparently c in both cases) having to do with time?

 

~modest

[Farsight]

Good. Worse answers there are. However, in relativity space is hardly curved. It's mostly time. In the weak field limit (as for example, our solar system), there is nearly no curvature of space. This can and has been tested with the path of photons in our solar system.

No problem, there's measurable "spacetime curvature" close to the sun, see Arthur Stanley Eddington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but this is down to time, see Shapiro delay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'm tempted to say more at this juncture, but I'll stick to your questions.

 

Were I an astronaut in space (in orbit let's say) how fast would I be going compared to light?

The answer is c. It's always c. You always measure the local speed of light in vacuo to be the same.

 

If the answer is "c", which it must be at this point otherwise we've introduced a preferred frame—how do clocks act differently in these two locations?

I'll make it more obvious. I'm on the mother ship way out in space. You're in close orbit around a black hole, conducting your observations in such a way as to avoid the effects of radial length contraction. We're both equipped with identical light clocks, like this:

 

 

The clocks act differently in that your clock goes slower than mine.

 

What is my speed relative to light (which is apparently c in both cases) having to do with time?

People call it time dilation. But the unit of time is defined using the motion of light, see Second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If I may paraphrase:

 

Under the International System of Units the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom (at rest at a temperature of 0K).

 

Also see Pair production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, where a +1022keV photon is converted into an electron and a positron. We can reasonable say that the electron is "made of light", and we know that the hyperfine transition is an electron spin flip. So the event generating the radiation can be thought of as "the motion of light", as can the radiation itself. This means we define the second using the motion of light, and then we measure the motion of light using this second. Hence we always measure it to be the same.

 

Take a step back from those reference frames to see the big picture, and your clock goes slower than mine because your light goes slower.

[modest]

No problem, there's measurable "spacetime curvature" close to the sun, see Arthur Stanley Eddington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but this is down to time, see Shapiro delay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'm tempted to say more at this juncture, but I'll stick to your questions.

 

I’m not entirely sure you caught my point. Where you say “space” is curved in your previous post, you seemed arbitrarily to rule out the curvature of time. Spatial hyperslices in the Newtonian limit are extraordinarily flat making most of our everyday experiences with gravity to be the curvature of time.

 

But, you’ve now moved on from saying “space” to “spacetime” which might mean you understood my point. :)

 

As far as the statement about light deflection boiling down to time or Shapiro delay—that is demonstrably false. If local straight lines at the sun are considered straight to infinity then only half of the deflection of light can be (or would be) derived. So, it isn’t “down to time”. Any interpretation *must* include the spatial component to be consistent with this observation (or some other interpretation of the idea of space curvature such as variable length rulers in gravitational fields).

 

The answer is c. It's always c. You always measure the local speed of light in vacuo to be the same.

 

Truer words... never spoken.

 

I'll make it more obvious. I'm on the mother ship way out in space. You're in close orbit around a black hole, conducting your observations in such a way as to avoid the effects of radial length contraction. We're both equipped with identical light clocks, like this:

 

...

 

The clocks act differently in that your clock goes slower than mine.

 

This needs explained. Most people would probably object to diagramming a light clock and applying it to gravitational time dilation and it certainly should be objected to in the manner you’ve done it above. Put a clock at the top and bottom of a building and run a ruler between them and neither clock will appear to move relative to the ruler. So, how do the clocks have relative velocity and, by extension, how is the light clock in any way appropriate?

 

It’s possible you mean to apply the equivalence principle such that a clock at the top of an elevator and a clock at the bottom always are going different relative velocities when the elevator is accelerating. This would be consistent with the diagram you’ve posted and the thought experiment you’ve proposed, but you've not explained it that way.

 

People call it time dilation. But the unit of time is defined using the motion of light

 

A unit of space can be defined with a wooden ruler. This doesn’t mean distance is a property of wood. Time can be defined with any consistently cyclical motion, not just that of light.

 

Take a step back from those reference frames to see the big picture, and your clock goes slower than mine because your light goes slower.

 

All motion appears to slow in a gravitational field, not just that of light. So, the question becomes; why does light slow? The same question applies to any other motion; why does a flywheel on a clock slow? You're not giving an explanation of the observation, you're giving an instance of it.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Modest has already addressed this better than I could, however, I did want to point out one thing.

 

In the early part of your post, you say this?

 

The answer is c. It's always c. You always measure the local speed of light in vacuo to be the same.

 

I agree with Modest here that truer words were never spoken. However, you later go on to say:

 

 

Take a step back from those reference frames to see the big picture, and your clock goes slower than mine because your light goes slower.

Am I the only one here seeing this internal contradiction in your words, the lack of consistency in application of your premises about the speed of light?

[modest]

Am I the only one here seeing this internal contradiction in your words, the lack of consistency in application of your premises about the speed of light?

 

You probably missed the word "local" in your first quote of Farsight. In special relativity light travels c always and to every observer. However, special relativity is only locally true in general relativity. As spacetime curves away from an observer, so can the observation of the speed of light change. The speed of light is not global in GR. You can think of the event horizon of a blck hole. A static observer at infinity will observe the speed of light to be zero at the event horizon.

 

~modest

[Farsight]

I’m not entirely sure you caught my point. Where you say “space” is curved in your previous post, you seemed arbitrarily to rule out the curvature of time. Spatial hyperslices in the Newtonian limit are extraordinarily flat making most of our everyday experiences with gravity to be the curvature of time.

 

But, you’ve now moved on from saying “space” to “spacetime” which might mean you understood my point. :teeth:

Sorry modest, I can't find where I said space is curved. If I did say this it was either a slip of the keyboard, or it wasn't to do with gravity.

 

As far as the statement about light deflection boiling down to time or Shapiro delay—that is demonstrably false. If local straight lines at the sun are considered straight to infinity then only half of the deflection of light can be (or would be) derived. So, it isn’t “down to time”. Any interpretation *must* include the spatial component to be consistent with this observation (or some other interpretation of the idea of space curvature such as variable length rulers in gravitational fields).

"Down to time" is admittedly a loose figure of speech. Please can we come back to this once we've covered the points below.

 

This needs explained. Most people would probably object to diagramming a light clock and applying it to gravitational time dilation and it certainly should be objected to in the manner you’ve done it above. Put a clock at the top and bottom of a building and run a ruler between them and neither clock will appear to move relative to the ruler. So, how do the clocks have relative velocity and, by extension, how is the light clock in any way appropriate?

Apologies, that was just the first light-clock image I found. Look at the leftmost portion of the image, rather than the rightmost portion showing relative motion. You're standing on the surface of the planet holding your light clock horizontally to avoid the effects of radial length contraction. I'm up in space with an identical light clock. We have no relative motion. After a suitable period we confer to find that your light clock has recorded fewer reflections than mine. We conclude that for some reason, your light moved slower than mine.

 

It’s possible you mean to apply the equivalence principle such that a clock at the top of an elevator and a clock at the bottom always are going different relative velocities when the elevator is accelerating. This would be consistent with the diagram you’ve posted and the thought experiment you’ve proposed, but you've not explained it that way.

Sorry, I should have looked harder for a better image or given no image.

 

A unit of space can be defined with a wooden ruler. This doesn’t mean distance is a property of wood.

Agreed. But I can hold up my arms to show you a distance. You can see it.

 

Time can be defined with any consistently cyclical motion, not just that of light.

No. You can't see any time. What you can see, is motion.

 

All motion appears to slow in a gravitational field, not just that of light. So, the question becomes; why does light slow?

Because a photon is a quantum of alternating current, and a gravitational field is a gradient in the impedence of space, normally caused by a central mass. If you think of the central mass as energy and then employ E=hf to say that this energy is associated with action, the gradient is the reaction. It's like the tension that opposes a stress. Impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0) and c = √(1/ε0μ0). When the permeability/permittivity of space changes,the speed of light changes.

 

The same question applies to any other motion; why does a flywheel on a clock slow?

Because as evidenced by pair production and annihilation, electrons are "made of light". I extend this to protons and other particles so say that all matter is made of light, including rulers and clocks. Hence all processes are slowed.

[CraigD]

Because a photon is a quantum of alternating current …

A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, or, more tersely, of light. Electric current, alternating, variable, or constant, is the movement of charged particles. Because photons are not charged particles, I think, even as a metaphor, “a photon is a quantum of alternating current” is too inaccurate to be useful.

… and a gravitational field is a gradient in the impedence of space normally caused by a central mass. ...

The problem with equating gravitational time dilation with gravitational field strength (the acceleration experienced by a test body) as Farsight appears to be doing, can be illustrated by considering the time dilation given by general relativity at the center of mass of some body, and the gravitational acceleration of a test body is nearly zero, while its time dilation is at its local maximum.

 

My own learning voyage through this confusion, and some calculated time dilation values, first wrong, then right, can be seen discussed in and around this post.

Because as evidenced by pair production and annihilation, electrons are "made of light". I extend this to protons and other particles so say that all matter is made of light, including rulers and clocks. Hence all processes are slowed.

Although I’ve known some mathematical physics “purists” to be offended by this explanation, I think it's an accurate and useful one. However since interactions between particles are carried not just by photons, but by gauge bosons (of which the photon is one) in general, I think it’s more accurate to say “all interactions are made by gauge bosons”, then note that gauge bosons always travel exactly at c. If this were not the case, and only photons-carried interactions were subject to time dilation, clocks based on interactions that don’t use them, such as radioactive decay, wouldn’t remain in sync with clock that do, such as ordinary mechanical ones.

[modest]

However since interactions between particles are carried not just by photons, but by gauge bosons (of which the photon is one) in general, I think it’s more accurate to say “all interactions are made by gauge bosons”, then note that gauge bosons always travel exactly at c. If this were not the case, and only photons-carried interactions were subject to time dilation, clocks based on interactions that don’t use them, such as radioactive decay, wouldn’t remain in sync with clock that do, such as ordinary mechanical ones.

 

I'm curious if the speed of the force carriers can determine the motion of a macroscopic system like a mechanical clock. If we had, for example, two systems: a freely spinning disc and an oscillating spring and we're careful not to consider them rigid then would lowering the speed of the force carriers of each system to half slow the period of each system equally?

 

I would find this fantastic if true.

 

~modest

[Farsight]

A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, or, more tersely, of light. Electric current, alternating, variable, or constant, is the movement of charged particles. Because photons are not charged particles, I think, even as a metaphor, “a photon is a quantum of alternating current” is too inaccurate to be useful.

I'm getting ahead of the questions here, but if you examine a freeze-frame illustration of a light wave, you see a sinusoidal waveform depicting the varying electric field. Orthogonal to this is a similar sinusoidal waveform depicting the varying magnetic field.

 

 

It seems reasonable to assert that these electromagnetic field variations are indeed associated with alternating current in some guise. The model goes on to describe a pair-production wrapping mechanism wherein the alternating current is tied into two chiral vortons of "field variation". We then label the electron and positron as charged particles, and when they move in some constant direction, we call it direct current. I'm conscious that this rather turns convention on its head, because it's essentially saying the photon is more fundamental than the field it mediates, but it seems to be reasonably supported by spin and zitterbewegung.

 

The problem with equating gravitational time dilation with gravitational field strength (the acceleration experienced by a test body) as Farsight appears to be doing, can be illustrated by considering the time dilation given by general relativity at the center of mass of some body, and the gravitational acceleration of a test body is nearly zero, while its time dilation is at its local maximum.

I didn't mean to suggest that. Again I'm perhaps getting ahead of the questions here, but the time dilation is the "depth of field", whilst the gravitational acceleration is the "local slope".

 

My own learning voyage through this confusion, and some calculated time dilation values, first wrong, then right, can be seen discussed in and around this post. Although I’ve known some mathematical physics “purists” to be offended by this explanation, I think it's an accurate and useful one. However since interactions between particles are carried not just by photons, but by gauge bosons (of which the photon is one) in general, I think it’s more accurate to say “all interactions are made by gauge bosons”, then note that gauge bosons always travel exactly at c. If this were not the case, and only photons-carried interactions were subject to time dilation, clocks based on interactions that don’t use them, such as radioactive decay, wouldn’t remain in sync with clock that do, such as ordinary mechanical ones.

I'm happy with the sense of this.

 

(Edited to remove irrelevant comment).

[Farsight]

Any more questions?

 

Craig: I hope this has been enough to indicate to you that there's some worthwhile material in here. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's all 100% correct, because nothing ever is. But whilst unfamiliar, and at times challenging, when you dig into it you don't actually find anything you can put your finger on and say "that's wrong because of this evidence".

[PhysBang]

I have a question: Can you give us a description, in standard SR inertial reference frames, of what happens during pair production?