• 592 Days Ago
• 06/28/2010

Well I never.

Personally I am more inclined to think the classical model they are using is flawed then and inconsistent and further analysis on these might draw the quantum and classical models together. Though to be honest both can be right and still not be the reason things arent explained.

That aside, assuming quantum entanglement is holding the strings together i assume destabilisation of the dna strand would in fact destabilise the waveform and break apart the helix. That does not happen...dna gets damaged all the time. Though possibly not enough to confirm destabilisation of the waveform. I would recommend damaging the dna on one side until the strand falls apart.

Personally I think they are wrong and looking for an exotic answer when the simple surfices just fine.

The helix is double stranded and coiled ! because like every (copper) cabling guy knows coiling is the reason that allows the signals to be consistent over time.

If cables werent coiled they would not transmit there signals properly and you wouldnt be reading this on your computer display.

Also youll remember the Romans who built arches with no more than bricks. And the reason the helix does not have 3 intertwined strands is very simple....take 3 sticks and stand them up so they intertwine and rest on each other(pyramid)... The form is TOO solid. Two strands is flexible.... and thus exlains itself. Now i just thought experimented that out and would be surprised if no literature book held that in it...but if not there you go...an answer to life the universe and everything.

Also if you really want to look further just ask a cable guy because they have been dealing with 2 strands for decades.

• 592 Days Ago
• 06/28/2010

Quantum Entanglement Holds DNA Together

Actually this finding is equivalent the statement, they're hold together by electrostatic or whatever else forces. Because entanglement always requires/considers some mutual interaction.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/awt-and-mechanical-models-of.html

The equivalence of various concepts required by correspondence principle is the inexhaustible salary machine for physicists, who are looking for eye catching themes of another publications.

• 592 Days Ago
• 06/28/2010

Do the experiment

Entanglement is testable.  Do the experiment.  Superconductivity requires coupling of fermionic electrons into bosonic composites mediated by a third entity.  Lattice phonons work for BCS supercons.  Nobody quite knows how high temp supercons, copper oxide and iron arsenide, couple.

DNA potentially offers a Little exciton supercon.  Replace Bardeen-Cooper-Shrieffer large mass phonons (quantized lattice vibrations characterized by Debye temperature) with small mass excitons (quantized electronic excitations) possessing characteristic energies around 2 eV or 23,000 K.  Exciton-mediated electron pairing suggests superconductor critical temperatures substantially exceeding 300 K even with weak coupling.

William A. Little, Phys. Rev. 134 A1416-A1424 (1964)

Given a template, making DNA large scale is trivial - PCR.  Replace DNA bases with paired polarizable chromophores (dyes). Engineer custom hydrogen bonding or just use hydrophobic bonding.  Make presumptive excitonic DNA, see how she flies.

An experiment could be definitive.  That would ruin everything.

• 592 Days Ago
• 06/28/2010

DNA helix

I assume that the author's speculations do not depend on the 'handedness' of the double stranded DNA involved. They may be on to something interesting, but It doesn't strengthen their case when the diagram of DNA (above) is a left handed helix.  DNA is generally in a right handed helical form, both in-vivo and in-vitro.

• 592 Days Ago
• 06/28/2010

Easy to test

It should be easy enough to test the idea.  Just see if a DNA strand shakes itself apart when you turn off its quantum entanglement.

What?  You can't turn off quantum entanglement, it's fundamental?  So, what was the question again?

• 591 Days Ago
• 06/29/2010

Very well elucidated

Thanks for giving this remarkably clear explanation of a difficult paper! Even with some prior introductory coursework in QM I was struggling to plug these new contributions into place, but your clear prose helped me to comprehend it. Well done.

• 591 Days Ago
• 06/29/2010

exotica erotica

Valence Bonds vs. Molecular Orbital Theory. Another Zero Sum game?

• 591 Days Ago
• 06/29/2010

There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life???

How could that be? Life (as we know it) is based on chemical reactions. Chemicals and their reactions cannot be explained with classical mechanics; they are fundamentally quantum phenomena. Atoms don't even exist in classical mechanics.
Also, what does it mean that quantum entanglement holds DNA together? Entanglement is not separate from the rest of quantum mechanics.

• 591 Days Ago
• 06/29/2010

QE question

When considering cognition and QE, does the axis spin of the photon make a difference in the information received and if so, what measures can be implimented that would allow complete control of initial first contact?

• 591 Days Ago
• 06/29/2010

What will they think of next!

Before too long they'll be finding micro 'wormholes' triggered within the brain's circuitry and other mysteries that will deepen the connection between life and quantum physics.

• 590 Days Ago
• 06/30/2010

Chemistry

Remember, without Chemistry, life itself would be unprofitable!

• 587 Days Ago
• 07/03/2010

Quantum Entanglement and Casimir Effect

Is there a relationship between quantum entanglement and the Casimir effect? Could the Casimir force have something to do with the energy and information exchange taking place between the two DNA strands?

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/05/2010

But IT WORKS?

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND ENERGY:

*****************
When we bombard lithium by fast moving protons, a lithium nucleus and a proton
combine to form an unstable nucleus which splits into two fast moving helium
nuclei. The sum of p and Li rest masses is 8.0216 amu. The total rest mass of
outgoing particles is 8.0030 amu. Thus the rest mass is not preserved. However,
energy is conserved in the over all nuclear reaction for "very precise
measurements" of the difference between the kinetic energy of incoming proton
and the total kinetic energy of the He nuclei gives
(delta)E=(2.770+(-)0.005)*10^(-12) [J]. The increase in the rest mass is 0.0186
amu. Then the increase in the rest energy is (delta)m0c^2 = 2.78*10^(-12) [J].
****************

This "experimental verification" has been globally accepted as the "victory" of
Einstein's SR and taught in standard textbooks. I wonder why this is empirical
verification at all. The only thing which is empirical here is the rest masses
of particles involved. The rest are just plugging in these empirical numbers to
the SR formulas. I wonder how do we empirically measure the relativistic
kinematic energy of particles empirically.

An argument like this is yet another example of the what Mitch called
"self-fulfilling argument" of Einsteinians which goes as follow: As SR is
correct SR is correct. It appears quite clear that the principle of empiricism
has been seriously violated in this kind of argument.

I read through many other "empirical verifications of SR" and found out that
virtually all of them have this very error. They are not what normal scientists
call empirical verification at all.

I have spent many years to conclude that Einstein's "theories" are theoretically
invalid. Now it appears that his theories are not even empirically valid.

I am going to reexamine the so called empirical verification of SR in the
forthcoming posts.

Best regards,

AKT

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/05/2010

BUT IT WORKS? II

Now consider yet another experimental verification of SR in the setting of a
bubble chamber experiment.

Assume a beam of very high energy negatively charged K^- mesons was allowed into
a bubble chamber of a mixture of organic fluids so that there were large numbers
of the more ordinary particles such as protons, electrons, neutrons present in
the chamber. These K^- mesons will combine with the protons and neutrons to
produce pions and uncharged gamma^0 hyperons in the following atomic reactions:

K^- + p^+ -> Gamma^0 +pi^0
(E0)
K^- + n -> Gamma^0 + pi^-.

The charged particles electrically interact with the fluid molecules to produce
ionisation which leads to observable bubbles. Since Gamma^0 is electrically
neutral, their trajectory in the bubble chamber will not be visible. However, in
a very short period the Gamma^0 decays into a proton and a pi^- meson as

Gamma^0 -> p + pi^-. (E1)

They leave visible tracks in the chamber. The Pi^0 will decay into uncharged
photons which will not be visible in the chamber either. A magnetic field
applied to the chamber causes in curved paths for which the radius of the
curveture is proportional to the momentum.

Here the K^- tracks are easily identified as all the K^- mesons have the same
curveture. At a point say A, a K^- disappears due to one of the the equations
(E0). A Gamma^0 is produced, which travels to a point B where it decays as (E1).
Due to the opposite charge, the produced proton and pi^- will have track which
will curve in opposite directions. The produced proton and pi^- will slow down
due to their collision with the moluecules of the liquid in the chamber and come
to halt at points D and C respectively.

From this bubble chamber experiment, physicists "measure" the rest mass of the
invisible Gamma^0 particle as follows:

1. The invisible line AB represents the trajectory of the Gamma^0 particle.
Assuming the speed of this particle to be v_gamma and rest mass to be m0_gamma,
we calculate the relativistic energy of the gamma^0 particle to be

E_gamma = (m0_gamma*c^2)/sqrt(1-(v_gamma)^2/c^2)).

From the path length of the visible trajectory of pi^- and proton, we can
calculate relativistic energy E_pi of Pi^- and E_p of proton. Then due to the
conservation of energy, we have

E_gamma =E_pi + E_p.

Let theta_pi and theta_p be the initial angels relative to the line AB at which
pi^- and p are projected. Then using the relativistic conservation of momentum,
we have

v_gamma/c = (c*p_pi*cos(theta_pi)+c*p_p*cos(theta_P))

where p_pi and p_p are initial momentum of the pi^- and proton which can also be
calculated by the path length.

So we have,

m0_gamma*c^2 = (E_pi+E_p)*sqrt(1-((v_gamma)^2/c^2) ). (E3)

This formula allows us to calculate the rest mass m0_gamma.

Again here what is experimental is the visible path lengths of pi^- and proton
in the bubble chamber and angels theta_gamma and theta p. The rest are nothing
but just plugging these numbers into SR formulas to calculate the "rest mass" of
the invisible Gamma particle.

It is hard to understand why SR is verified empirically by this argument. All of
this simply means that IF SR is correct, the formula (E3) gives us empirical
calculation of the rest mass and it simply does not say that SR is valid at all.
Again what Mich called "self-fulfilling argument" is in action here: "As SR is
valid SR is valid."

I myself was pulled into believing the empirical validity of SR by reading
through these "empirical validation" of SR. The genius status of Einstein helped
too. As all of us have been told that Einstein was a genius and his theory of
relativity is so difficult and advanced that only three people in the entire
world can understand it, that being able to mechanically follow this kind of
"advanced" particle physics argument which "verifies" SR was a big boost on
students ego. It certainly helped young researchers not to question SR in depth.

Best regards,

AKT

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/05/2010

BUT IT WORKS?  III

A typical "response" I received from many academic physicists regarding the logical and mathematical inconsistency of SR is that QED is the most empirically tested theory of physics in history. I have shown that it is all nonsense. What they showed is self-fulfilling argument which leads us to nowhere.

The problem I have pointed out can be summed up as follows: One cannot use "relativistic calculations" over experimental data to experimentally verify the relativity theory.

This is a common sense for normal people who reason.

Best regards

AKT

So, SR is logically and mathematically inconsistent and the claim that it is at least empirically verified is complete nonsense.

Best regards,

AKT

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/05/2010

Photons?

> There are a number of descriptions of photons used in physics, all more modern that the ones you gave (though some of your definitions are incorrect). It is hard (at least for me) to answer your question without first giving an obsolete definition, so you'll have to bear with me.

New theories are developed by using old theories and so you have no right to introduce new photons without relating them to the old photons. It is called "Correspondence Principle" in the development of theory of physics. Please tell  me which old definition is WRONG. Anyway, I have not defined them. They are not my definitions. They are your folk's definitions from the past. As far as I can see, the one which makes the least sense is that of Einstein which has the following three basic problems:

1. Einstein's photons are claimed to be the quantisation of light waves. QM theory does not offer mathematical process of quantising Maxwell's em wave equation. So, unlike Dirac's definition which uses the second quantisation over Maxwell's em field equations (not em wave equations!) Einstein's photons are not appropriately introduced. Einstein's photon contradicts SR at the length contraction formula

d=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

So the so called relativistic theory of photon fails.

3. The wave particle duality of QM as per de Broglie holds only for subluminal waves. So, Einstein's photons are not quantum particles. Naturally it violates the Uncertainty Principle to which all quantum particles succumb to. 


> The first `modern' definition of a photon was as a field that has a complex-number value at each point in space - a wavefunction - that evolves in time according to the Klein-Gordon equation. More recently, in quantum field theory, a free photon is to be understood as obeying a second-quantized version of the Klein Gordon equation. This is essentially the same time-evolution and the two definitions are exactly equivalent for the case of one photon, but second quantization allows the possibility of multiple photons and an uncertain numbers of photons. To be slightly more concrete, though I admit that second quantization is not my specialty, the wave function no longer encodes the probability for a photon to be in a certain place, but instead the probability of a total state of the system, for example "There is a 1% chance one photon is at my detector and one is at yours," rather than "There is a 1% chance there is a photon at my detector and also a 1% chance there is a photon at yours." Since this describes the entire system at once, entanglement is possible, such as "There is a photon at my detector if and only if there is not one at yours."

So, how does this relate to Dirac's photon which is obtained by the second quantisation of em field. How does relate to what we call light?

After all, I do not believe in QFT as it has nothing to do with QM and SR is logically inconsistent. Please defend the QFT before you use it.

> In a full quantum field theory, two things change. First, photons may interact with other particles, for example they may be absorbed, lowering the number of photons. Interactions like this require the Klein-Gordon equation to be modified, so rather than "a complex-number-valued field that follows the Klein-Gordon equation," the definition of a photon becomes "a complex-number-valued field that follows an equation similar to the Klein-Gordon equation (remembering the this is not a field over normal space because of second quantization)." Second, according to the Klein-Gordon equation, the energy of a photon must be equal to its momentum times the speed of light. In quantum field theory, as a consequence of the other modifications that I described, this restriction is relaxed, so the energy of a photon only needs to be close to its momentum times the speed of light and the longer it exists, the closer it will be, on average. This is usually explained as the energy-time uncertainty principle, so if people talk about that principle relating to virtual particles, this is what they mean. Anyway, a virtual particle is defined a a particle that does not exist for long enough to be measured. They may have unusually high, low, or even negative energies, leading to various interesting phenomena.

I have pointed out that there is a theoretical problem in QFT. This interaction you mentioned involves energy and the total energy must be conserved. SR's energy is not quantised while the photon's energy is quantised. So, the total energy will not be conserved due to this mismatch.

> Our definition of photon will probably be refined even more as we learn more about the universe. String theory is already saying that a photon is just a specific way for a string to vibrate. Sadly, this must be the end of my explanation because none of what comes next is yet known.

Let me remind you that it has been a most basic agreement among natural philosophers (I choose this terminology as  think contemporary physicists do not even know this basic principle) that "classical limit" must exist between new theory and old theory. To my recollection it is QM who still has no legitimate classical limit. When it comes to SR, putting its complete invalidity due to its logical and mathematical inconsistency aside, Einstein showed us wrong classical limit. Galilean relativity theory is not limited to just low speed. It allows any speed. So, Einstein's classical limit which works only for near zero speed does not contain Galilean relativity theory as sub-theory.

It was Roger Anderton of NPA who obtained the correct classical limit. he showed that the real classical limit of SR under the limit
c --> infinity yields Galilean Relativity theory.
Rate this comment:

You are free to develop new theories as long as you accept the following three basic principles:

1. Post Principle: The new theory must contain minimum change to the old theory. In this sense, Copenhagen QM is invalid and it is only "Politics" of physics which allowed the domination by the followers of Bohr and Heisenberg. Bohm's QM is the one which is valid. The former has two changes from the classical theory, first the probabilistic indeterminacy. Second, quantum entanglement. The latter removed unnecessary probabilistic indeterminacy.

Please go ahead and bring in more and more new theories. It is good for empire building but please make sure that all theories you bring in are consistent logically and they contain old theories as classical limit.

The problem I have observed here is that physicists have no logic. They just do not understand what logical thinking is. So, it is absolutely hopeless to ask them to make sure that their new theories are logically consistent. To make the matter even worse, as the old theories they are trying to revise are inconsistent logically, a new theory which contains the old theory as a sub-theory is again inconsistent. There is no way out for you. You just have to go back rather than forward and fix the problem with the old theories.

You see, what physicists do not understand is that as long as a physical theory is logically consistent, it is always possible to find a new theory which contains it as a classical limit. But if the original theory is logically inconsistent, no matter whatever you do, any theory which contains the original theory is always logically inconsistent and thus totally useless.

If physcists insist to ignore this most basic fact of human reasoning, logic, may I suggest that you start with a theory of natural numbers and add a new axiom 3=7. From this new axiomatic system of natural numbers you can deduce anythig. You entred a paradise. Then you can "choose" whatever you want from the theorems of this inconsistent theory which proves anything. Your sucess is guranteed. This theory is pfeferred for its simplicity. The typical "but it works": argument here is equivalent to saying but still we have 3+5=5+3. 

Best regards,

AKT

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/05/2010

BUT IT WORKS IV?

According to Einstein's explanation, mu meson created at the Ozone layer of our atmosphere due to the sun's cosmic ray travels the distance between where it is born and where we are at the sea level which is longer than its life span and the speed it travels.

In our frame, the distance is between the ozone layer and where we are and the speed v of mu meson is measured by our time and the distance it travels in our frame. This measurement is classical and it goes into the v in the Gamma factor.

Classically, it should be that the mu meson will not reach sea level. But experimental result shows that it does. Einstein used time dilation of SR to explicate this anomaly saying that the time of the frame of the muon we are watching slows down ans so, we observe that mu meson reaches the sea level. Einsteinians claimed this as an experimental verification of time dilation.

So far so good. But SR has PoR and applying it to this situation yields the following nonsense: From mu meson's perspective sea level (us) travels towards muon in muon's frame with the same speed v. As our time slows down from mu meson's perspective, we will reach muon before it expires!

To deal with this crisis, Einstein devised a canning explanation. From mu meson's perspective the distance we travel towards muon gets shorter due to the length contraction and so we reach the mu meson within its life time. Even more confused than Einstein, physicists who worshipped the genius of Einstein did not see anything wrong with this ridiculous argument.

The reality is that the rod which contracts from muon's perspective is in our frame and we do not move with respect to this rod. We move in muon's frame with respect to rods in muon's frame. Mu meson will not observe that this rod shrinks!

Logical thinking physicists! So, length contraction is irrelevant here.

Now going back to time dilation issue here, we have the following two mutually contradicting prediction of SR.

1. Muon reaches sea level in its life time.  (our perspective)

2. Us on the sea level will not reach muon in its life time. (muon's perspective)

This means that SR is inconsistent here. Too bad, a most important victory of SR in physical reality failed!

So, final verdict physicists! Even if experimental result agrees with SR's prediction that  muon reaches sea level, it failes to agree with SR's yet another prediction that muon will not reach sea level.

This is precisely why it is not recomendable to consider experimental verification of a physical theory which is logically inconsistent. The theory will agree with any experiment and at the same time it will disagree with any experimental results.

Best regards,

AKT

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/05/2010

But IT WORKS V?

What about the relativistic mass? The relativists say that this is experimentally verified by Bucherer in 1908. By projecting electrons into crossed electric and magnetic fields, he was able to select electrons of known speed. The subsequent deflection of the selected electrons in a magnetic field gave the observed mass using Maxwell's em theory. This experiment showed that for electrons, the relativistic mass formula agrees with the observed mass of electrons.

The problem with this is that this agreement was shown only for charged particles such as electrons. Moreover, SR does not deal with em fields as the axioms of SR suggests clearly. The very fact that Einstein chose to elect the CSL as a basic axiom of SR simply means that Einstein excluded Maxwell's em theory from his SR. If not, he did not need to axiomatise the CSL. Again clear logical thinking physicists!

One may object saying that Einstein showed that Maxwell's theory is Lorentz invariant. But as I have been saying Lorentz invariance does not mean relativistic. This is another problem with the brain washed physicists. SR has PoR as its axiom and invariance under Lorentz transformation does not necessarily mean that under PoR. Indeed, Maxwell's theory is written only for each observer's frame as the Faraday induction tells us.

Any way for the reasons mentioned above it is not satisfactory to use electron dynamics to experimentally verify SR. A simple logical clear thinking will make you understand this flaw in Einsteinian's argument.

To make the matter worse, Lorentz transformation was obtained first by Lorentz not for relativity theory but for his aether theory and electrodynamics. E=mc^2 was obtained by Heaviside within the classical electrodynamics 25 years prior to Einstein. This means that some of the formulas of SR have their counter part in classical electrodynamics. Already the difference between observed  mass and mechanical mass of charges is known well as renormalisation problem.

Anyhow, we can safely consider SR as theory of em waves as electrodynamics without em field.

So, in short, we do not know what is the relevance of Bucherer's result to SR.

Indeed, if one wants to extend this experimental result to non charges, he has to use relativistic calculation on observed electrodynamic experimental data. This falls into the already argued flaw of vicious circularity. As SR is valid SR is valid is not an acceptable reasoning.

It now is quite clear that all physicists should take graduate courses in pure mathematics and mathematical logic to understand their theory adequately. 

Best regards

AKT

• 584 Days Ago
• 07/06/2010

So where are you physicists?

1. You have used the term photons loosely meaning so many different things. You did not even realise that there is this problem of mutually contradicting multiple meaning of photon. Mr. Smith who at least noticed the problem thought that adding two more to this confusion list will do.

2. You cannot respect your own ancestor's principle such as Post Principle, and the Principle of Correspondence.

3. One of the most basic theory underlying contemporary physics, namely SR is shown to be logically and mathematically inconsistent. The claimed and well announced "experimental verification" of SR is shown to be not. It was just a propaganda to sell SR.

4. The claimed "resolution" to the problem of SR namely GR is even more troubled. First of all it is good only for children's game. It cannot handle the gravitational dynamics of our gravitational universe as nothing moves in the 4D space time graphs. The motion of stars within this universe due to the gravitation cannot be expressed by the fixed geometry of 4D space time. It works only for test particles. This problem hit Einstein hard when people started to talk about expanding universe. Einstein introduced cosmological constant to parametrise his GR space time to deal with this problem.. However, this does not solve a more serious problem of the motion of the stars in the universe. Secondly, there is more to acceleration than just gravitational forces. So, PoE is flat false. Einstein could not even integrate em forces to GR clearly showing that PoE is false. Finally, GR contains SR as its subtheory. This means simply that GR is inconsistent logically and mathematically. Moreover, the failure to experimentally verify GR fails as to do that for SR fails. 

5. All of this comes from the ignorance on rational reasoning. Physicists do not understand how to reason and so naturally they do not do a good job in framing physical theories.

This is why the monumental advances of this field had to wait until mathematicians, logicians or theologians come to straighten up their utter confusion. Newton was a theologian who spent only a few years on physics. Von Neumann was a best mathematician ever lived who saved QM from utter confusion. As Lee Smolin expressed physics currently in yet another hopeless stage of confusion where they have to wait until some outsider comes to save them.

In the mean while please keep banging out rather mindless one publishable unit papers 30 of them per year per a researcher. Ah, do not forget to defend your confused discipline  by playing politic of money grabbing, suppression, name calling and intimidation.

A message from a chap whom you called "lunatic fringe".

Best regards,

AKT.

• 584 Days Ago
• 07/06/2010

Another confusuion?

The quantity E^2/c^2-p, is Lorentz invariant.
Clearly, p = sqrt[(E^2)/(c^2)-(m_0)^2*c^2]. So,
E^2/c^2-p = E^2/c^2 -sqrt[(E^2)/(c^2)-(m_0)^2*c^2]
is Lorentz invariant. But this means that E=mc^2 is Lorentz invariant. I am
quite sure that this comes from the inconsistency between E=mc^2 and the
relativistic energy momentum equation.

Best regards,

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

More confusion!

> Galilean transformations use an infinite speed of light, while special relativity uses a finite speed of light. These are two different axioms.

Neither GT nor LT are axioms. They are theorems of SR. I have shown that already but let me repeat. SR is an axiomatic theory with axioms {d=vt,PoR,CSL}.

(1) d=vt,PoR |- GT

By monotonicity (thinning)

(2) d=vt,PoR, CSL |- GT     

(3)d=vt,PoP,CSL |- TD & LC

(4) TD,LC, GT |- LT


from (3) and (4) by cut,

(5) d=vt,PoR,CSL |- LT.

You are wrong again and you did not get the point I was making. I was talking about the classical limit of SR, which is NOT v -> zero but c -> infinity.


Logic is not as simple as simple minded physicists think.

Best regards

AKT.

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

AKT rocks

I love it when people come head to head because there is a problem that needs to be hammered out.

I too had a problem with Einsteins concept of a photon at rest has zero mass. However when i looked at his full equation i saw there was the case where the photon would be spinning at speed c.

e=mc^2+pc.

This means if you suddenly were to grab a photon in space and hold it....it would suddenly transfer its momentum into rotation. I feel this is clearly strange, however not nearly as strange as being able to grab a photon in space....They are both theorectical.

However we can slow a photon down and perhaps measure if any rotation increase has emerged...or at least i believe our smart scientists could possibly do it.

I for one would love to see the experiments data from that one.

As to what is a photon?...i believe its something special and maybe "splitting" the photon so to speak will provide such new science as the world has never seen.

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

>> I am afraid but I have to be rather explicit sometime.

> Studies show that people often overestimate how well they are understood over the internet. Please continue to be more explicit in the future. I have probably been similarly unclear, so I ask that you point out anywhere where I have written something that does not make sense except in my head.

I am saying simply that some people needs to prepare themselves to take part in meaningful discussions. So far all I saw in this blog is chats. It just does not satisfy the standard of serious scieitific discussions. To be specific, theoretical physics is either mathematical errors or trivial mathematics. The problem we have is the mathematical error part of it. To discuss this I have to expect that participants have some basic background in pure mathematics and logic. I once had discussion with a physics Ph.D. working for NASA who thought that SR is consistent because the Lorentz group is consistent. This is a typical standard at the top level of theoretical physics. You guys just have no mathematics and no logic. That a group is consistent simply means that the group has the universe of interpretation which has more than one elements. That there are more than one Lorentz Transformation does not mean that SR is consistent at all.

>> E=mc^2 contains m as relativistic mass. This means that the mass is moving with speed v in your frame. So this formula is not for the particles without momentum.

> This is true.

>> Then we have an obvious contradiction.

> This is not. E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2 does not use relativistic mass, it uses the rest mass. This is a different number.

I explained it to a son of my friend who was in IB advanced program in mathematics and physics. He had no problem in understanding it. E=mc^2 and the energy momentum relation both discusses the energy of a particle with momentum and they do not agree. Think logically. The problem with simple minded physicists is that they cannot think of other equations when they are working on an equation. The logical or mathematical inconsistency occurs when tow or more equations yields different values for the same thing.

This incompetence of physicists marred the last century physics. I guess that this started mainly because of the stupid computers. Now even a total idiot can calculate the value of an equation by plugging in numbers to equations without knowing anything about the equations. No one can think any more.

>> However, as I said, this is just a frill contradiction. The most fundamental contradiction of SR lies in two places.

>>  (1). d=vt,PoR |- GT

> No. d=vt and the principle of relativity only imply the Galilean transformations when combined with some "common-sense" principles. For example, if I had an object that disappeared when placed at `absolute rest', is would still follow these axioms, but it would violate the Galilean transformations.

The hidden assumption here is that of kinematics. I am not a physicist and you are the bloody physicist.Learn physics properly. Your assumption is not in the category of kinematics. Think if you can before you make this kind of embarrassing statement.


> Another such "common-sense" principle is that simultaneity is absolute. The genius of Einstein was to see that this principle could be removed from the theory and replaced by the constancy of the speed of light, giving a new set of axioms. Note that axioms had to be removed as well as added. Scientists like Lorentz and Poincaré came very close to special relativity, but they thought that absolute simultaneity was so obvious that they failed to see what was in front of them. It took Einstein to see that what seemed obvious was actually just an unfounded assumption.

Einstein deduced loss of simultaneity from {d=vt,PoR,CSL}.  I showed that on this SR is also inconsistent. From the axioms  d=vt,PoR,CSL, we can also  establish that simultaneity is absolute.

Consider a train runs on a track. At point A and B on the ground, lightning hits at the same moment. Assume a passenger on the train located at the middle of the tain is on right bisector of AB when this happens. Then according to Einstein he will observe that A and B are hit at different moment because A and B are points in the frame of the ground. This is true if we do not use CSL. But this is false if we use CSL. A and B are moving  points in the passenger's frame and according to CSL this motion does not affect the speed of light and light path. Einstein did not   understand CSL. He did not understand mathematical and logical reasoning either.


>> (2). d=vt,PoR,CSL |- GT


> No, since a finite constant speed of light contradicts absolute simultaneity.

As I said, you know nothing about logic and you make big sweeping statement.

It is a basic law of inference to go from
A,B |-C
to
A,B,D|-C.

This is called "thinning" (or monotonicity) in Gerald Gentzen's scheme of first order predicate reasoning. This simply means that once we deduce C from A and B in the first order reasoning system, then by adding C to the assumptions we still deduce C. So, we cannot get rid of C by adding more assumptions.

In our discussion, we started with (1) d=vt,Por |- GT. Then by thinning we naturally obtain  d=vt,PoR,CSL |- GT.

Gentzen spent huge amount of effort to make people like hopelessly confused physicists understand logical reasoning clearly. 

>> Like all other physicists Einstein did not understand what logicians call monotonicity of logic.

> He did understand this. One of his closest friends was Kurt Godel, arguably the greatest logician who ever lived. You just made a problem in step one of your argument.

You clearly exhibited that you have little understanding of thinning (monotonicity). How can you say that Einstein understood what you do not know?  Physicists' logic?

I am a recursion theorist
and set theorist with substantial record of publications in top mathematics journals. This does not make may friends understand logic. I wounder how you think. It was Einstein himself to ask people to question the authority. Godel discovered that GR can be interpreted using reversed time flow and he wanted to discuss on this with Einstein as he thought this would undermine the legitimacy of GR. Einstein avoided the discussion.

After all, Einstein correctly observed just like anybody else that GT which is deduced from d=vt, PoR contradicts the finding of MM which is axiomatised as CSL. So, he added CSL to d=vt,PoR to "resolve" the problem. This is the act of absolute idiot.  The discrepancy between GT and CSL simply means that CSL and {d=vt,PoR} contradict each other. So, naturally {d=vt,PoR, CSL}, aka SR, is inconsistent. What did Einstein know? Monotonicity?


>> Second, the concept of moving reference frames is invalid. In geometry no geometric points move, They are fixtures of geometric spaces.

> The concept of moving reference frames simply means that there are multiple coordinatizations of a space, and that the way that they are related changes at different times.


This means that geometric spaces move against each other. Only a fool will make such a statement. A geometric space is a topologically glued collection of infinitely many points. As Rene Tom warned physicists one cannot even pick up a single point in a geometric space because of the topology. Topologist pick up a point only as an open set containing it. So it is complete nonsense to think that we can move a point in geometry. Geometry has nothing to do with motion which involves time. So, it is impossible to make  geometric space (reference frames) move against each other. Contemporary physicists do not understand the distinction between geometry and physics. Read Newton and you will start to see. Forget about QFT which you obviously have no idea tat all what it is. I told yo, Newton was not a bloody physicist. He was a theologian. He knew better. 

> No point can meaningfully be said to be "the same point" t seconds later, since the two 3-dimensional spaces are different 3-dimensional spaces.

It is possible if you allow the impossible of moving geometric spaces against each other. You do not understand the causality relation. This is what we mathematicians call proof by contradiction which no physicists seem to understand.  Proof by contradicition here is telling us that from the assumption of moving frmaes, we come up with the nonsense of a poj nt share by many diffrent frames at each moment. which leads to contradicitions: So we must categorically reject the concept of inertial or any moving frames at all. 

>> If you move the point for 5 to that for 6 and vice verse on number line, then the result is not a number line as we break the continuum structure of real number line.

> That's why Lorentz transformations are continuous.

What? It has nothing to do with Lorentz transformation. I am talking about mathematical continuum structure. Lorentz group is not continuum. BTW Lorentz transformation is not continuous at v=c or v>c.




>Geometry is not as simple as (mathematical) physicists like Einstein and Minkowski think. So it is totally stupid to consider a geometric space moving against other geometric space.

>  It is not the same space at a later time; it is just a different 3-dimensional slice of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

It is the same thing. A function from X to Y can be represented by its graph which is a subset of XxY space. So even a middle school student will be able to represent a motion as a graph in the 4D space time. Rail way engineers have been using this idea since they started the business. They used space time to visualise the motion of a train on the track by adding time dimension as a coordinate. they simplify the 3D of the track geometry as linear geometry and so they use 2D for their diagram. Not a big deal. Probably a big deal for Minkowski. We gain nothing from this representation by graph all mathematician know this.

Ha, Hamilton used higher dimensional spaces for phase spaces way before Minkowski's "genius". He was unhappy about the limitation of 4D. Economists use several hundred dimension spaces for their theory and practice. It is rather comical that physicists take such a huge pride in using 4D geometry. They thin that they are above everybody because f the usage of 4D space time. Yet most of them do not understand that to represent closed 3D space requires 4D sphere as Riemann showed. Wait a moment, do not jump my friend: Here no time corordinate is involved.


>> I have already shown you a devastating example of this invalidity manifesting as a contradiction in SR. (tain lightning paradox)

> I have already refuted this example.

Where is it? You do not even understand what I presented as it appeared clearly here. How in your wrenched world of wrenched physics can one refute what he does not understand. Physicist's logic? 

Over all, you have shown us that you have a lot to learn about mathematics, logic and even physics. Scieintific discussion will not be made by quoting from the books which are written in the wrong way about wrong things to begin with and which naturaly you do not understand.

Best regards,

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

> It is impossible to grab a photon or to stop its spinning. When you grab a spinning object to slow it down, the reason it slow is actually because it is exchanging photons with your hand.

How can you make a statement like this? We do not know what photons are at all. There are at least four different mutually contradiciting "definitions" of photons and you added several more. Listen to aether theorists, each of them have his own photons and altogether, we must have tens of thousands of definitions of photons.

BTW you mentioned the picture of the trajectory of photons. How can you take it? Only charged particles can leave its track in the bubble chamber. Uncharged particles track must be calculated using theory from other visible information left in the bubble chamber.

To make the matter worse, QM contradicts bubble chamber experiments and it uses this experiment to verify its validity. As you know according to the QM, there is no such thing as the trajectory. When localised the wave function of the particle turns into spherical and there is no possibility of the trajectory. Mental illness? Ha?

Best regards,

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

>>  I explained it to a son of my friend who was in IB advanced program in mathematics and physics. He had no problem in understanding it. E=mc^2 and the energy momentum relation both discusses the energy of a particle with momentum and they do not agree.

> They use m to mean different things if you want, we can say m_0 for the rest mass and m_r for the relativistic mass. Than the equations become E = m_r * c^2 and E^2 = m_0^2 * c^4 + p^2 * c^2. Then we get (m_r * c^2)^2 = m_0^2 * c^4 + p^2 * c^2, or m_r^2 = m_0^2 + p^2/c^2. While the original equations unfortunately both used the latter m, they used it to mean two different numbers in the two different equations.


It is you who is misunderstanding E=mc^2. It holds for relativistic mass of a particle which is moving with speed v in your frame. So, for you this particle has momentum and it is stupid to say that this energy equation is for a particle without momentum. This is what most relativists are confused about.

This confusion appears as the following contradiction. Assume a train runs on a track with speed v. Assume at a moment the train marks the track at the front and the  rear. Then an observer on the ground frame can empirically measure the length of this train as the distance between these two marks. This disagrees with the length of the train predicted by SR. This is what I meant when I said that a running train can fall into a pit which is shorter than the train. This is precisely the error Einstein made in the muon decay problem, The sea level does not travel along the rod inside the sea level frame. It travels inside the frame of the muon and so the length contraction of the rod in the sea level does not make any difference. Sea level cannot reach the muon before the latter expires. Einstein did not understand even that the v in  the gamma factor is the speed measured in our frame in classical way. This measurement is completely legitimate and cannot be challenged by relativistic argument which in fact uses this observed speed v. This is precisely what he did in the muon decay problem. This tells us that Einstein did not understand what he was doing.

Let me make this simpler. We measure the speed of a moving object in our frame by measuring the locations A and B of the object in our frame at our time t1 and t2. Then we can measure the speed of this object in our frame as v=d/t where d is the length of the line segment AB and t = t2-t1. Now SR transforms t to t' and d to d'. In muon decay problem Einstein used t' and d for sea level perspective and d and t' for muon's perspective. It is unfortunate that t, d/t', d'/t, d'/t' are all different.


>This incompetence of physicists marred the last century physics. I guess that this started mainly because of the stupid computers. Now even a total idiot can calculate the value of an equation by plugging in numbers to equations without knowing anything about the equations. No one can think any more.

Stupid physicists just plugged in numbers before computers, they just did it by hand. Smart physicists today still understand the equations they are working with.

Steven Hawkins and Roger Penrose do not understand what Godel did in his second incompleteness result. Godel did not show that we cannot prove the consistency of first order arithmetic within the first order arithmetic. He just showed that there is a sentence of first order arithmetic which under the standard model of the first order arithmetic means the consistency of the first order arithmetic. This sentence may not mean the consistency of the first order arithmetic when interpreted under nonstandard model. Moreover, there are infinitely many other sentences of the first order arithmetic which means the consistency of the first order arithmetic and in fact Mostowski and Fefferman showed such examples which can be deduced from the first order arithmetic. Of course this kind of intricate argument is beyond simple reasoning of physics. As I said the standard is different. Anyhow this is what students of pure mathematics learn in their 3rd year course. This tells the standard of "genius" in physics. We have no such thing as "genius" in mathematics. We categorise people like Von Nuemann as a best mathematician ever lived. We also say that in mathematics we never fail to find some one better. True sense of "relativism" is here. Where there is "genius" there is no relativism. <G>.

Best regards

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

>>  The hidden assumption here is that of kinematics. I am not a physicist and you are the bloody physicist.Learn physics properly. Your assumption is not in the category of kinematics.

> I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, so if my reply does not make sense, please clarify. This was an example assumption, to show that it is possible to have d=vt and PoR without the Galilean transformation. It was meant simply as an example to try to clarify the real assumption that I object to, which came next.

In relativistic kinematics, we do not assume that a particle disappears. It is your hallucination in QFT which made you miss basic assumption. Remember that QFT did not create SR. SR created QFT. Have respect to the older things pal.

Anyway, QFT is invalid in this context too. it violates the basic assumption of the SR which it uses. In the respectful old world, we pay tribute to our ancestors and we do not shoot them down after we use them. It is not acceptable in human world. If you want to go along the QFT, you must rewrite SR which allows the disappearance of particles. You are mixing up all kind of nonsense in the  last century physics. You do not understand where a theory stands.


>> From the axioms  d=vt,PoR,CSL, we can also  establish that simultaneity is absolute.

> No, we cannot do so without any hidden assumptions.

The "Hidden assumption" is not assumed for SR. You should understand what SR is about. You are saying that the assumption on the inertial frames is false because it does not accept "your" screwed up assumptions which nobody care. Then all arguments in SR is invalid. We do not live in the freedom towards anarchy in the old world. You are not entitled to have whatever opinion in science. It has to be valid.

So, where is your refutation of the simultaneity argument I presented. It goes as follows: I will present it again to show how ridiculous the way you conduct your argument to the public.

Assume a train runs on a track. At a moment lightning hits points on the ground A and B. Assume a passenger  of the train is located on a right bisector of AB. Then using classical theory  we can conclude that this passenger will see that A and B are hit at different moment. This is what Einstein got. But using CSL I can show that this passenger will observe that they are hit at the same time as the speed and the path length of light in his frame has nothing to do with the motion of these two points. Odd, Einstein did not get it. Did he really understand the CSL upon which he built the "revolutionary theory" SR.

For this you are saying that the argument is invalid as the theory of inertial frame does not consider a particle which may disappear. When SR was built, nobody cared about the particles which disappear. This is how SR was flawed. If you think this is false, you should be honest and should not use SR to deveople QFT.

But never take it too hard. You are not the only one who has no scientific  integrity. Einstein and his followers after using all of these thought experiments to frame SR undermines them through light cone interpretation. These people see nothing wrong with it. If these thought experiments are invalid due to the light cone interpretation, then light cone interpretation itself is invalid. Even an elementary school student will understand this simple argument. 

>> Consider a train runs on a track. At point A and B on the ground, lightning hits at the same moment.

> In which frame?

A typical thoughtless  question uttered by the cult of relativism. Ask Einstein. it was him  who set up this situation in his thought experiment to refute the simultaneity. All I did is to show that using same setting I can also show that the simultaneity is there. In fact Einstein  used Galilean argument to show that the simultaneity fails I used CSL to show that simultaneity exist. This shows that relativists have no idea at all on the theory of reference frames. All pure nonsense of SR came from this confused concept of reference frames which comes from the misunderstanding of basic principle of geometry which says that there is no such thing as moving reference frames.


>> Assume a passenger on the train located at the middle of the tain is on right bisector of AB when this happens. Then according to Einstein he will observe that A and B are hit at different moment because A and B are points in the frame of the ground.

> If A and B are in the frame of the ground, they are only simultaneous in the frame of the ground, not the frame of the train.


A vicious circular argument. Einstein brought in  this argument just to show that simultaneity fails. You are already using the loss of simultaneity which is to be established by this argument. I wonder how physicists think if the do at all? <G>.

>> This is true if we do not use CSL. But this is false if we use CSL. A and B are moving  points in the passenger's frame and according to CSL this motion does not affect the speed of light and light path.

> A and B are points in the passenger's frame, but they are not simultaneous in the passenger's frame. In the ground frame, the passenger is moving away from one point and toward the other, so the distances are different and the light beams reaches the passenger at different times. In the passenger's frame, A and B are not simultaneous so they have the same travel time, but different start times, and therefore different arrival times. Therefore, assuming a constant finite speed of light actually implies that A and B will be observed at different times, in agreement with the previous prediction.


As I said all you are doing is to use what you are to establish. One cannot use what he is trying to establish to establish it. It is called "self-fulfilling" argument.

>> (2). d=vt,PoR,CSL |- GT

> No, since a finite constant speed of light contradicts absolute simultaneity.

You do not know what you are talking about. read above. GT is looking at d=vt from other frame. That SR does not consider the vanishing particle does not refute this standard derivation of GT. There is logically nothing wrong with the derivation of GT from d=vt,PoR.
 
>> It is a basic law of inference to go from
A,B |-C
to
A,B,D|-C.

>> This is called "thinning" (or monotonicity) in Gerald Gentzen's scheme of first order predicate reasoning. This simply means that once we deduce C from A and B in the first order reasoning system, then by adding C to the assumptions we still deduce C. So, we cannot get rid of C by adding more assumptions.

> I agree with monotonicity. The only reason I objected to d=vt,PoR,CSL |- GT is because I already objected to d=vt,PoR |- GT. You were applying monotonicity to an invalid premise.

As I said, you are making no sense. You are then objecting all theories including SR which QFT used. As I said, we are talking about SR and SR is based on the assumption of the classical kinematics that we do not consider disappearing particles. This is a serious problem with contemporary physicists. They have no understanding of the hierarchy of the theories. You have no freedom to use somebody and attack  them later.

Einstein pointed out that GR is contradicting CSL (or MM). But you are saying that Einstein was wrong in discussing GT because GT does not exist because of your strange claim that reference frame theory must consider disappearing particles. It is a standard deduction that d=vt,PoR deduces GT. Any text book will tell you.

But I understand your panic. When I presented this argument, some relativist called me "lunatic fringe". He was a Prof. of Philosophy pf Physics in an American University. Some claimed that we cannot prove GT from d=vt,PoR. Their reasoning was as flawed as yours though they are different. Some of them said that thinning is wrong. Some said that as we do not use CSL to deduce GT, the derivation of GT from d=vt,PoR and CSL is invalid. He was a prof. of Physics in a Canadian University.

In the above I have shown clearly that your argument is flawed. You are confusing so many different theories. The scope of SR is certainly limited. It does not discuss the situation which occurs in the QFT. This does not constitute a flawed argument that SR is invalid because of this. SR is invalid in its own scope. This makes QED which used SR invalid too. So your ridiculous argument is flawed in two sense.

>> You clearly exhibited that you have little understanding of thinning (monotonicity). How can you say that Einstein understood what you do not know?  Physicists' logic?

> I do understand monotonicity, I object to your premise, d=vt,PoR |- GT, not your use of monotonicity. If d=vt,PoR |- GT were true, I agree that d=vt,PoR,CSL |- GT would be true.

As I said you are flat wrong with this. SR does not consider the particles which disappears. It is QFT which made some particle disappear using SR.

>> I am a recursion theorist
and set theorist with substantial record of publications in top mathematics journals. This does not make may friends understand logic. I wounder how you think. It was Einstein himself to ask people to question the authority. Godel discovered that GR can be interpreted using reversed time flow and he wanted to discuss on this with Einstein as he thought this would undermine the legitimacy of GR. Einstein avoided the discussion.

> If Godel understood general relativity, than he must have understood special relativity. If special relativity is a simple mistake of pure logic and lack of understanding of monotonicity, as you claim, why did Godel never object to something so obvious as this? I do realize that arguing on the basis of Einstein's friends is not as certain as arguing on the basis of the actual math, so I suggest we stop this specific line of debate.

It was you who brought in the proof by association. You said the stupid thing which goes as follows: As Einstein was a friend of Godel, Einstein did not make logical errors.

BTW GR is more troubled than SR. One of the axiom say PoE is false. This makes GR completely invalid. Assume A accelerates away from C with rate a and B accelerate way from C with rate b in opposite direction, then according to kinematics, A accelerates away from B with rate a+b. This does not mean that B pushes A. So, not all accelerations are forces which makes the PoE false. Moreover, Einstein failed to integrate em theory and GR. This means that PoE is false. Em forces causes acceleration and so they must be gravitational forces according to GR.

Moreover, as a professional mathematical  logician, it was quite difficult to understand what physicist do. We have completely different culture. We are anti-empiricists. It took me a lot of discussion of this kind to understand how physicists think. At the time of Godel and Einstein, both fields are still under development and they had not solid ground to compare.


>> After all, Einstein correctly observed just like anybody else that GT which is deduced from d=vt, PoR contradicts the finding of MM which is axiomatised as CSL.

> And also hidden premises. I showed that your train argument was wrong and does not prove a contradiction.

There is no such thing as hidden assumptions. No particle disappears in classical theory upon which Einstein presented his thought experiments. You have no idea at all on what you are talking about.

Anyhow show us how the "hidden assumption" refute the train argument. You are saying that the reference frames are based upon a hidden assumption. If so, this assumption also refute Einstein's argument because both my argument Einstein's argument are based upon exactly the same assumption on frames. So, according to your faulty argument SR is invalid too. Welcome to the club Mr. Smith.

Anyhow we agree that the theory of inertial frames which was assumed in SR is invalid for different reason. You are saying that it failed to consider the vanishing particles. I am saying you are flat wrong as SR does not consider such situation and there is nothing wrong with this limitation. SR was built upon this assumption which neglect such case. It means that SR is empirically incomplete. it does not mean that SR is inconsistent. My argument is much stronger. I am saying that SR as frames ignoring your complaint, is still logically inconsistent. Ironically Einstein showed the loss of simultaneity without using CSL and I showed the simultaneity using CSL. Anyway this shows that SR proves both simultaneity and loss of it at the same time.


>> The discrepancy between GT and CSL simply means that CSL and {d=vt,PoR} contradict each other.

> No, it means {d=vt,PoR, CSL} and your error contradict each other, which is not surprising because an error always causes a contradiction. Why are we debating logic?

Which error. Is it the error Einstein made according to you? The logical fact is that d=vt and PoR upon the basic assumption of the inertial frames prove GT as all text book shows. Your hidden assumption has nothing to do with SR. We are discussing SR.

>> I agree with your statements about monotonicity and inconsistency. I just do not agree that d=vt,PoR |- GT.

Tell me what reasoning system you used for the deduction d=vt,PoR |- GT. I am using the underlying theory which excludes the disappearing particles.

>> So it is complete nonsense to think that we can move a point in geometry.

> We are not moving points. We are taking different coordinatizations of a 4-dimensional manifold. Consider a lower dimensional case. Is it surprising to you that different coordinatizations of 2-dimensional (x, t) plane will disagree on the x and t coordinates of a point? Consider the rotation x, t -> t, -x. Do you understand covariance and contravarience? They are important concepts in pure math, not physics.

Moving points and considering the graph of motion are the same thing as all middle school maths students learn in their maths courses. It is only physicists who think that they make difference. As a recursion theorists, I would rather say more. Indeed, we loose some valid information when we represent functions (motions) as its graphs. Recursion theorists think that functions are procedures. This procedual side is lost when you represent function as graphs. This is where Prof. Scott and recursion theorists disagreed. Scott wrongly thought that we can do recursion theory by representing recursive functions as recursivelt enumerable sets. Recursive functions are defined by recursive programs which tells us how to compute the function. When we represent them by recursively enumerable graphs, we loose this information on how the program tells you how to compute it.

Simliar disadvantage marres GR. By representing motions as graphs, you loose the dynmacis of the unverse. Now the spacical distribution of the stars are fixed and so nothing moves there but a test particle. In reality, the dynamics of stas change the geometry of the distribution of stars.

After all GR goes basck to moving reference frames locally. This is how SR is embedded in GR. This makes a serious conceptual problem as this frame doses not "move", you guys have no way of interpreting v in LT. Prof. Kitada dared to say that this v is just a number. I told him that then LT has a physica dimsntion and is not a physical tansformation any more.

Anyhow this is yet another serious flaw of GR. Physically it makes no sense because of this. In the end, one has to apply this mathematical nonsense to real physics problems where particles are moving. So, v is speed with the dimension of [speed]. This problem gets more serious as in GR, frames are introduces as Minkowski spaces. The problem is that when we apply this theory to the real physics problems we have to go back to the good old 3D space 1D time to interpret it. This fails as the mapping from classical space distance and time distance to Minkwski metric is infinitely many to one. So, one situation in GR, there are infinitely many real situations. Minkowski was a diserster for both mathematics and physics. He did not understand mathematics properly and he did  not understand physics at all. Einstein was correct in disapproving Minkowski's version of SR. It serves no purpose.


>>  Forget about QFT which you obviously have no idea tat all what it is.

> What statement of mine reveals this? I am taking a course in QFT right now.

Vanishing particles. When you are still taking courses, try not to go obverbord. But it is omportant to keep asking qestions. Studiying is not joining in cult, not worshipping big names. It is asking authorities as Einstein rightly said. He also said that he became an authority to his regret. He also said that wafter he became famous, he became stupid.

Finally, regarding your hidden assumption, let me renind you that no relativists claim that there is an absolute frame. I agree with then only empirically. I am absolutely convinced that unless we have valid holostic picture, we will not get very far before we stumble upon contradictions as we have experienced in the last century. Empiiricism will not give us the desired holistic picture.



>> No point can meaningfully be said to be "the same point" t seconds later, since the two 3-dimensional spaces are different 3-dimensional spaces.

> It is possible if you allow the impossible of moving geometric spaces against each other.

The spaces are not moving. The two 3-dimensional spaces are different 3-dimensional spaces. If you assume them to be the same, it is not surprising that you get a contradiction.

The assumption of inertial frames is that spaces are moving against each other. This is how we understand relativity theory at the physical level. It is unfortunate that this understanding leads us to contradicitions and Einstein's attempt to diodge this situation by considering GR is even more problematics.

So, how shall we take the current cosmology, a Spanish castle upon dungheap of inconsistent theories.

>> This is what we mathematicians call proof by contradiction which no physicists seem to understand.

> How many physics papers have you read. Physicists often use proof by contradiction.

Non of them make any legitimate proof. Physicists do not understand logical reasoning. All they are good at is to apply "proof by examples" to bang out extra-logical axioms from experimental results and reapply proof by examples to "verify" the prediction of the theroy they built. They do n ot understand how to reason using the axioms. This is why they did not munderstand that SR is complete mathematical nonsense. You still do not understand it.

Mathematics used in physics are either trivial or wrong. For example mathematics for renormalisation is absolute mathematical joke. Pure mathematicians resent that mathematics have been abused in this way. Relativists are those who did not see that SR is inconsistent. They did not see that using 4D space time is a wrong thing to do. They did not understand that GR is flawed because PoE is false.


Best regards

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

>> Proof by contradiction here is telling us that from the assumption of moving frames, we come up with the nonsense of a point share by many different frames at each moment. which leads to contradictions

> It does not. This so-called `nonsense' is part of pure math as well as physics. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance_and_contravariance_of_vectors.

Pure mathematics and mathematical physics are different things. The so called differential geometry is not mathematics. Mathematicians understand Newton well and we do not consider time as mathematical entity. Differential geometry is not physics either. It belongs to the category of mathematical physics.

Physicists do not understand that the conflict between GT and  CSL means the conflict between {d=vt, PoR} and CSL. The former is Galilean relativity and GT is a theorem of Galilean relativity and so {d=vt,PoR,CSL}, aka SR is inconsistent.

>>>> If you move the point for 5 to that for 6 and vice verse on number line, then the result is not a number line as we break the continuum structure of real number line.

>>> That's why Lorentz transformations are continuous.

>> What? It has nothing to do with Lorentz transformation. I am talking about mathematical continuum structure. Lorentz group is not continuum. BTW Lorentz transformation is not continuous at v=c or v>c.

> Sorry, I did not seem to get my point across. I am not saying that The Lorentz group is continuous, I am saying that each Lorentz transform is continuous over space time, so it preserves the continuum structure.

Don't be sorry. It is just a misunderstanding. I am saying that in mathematics we do not move points in geometric spaces.

>>> It is not the same space at a later time; it is just a different 3-dimensional slice of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

>> It is the same thing. A function from X to Y can be represented by its graph which is a subset of XxY space. So even a middle school student will be able to represent a motion as a graph in the 4D space time.

> Yes, motion can be represented and understood using a 4D spacetime. I am saying that two 3D slices are not the same space in the sense that there is no notion of the same point at a later time.

In the end, you must go back to the level of moving objects. That is physics. You fail here. This is the problem. The mapping from classical space distance and time distance into Minkowski metric is infinitely many to one. This means you can not go back to to the ordinary physical interpretation. This is what is behind the claim by relativists that as Minkowski metric is invariant the length contraction and time dilation disappears. Minkowski metric space has nothing to do with physical reality. The distinction between a moving point in two frames disappear at this cost.

If you understand logic you will see very clearly. The detailed information about a moving point in different frames is called intension. When you drop intension, you end up with a sexy theory which is totally useless even if it is consistent. GR is inconsistent.



>> It is rather comical that physicists take such a huge pride in using 4D geometry. They thin that they are above everybody because of the usage of 4D space time.

> Why do you think this? In quantum mechanics, we regularly use infinite dimensional spaces like the space of all functions of a certain type.

It was you who claimed that the contradiction of SR disappears when we represent SR in 4D space time. So, you think that 4D space time has some magical power. As I said and you failed to quote already in the 19Th century, Hamilton used high dimensional spaces for his mechanics.

>>> I have already shown you a devastating example of this invalidity manifesting as a contradiction in SR. (tain lightning paradox)

>> I have already refuted this example.

> Where is it? You do not even understand what I presented as it appeared clearly here. How in your wrenched world of wrenched physics can one refute what he does not understand. Physicist's logic?

> I refuted it again in more detail above, so don't worry if you cannot find my original refutation.

No you did not. Show it again. I will repeat,

I am talking about the SR as {d=vt,PoR,CSL} with  underlying theory of reference frames.

Assume a train runs on a track. When a train's front and rear touch the track at F and R, lightning strikes these points. An observer at the centre of the train will observe that both points are hit at the same time because they are in the train (using CSL). But they are also on the track and so he will observe that F is hit first and then R is hit (using Galilean argument as Einstein did). More confusingly if we use  CSL we can conclude that they are hit at the same time. I can hardly see how this can be refuted by pointing out that the underlying theory of frames does not consider the case where particles can disappear. Moreover your argument on the disappearing particles is totally irrelevant here. We are not talking about such theory of inertial frames.

>>   Over all, you have shown us that you have a lot to learn about mathematics, logic and even physics.


> Where did I make a logic error? Where did I make a math error? Where did I maker a physics error?

The simplest example is that you did not understand that your attempt to refute my contradiction also refute Einstein's thought experiments as they are all based upon the same theory of reference frames.  Also you do not understand that a contradiction belongs to only one theory which deduced it. This is a basic problem with all physicist. They never understand this simplest concept of logic. They always try to "remove" the contradiction by switching the theory. You said you understand monotonicity. But anyone who understands understand monotonicity understands that this is a stupid thing to do. We are talking about the theory which deduced contradiction and monotonicity asserts that no contradiction can be removed once it is deduced.

>> Scientific discussion will not be made by quoting from the books which are written in the wrong way about wrong things to begin with and which naturally you do not understand.

> Where did I quote from a book something that I did not understand?

You asked me how many books and papers did I read on physics.

Best regards,

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

> Yes, motion can be represented and understood using a 4D spacetime. I am saying that two 3D slices are not the same space in the sense that there is no notion of the same point at a later time.

Every issues about the classical motion is 3D can be represented by the 4D graphs. When you use different metric as Minkowski did, only with respect to this metric, some details of the classical motion disappears. This is because the encoding into Minkwski metric from classical metric is infinitely many to one. This makes the Monkowski theory totally useless. Also still the classical metric is there. You just decided not to pay attention to it. So, no matter what Minkoswki claimed the TD and LC which caused all kind of problems in SR are there. They do not go away by ignoring them.

Anybody who claims that Minkowski space time removed contradictions of SR are incompetent in mathematics, logic and physics. These pseudo mathematician pseudo physicists lead the last century physics into the ruin.

Best regards,

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

c speed limit?

Transforming waves using relativistic transformation of wave vectors and
frequency we can show that c^2(af/c^2)2-k^2 is relativistic invariant. So, for
all inertial frames we have

c^2(af/c^2)2-k^2 = C

for some constant C were af is the angular frequency and k is the wave number.
From this we obtain the group speed of the wave

v_g = d(af)/dk = c^2(k/af) = c^2/w. (D)

where the phase speed of this wave is w.

Here we have a strange situation where either the group speed or phase speed of
the wave can be faster or equal to c. Does this not violate the offical speed
limit in SR?

Best regards,

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

Train falls into a pit which is shorter than the train.

** Assume a train runs with speed v in your frame. According to SR, we observe that this train shrinks. So, we should observe that the train will fall into a pit which is shorter than the train's real length.

* I already answered this. The train falls into the pit and is crushed, assuming that gravity is strong enough so that it falls too deep for the front of the train to catch on the edge.


There are infinitely many different frames in the universe. So, your height or age is depending upon who observes you from what frame. This is what normal people call hallucination or insanity.

This is how normal people conclude that those who believe in Einstein are either extremely bright or completely hallucinated.

Let me put this in more scientific term and you will stop this complete nonsense. Assume a train marks the track at the front A  and at the tail B at the same moment. We can measure the length of the train by measuring the distance between A and B in our frame. This is the original length of the train. The length contraction allegedly occurs because we measure the length optically. We are measuring the length of the train more directly but perfectly positivistically. This length of the train is longer than the length of the train measured by us using optical method. This means something wrong with SR. 

**For this one, let me add. It is trivial for us pure mathematicians that PoR is symmetric principle. The life span of muon is not symmetric property between the sea level and muon. One cannot make this asymmetry by applying PoR.

*There is no asymmetry. An observer on the ground sees the muon decay slowly, but an observer traveling with the muon will see a muon on the ground decay slowly.

I said there is no symmetry about the life span of muon and the observer on the sea level. Relativity theory of Mr. Einstein applies PoR to this situation which is a symetriser axiom. Naturally we have a contradiction.

A little bit of logical training will help my friend.

Best regards,

AKT.

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

Ommision

** The so called differential geometry is not mathematics.

* Why? It relies on no experiment and is researched entirely by deduction from axioms.

I already explained it in the part you omitted. I repeat however. Time as Newton pointed out is not mathematical entity. It assumes natural flow which can not be captured mathematically. Certainly it is not a motion. You can understand it better when you ask how long does it take for time to advance. You go into a vicuious circle. At least people like David Deutsch of Oxford Merton College understand the issue and he consider that time is not even physics. The flaw in differential geometry is that it considers time as a major coordinate of mathematical systems.

Again a little bit more of logical training will help.

Best regards

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

>> The problem you have is that as I proved there is no such thing as non simultaneous events. It all came from a basic error of reasoning in Einstein's mind.

> By non-simultaneous events, I meant any two events that do not occur at the same time, regardless of whether simultaneity is absolute. Surely some events are not simultaneous?


This is not a response to my post. I said that Einstein's claim that simultaneity is broken is invalid. From the assumption he used to derive this conclusion of him, we can also derive that the simultaneity is not lost. The only thing he did in the end was to prove that SR is inconsistent.

Best regards,

AKT

• 583 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

>> In relativistic kinematics, we do not assume that a particle disappears.

> I am not using this assumption, I am just saying that we must assume the opposite in order to get d=vt,PoR |- GT, so it is a hidden premise. You said that there were no hidden premises, so I started with an obvious hidden premise before moving on to the false hidden premise - absolute simultaneity.

You are trying to use this assumption to claim that the assumptions of SR are invalid. This is a different issue. I think that the assumptions of SR are invalid for different reason and I have explained this reason by showing that from the assumption of SR, we can deduce logical contradiction. In your argument that as SR does not assume the vanishing particles, my proof that from SR we can derive both simultaneity and loss of it at the same time is false, you are completely mistaken. Your false argument also kills Einstein's claim that SR proves loss of simultaneity. Just a simple logical thinking Mr. Smith.

> It is your hallucination in QFT which made you miss basic assumption. Remember that QFT did not create SR. SR created QFT. Have respect to the older things pal.

> I am not saying that this premise is false, only that it is hidden. It is not true in QFT either and I am in no way using QFT here.

In QFT particles disappear.

>> Anyway, QFT is invalid in this context too. it violates the basic assumption of the SR which it uses.

> No, QFT is Lorentz invariant. If you cannot give me a valid example of a train breaking Lorentz symmetry, why should I expect your QFT arguments to hold?


Another illogical argument Mr. Smith. All I am saying is that  SR assumes that no particle vanishes. This SR through E=mc^2 makes particle disappear in QFT. So, in the end we have a self refutation of SR in the further developed stage of SR. This means SR has a contradiction here. This also means that QFT is invalid as it used SR which is invalid. Clear thinking Mr. Smith.

>>  If you want to go along the QFT, you must rewrite SR which allows the disappearance of particles.

> If you are referring to virtual particles, note that they only disappear in ways that conform to special relativity.

Have you heard of positron electron annihilation?



Best regards,

AKT

• 582 Days Ago
• 07/08/2010

Easy to test

Good frief, finally I am responding to the real topics here. QM entanglement and biochenistry.


>> It should be easy enough to test the idea.  Just see if a DNA strand shakes itself apart when you turn off its quantum entanglement.

>> What?  You can't turn off quantum entanglement, it's fundamental?  So, what was the question again?


> I agree completely. I hate when people reformulate the description of a phenomenon using a specific effect and then the journalists say that the effect "causes" the phenomenon.

But quantum entanglement is supposed to be different from any other physical phenomena. How is it possible to describe something which was described in conventional way using this metaphysical phenomena of quantum entanglement.

I thought that quantum entanglement became uncontrollable just to please Mr. Einstein's relativity theory which is invalid. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light! You should chant this "ultimate truth".  Mr. Smith, it is impossible for a wave to have both group speed  and phase speed the same unless it is light wave according to SR.

Well what? It is also known that sound wave in the air have the same group speed and phase speed. Something funny indeed.

I have to ask what is happening to Uncle Einstein. Asking these things to other physicists will end up with being called with name.

Sorry I ended up with the same old issue.

Best regards,

AKT

P.S.: Now I am serious. This is a contradiction emanating from SR. SR's wave tranformation is false. SR is inconsistent.

Have a good day folks.

• 582 Days Ago
• 07/08/2010

A little lesson on logic

[1]. Mr. Smith claims that from d=vt,PoR we cannot deduce GT. The standard deduction is in virtually all textbooks. GT is obtained directly by applying PoR to d=vt.  As a mathematical logician I have not seen anything wrong with this deduction.

In mathematics and logic it is know that it is much easier to show something exist than to show that it does not exist. To show existence, all one has to do is to search for it. For example, all one has to do to show that solution to a differential equation exists requires nothing more than actually constructing a solution, which usually engineers are very good at. However, when it comes to showing that something does not exist, as our search  space is infinite, we cannot use this search method. All mathematicians can do is to deploy sophisticated proof by contradiction method. This is beyond those who are trained in empirical sciences such as physics. For example, to show that realistic interpretation of QM is "impossible" Physicist Kochen had to ask mathematical logician Specker for assist. Their result which used proof by contradiction  was mathematically correct but the physical interpretation of the result done by Kochen was false. David Bohm showed that their interpretation was wrong by presenting a realistic QM.

Godel took terribly complicated mathematical steps to show that his sentence of first order arithmetic which interpret as the consistency of the first order arithmetic is not provable, i.e. there is no proof for this sentence in first order arithmetic. Here situation is way more sophisticated than Kochen-Specker theorem. He first had to represent the deduction system of first order arithmetic by first order arithmetic itself this process is called arithmetisation (Godelisation) of the first order arithmetic. Then assuming that there is a proof for his consistency sentence, he drove a logical contradiction.

In this sense, I suspect that it is rather difficult to prove that from d=vt and PoR we cannot prove GT. I presume that Mr. Smith has a  revolutionary method to show that something (in this case deduction) does not exist. He has not shown this to us yet.


[2] Mr. Smith touched yet another intrinsic issues of mathematical logic, namely consistency proof for formal logical systems. There are two know ways to present the consistency of a formal logical system. Easier but not terribly satisfactory one is to present a model for the formal system. This method involves first precise specification of the formal process of deduction in the system. This is usually done first by formal precise axiomatisation which involves formal axiomatic system of logic and extra logical axioms of the system. Once this is done, we start interpreting (putting meaning) to all syntactic entities of the language of the formal axiomatic system. Then in this semantic system we show that all formal deducible sentences are true. This involves lengthy and complex induction on the deductive structure of the formal deductive system.

There is yet another way more difficult but way more satisfactory method to do the same job. This is precisely what Gerald Gentzen did. He presented formal axiomatic reasoning systems in the form of natural sequent calculus form. This formal system had advantage over others in directly reasoning about the formal deduction it self. Using this advantage, through terribly complex transfinite induction on the formal structure of proof, he showed that first order arithmetic is consistent, it is incapable of deducing contradiction. This involved astounding intermediate results know as cut elimination theorem and induction elimination theorem. The former showed that in logical reasoning, we need not modes ponens (cut). The second showed that in first order arithmetic we do not need mathematical induction.

Mr. Smith insists that he showed that SR is consistent. What is outstanding here is that he has not come up with even a precise formal specification of SR. This is the very first step for proving consistency  as I explained above.
 
[3] I presented an argument against PoE as follows: Assume that A accelerates away from C with rate a and B accelerates away from C with rate b in opposite direction. Then B accelerates away from A with rate a+b. However this does not mean that A exerted force upon B. So, not all accelerations are related  to forces. This certainly kills Einstein's genius work of PoE. Prof. Jess Brewer of Physics Department of the University of British Columbia responded that I was one of these people who never understood relativity concept. He meant that I was not using relativistic addition of acceleration.

Certainly Prof. Brewer did not understand that PoE is an axiom of GR and when this axiom is introduced, the concept of relativistic addition of acceleration is not developed yet. Using PoE and other assumptions, GR is developed.

The same happened in this blog, when I presented Einstein's thought experiment for the loss of simultaneity. I started, as Einstein did, with assuming that a train runs on a track. Lightning strikes points A and B of the ground when a passenger on the train is on the right bisector of AB. Mr. Smith, an American graduate student of physics who is taking a graduate course in QFT, responded asking in which frame's time. I reminded him that when Einstein considered this thought experiment, SR was not developed. Einstein used this thought experiment to frame SR. So, the loss of simultaneity (which as I showed is false) was not developed yet. This thought experiment was to introduce loss of simultaneity.

These two incidents exposes some disturbing culture of theoretical physics. For those who develop a theory, the process of developing a theory is well understood as they went through it. Likely it is the most important and interesting part of the whole business.

Furthermore this is essential for confused physicists to avoid "self-refutation" which plagued physics since it started. When we build a theory upon assumptions and some basic consequences of the assumptions, we cannot develop the theory towards undermining these assumptions and basic results. Doing so leads us to inconsistent theory. It is astounding that the king of science who enjoyed so many "geniuses" does not understand this basic rational of human understanding.

I can pinpoint what went really wrong with Einstein's genius. When he considered the thought experiment against simultaneity, he was already depending upon a fixed classical space time. Upon this, he developed a false conclusion that the classical space time if false. If the classical space time is false, his thought experiment is also false. Logically speaking, the error of Einstein was that, just like Kochen who interpreted the contradiction obtained by Specker wrong, Einstein interpreted the apparent contradiction of the simultaneity wrong. It was not the assumption of classical space time which was wrong, it was the concept of reference frames which was wrong. All Einstein's thought experiments showed was that the theory of relativity based upon inertial reference frames is invalid at the pain of contradiction.



Best regards,

AKT

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/09/2010

Does it really work?

When presented irrefutable arguments against relativity theory, defenders of this theory responded saying but it works. I have examined this claim seriously and came up to the conclusion that nothing was really experimentally verified when it comes to relativity theory. I have already posted a series of articles in this blog. They are titled "BUT IT WORKS?"

Best regards,

AKT

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/09/2010

Photons?

I have posted articles regarding the definition of photons. I pointed out that there are so many different concepts of photons floating around Quantum Field Theory and the standard model.

They are

1. Planck's photon, which is just a quanta of energy. He did not say it is a particle and he said nothing about the rest mass and speed.

2. Einstein's photon which is supposed to be quanta of em waves. He however failed to quantise em wave equations to obtain photons. He claimed that it is a quantum particle for em waves. Against Uncertainty Principle, it has trajectories. He claimed that it has speed c and rest mass 0. This assumption, introduced to accommodate photons to SR,  contradicts SR at the length contraction formula

d=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

3. Dirac's photons are introduced as quanta of em field. It is different from Einstein's photon as em field and em waves are different. Moreover, Dirac's photons are mathematically defined by second quantising em fields. Einstein's photons have no clear connection with em waves as Einstein failed to present mathematical process of quantising em waves.

Upon this criticism Mr. Smith presented two "new" definitions of photons. In the setting of modern QFT. Despite his claim that it unifies all of the three definitions above, he has not come up with theoretical substantiation of his claim. Without this, all he did was just to add even more confusion to already utterly confused situation.


Best regards,

AKT

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/09/2010

Good grief, another confusion?

>> [Me] I am saying that in mathematics we do not move points in geometric spaces.

> [Mr. Smith] But in math, you do add extra dimensions to represent functions. Would you say that (x, t) = (1, 2) and (x, t) = (2, 3) are the same point being moved? I would hope not.

Newton never moved any geometric point at all. He used Euclidean geometric space to represent the location of a point mass. He moved point mass inside the coordinated Euclidean space. So, a point mass moves but no geometric point moves.

Mr. Smith has a terrific difficulty in discerning what is represented (semantic) and what is representing it (syntax). It is a well-know fact among (pure) mathematicians and logicians that the failure to discern syntax and semantics lead to contradictions, called semantic paradoxes. For example "A word which cannot be expressed by less than 100 characters." This paradox is known as Richard paradox. You can think of "I am a liar." too.

Novices think that these are just word games without understanding the deep philosophical and mathematical implication of it. For example, I think that if we are to be able to prove that the axiomatic set theory ZFC is inconsistent, as ZFC apparently removed all possibility of syntactic paradoxes, the only possibility is to prove Richard paradox on the ordinals.  This involves terribly nasty Godelisation of ZFC using ZFC's internalisation of first order arithmetic. My coauthor Proof. Dr. Peter Apostoli and I tried this and almost nailed it but it did not go through as the axiom of regularity is first order in ZFC. This axiom is suppose to represent well-foundedness of ZFC sets which is a mathematical property which requires second order language to represent fully.

Of course what Mr. Smith kindly showed us  is nothing but the sloppy tradition of the followers of Newton. As a theologian, Newton never made any mistake like this.

This kind of ignorance of mathematics naturally lead to all kind of complete mathematical nonsense in physics.

Let me go back to the question he asked. Mathematically, (1,2) and (2,3) are entirely different geometric points in R^2. Neither (1,2) nor (2,3) move at all. If you interpret these points in time space, then it represent the displacement (of a point mass) from position 2 to 3 which took in the time interval between 1 and 2. Mathematically no point moved.

This simple fact I learned in G10 in Japanese secondary school. I heard that in Soviet Union, students who were talented in science learned this in middle schools.  

Naturally this kind of confusion on representing motions in 3D space in 4D space time lead to utter nonsense which Einsteinians such as Mr. Smith embrace. If one cannot understand the simplest fact on the Newtonian motion, he should not go into graph representation of it. This is why Mr. Smith WRONGLY thinks that the nasty contradictions in the moving reference frames disappear in the 4D space time. No wonder they ended up with things like QFT and standard model.

Physicists in general know little about mathematics but they think they know. They try to preach "mathematics" to professional mathematicians.  When they are cornered mathematically, they all say but it works.

I know many terrific economists who use way more advanced mathematics than mathematical physics. They are excellent mathematicians but they certainly have respect to pure mathematics. They listen to us instead of preaching us on mathematics.

Best regards,

AKT

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/09/2010

Mr. Smith

>> I summarise the contradictions:

>> 1. From the axioms {d=vt,PoR,CSL}  of SR, we can prove both GT and LT. Indeed, Einstein used GT to prove LT.

> No, we cannot prove GT. I will address your erroneous proof of GT when I come to it. Einstein did not use GT in his derivation of LT.

Read any textbook on physics, you will see how to prove GT from d=vt and PoR. For example "Principle of Modern Physics" by Miller and Ashby. In this book you will see how Einstein proved LT by applying Time Dilation and Length Contraction to GT. If you look at LT it is obvious that LT is nothing but modification of GT by TD and LC. Lorentz however derived LT differently as he did not believe in relativity. It is a folklore that LT was obtained by using clock and rod. Rod and clocks were never used in the derivation of TD and LC. They were introduced later to make it easier to understand TD and LC. LD was obtained by considering the light path. No rod involved. Once LC is obtained using the kinematics, Einstein obtained TD. Read the book and you will see.



>>  2. Following Einstein, assume that a train runs on a track and points A and B on the ground are hit by lightning when an observer on the train is on the right bisector of AB.

> You say these thing all happen at the same time, implying that they are all simultaneous in all frames, even though you have not proved that simultaneity is absolute. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

This is not what I assumed. It was Einstein who did it to set up the thought experiment. However, you are mistaken on this, Einstein never assumed that the simultaneity of A and B hit on the ground is true for all frames. it is your incapability to think logically which has become so clear in your postings which made you think in this way.

Einstein then went on to consider what happens from the observer in the train's perspective. That he is on the perpendicular bisector of AB can redily be achieved by drawing the bisector on the ground. Both ground frame and train's frame will agree on this. So everything is set OK. Think before you jump into hasty conclusions.

Now Einstein observes that this observer in the train will observe that A and B are hit at different time using "classical" argument. I showed that he will observe that they are hit at the same time because of the CSL. CSL says that the light path and speed of  light is independent upon the inertial motion of the emitter of light. So, this shows that already at this level {d=vt,PoR,CSL} is inconsistent.

>> 3. In the thought experiment for the length contraction presented by Einstein, when we consider the point from which light is emitted towards the moving mirror as a point in the frame of the ground, we have the length contraction. But when we consider that it is a point in the frame of the moving mirror, we have not the length contraction.

> Whether there is length contraction depends on the frame. This is not a contradiction.The behavior of the system will be identical in both cases.

It is only in your wrong understanding of what Einstein did. Read Miller and Ashby.

>> 4. Assume a train runs on a track. At a moment the train marks the track at the front and the tail.

> You say a moment, implying that groups of events that happen simultaneously in one frame are also simultaneous in all frames. This is not an axiom and you have not proved it, so you cannot assume it. Simple logic.

You should study SR more deeply. You know virtually nothing about it just like all relativists. <G> You know nothing about logic either. Logic is not what confused physicists think. Please stop embarrassing yourself by mentioning logic without understanding it. You know nothing about how to do frame analysis. No wonder everything is completely messed up in SR.

Einstein correctly observed that we can synchronise clocks everywhere in one frame. All one has to do is to make a protocol so that at location O light signal is emitted at 12:00 o'clock. Then at a location x km away from O, whet they see the light signal, they set the clock to 12:00+x/c. Einstein used this argument to deal with the Doppler effect on time which is caused by the finiteness of the speed of light, not by TD. It is clear that a clock moving towards you will appear to speed up and that moving away from you will appear to slow down. This is a problem as this dilation or contraction of clock reading is linear to the speed of the moving clock. So, in most range of speed this supersedes relativistic TD. Einstein removed this by placing synchronised clocks everywhere in the frame of the of the clock. Then the observer can see the time of the clock's frame by looking at the near by clock. This eliminates the Doppler effect on time. This however undermines the most important symmetry among the Poincre symmetry. Time now depends upon the translation. Time you observe in other frame depends upon which clock you are looking at. So, time is dependant on the location of the clock.

Anyhow to make the story short, the train can mark A and B at the same time for the ground frame by looking at the synchronised clocks at the front and the tail at the same time. So there is no synchronisation problem here. 

>> 5. Assume two bikers A and B run on a road with same velocity. Assume A emits light signal towards B. In biker's frame B will receive the light signal. But in the frame of the road, the light misses B.

> No. You assume that the light will travel perpendicularly to the path of the road in both frames. However, using the relativistic addition of velocities formula, we find that in the road's frame the light travels at a different angle than in the bikers frame. If you do the math, you will find that it is just the right angle to hit B.

You do not understand anything about SR just like all confused  relativists who think Einstein was a genius as he proved c+c=c. Relativistic addition of speed does not apply to v=c. Do not just look at formulas but try to understand how the formula was obtained. Physicist do not know how to think and yet they preach logic. What kind of "scietists" are they? Anyhow you do not need to go all the way to the derivation of the relativistic addition of speed. This is an immediate consequence of the CSL. The speed and the light path of light is independent upon the inertial motion of the emitter of light. 

As I have been saying, I am not your teacher, you should learn physics before you make embarrassing sweeping statements.


>>  6. The relativistic energy E=mc^2 is NOT an equation for a particle without momentum.

> If you mean E = m_r*c^2 then you are right, but if you mean E = m_0*c^2 then you are wrong. Judging by this statement, I will assume that you mean the first one.

Yes. I never talked about  the second one.

>> m is relativistic mass which means that the particle is moving with speed v. It also has rest mass m_0 which is not zero. SR claims that energy equation for particles with momentum is E=sqrt((m0c^2)^2+(pc)^2).

> This is all correct.

>> They do not agree.

> They do agree. m_r = sqrt(m_0^2+(p/c)^2), so m_r*c^2 = sqrt((m0c^2)^2+(pc)^2).

If they agree then 7) does not happen. Try
m_r=m_0/sqrt(1-(v/c)). you are going around acircle. Self-fulfilling argument.

>>  7. c^2(E/c^2)^2-p^2 is relativistic invariant.


>> Combining this with the energy momentum equation, we can conclude that E is relativistic invariant.



> No, we cannot. Please tell me what steps you used, so I can show you where you made an error.

Substitute p^2 obtainable fro the energy momentum relation to this formula and see, everything except E are constants.

>> 8. According to wave transformation of SR,
v_g = c^2(k/af) = c^2/w
where v_g is the group speed, af is angular momentum and w is phase speed. This means unless the wave has phase speed c, either phase speed or group speed exceeds c. According to SR, nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Moreover, we know that sound wave has phase speed which is the same as group speed and they are not c.

> This equation only applies to light waves, so of course v_g = w = c. Why do you think that it applies to sound waves?


De Broglie did not think so. Einstein did not think so. In SR as I said in the post to which you responded waves are treated just as equations. Look at relativistic Doppler's effect on waves. No mention of the medium of the waves. This is of course the only thing SR can do. it is supposed to be a theory which excludes mediums. So, we can apply wave transformations to wave equation of sounds getting the contradiction I mentioned. There is no way to remove this contradiction as no axiomatic system is allowed to make oracle to outside world. Of course this is the reason why nobody takes SR seriously. For example, the relativistic Doppler shift does not  give energy shift even for light waves.

> > 9. SR is framed by many thought experiments Einstein presented. All of which according to the light cone interpretation are invalid. So, SR contradicts its own foundation.


> What do you meant by "light cone interpretation". Please be more explicit about where the contradiction is.

It says that there is no causality between two events which happens beyond the time wise distance. This means that SR does not deal with the event associated with the light emission and reception. This makes all thought experiments used to frame SR invalid. It is a proclamation that we do not consider v larger or equal to c. Annoyingly, you guys play double game here. sometimes v can be c as you  did in your "counter argument" for the bikers paradox. Also Einstein became a house hold name by showing c+c=c. He also plugged in c in the relativistic addition of speed.



Mr. Smith, I do not mind teaching you physics as long as you behave as respectful science student. This means that I want you to think through before you make thoughtless hasty statements. Most of the questions you asked are rather trivial things. In the old world we do not spoon feed students. When I went to UK to start my Ph.D. program, my advisor gave me three books and five papers. He told me to study all of them and come back to his office if I had anything worthwhile to say on them. No HWs, no credit courses. I had to do all study by myself and only after I published a paper he took me as a researcher.

Also I think we are all students here. We are here to learn from each other. So please lift your standard up so that you can teach me somthing too.

Best regards,

AKT

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/09/2010

Train and pit

Re: Train falls into a pit which is shorter than the train.

>>  Normal people do not understand what you physicist say. So, who is the "lunatic fringe"?

> Do you think the average person on the street understands even Newtonian mechanics? Most people simply do not care to learn physics.

Mr. Smith, it is my conclusion that physicists do not understand Newtonian physics. I said that Newton was a great improvement to all of his successors. You certainly do not understand Newtonian kinematics. You cannot discern moving point mass and stationary geometric point. If you understand this difference you do not go for the stupid thing Minkowski and Schwartz Shield did. 4D space time is completely inadequate because of this difference. A system of gravitational motions is not a geometry, though a single motion can be represented as a graph in the 4D space time.   Why do you look down upon general public because you think they do not understand Newtonian mechanics?


>> So what happens if the train stops? Does it regain the original length?  How long does it shrink in physical actuality also depend upon who is witnessing it.

> Yes. Strange as this may seem I have proven it to be consistent.

I have not seen the proof yet. To begin with what do you mean by "consistent". Logically speaking it makes zero sense to say that a prediction of a theory is consistent. Your inexperience on logical thinking is sticking its ugly head here again.

>> Decent physicists will say enough is enough. You are violating the second law of physics as Tom Miller Gulland, a renown dissident in NPA, puts it.

> This is just an appeal to authority.

This is juvenile "revolutionary" attitude. It is a serious responsibility of physicists to remove mutual inconsistency of two different theories, SR and thermodynamics in particular here.

Best regards,

AKT

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/09/2010

Critical v.s. revolutionary

Mr. Smith I have lived long enough to learn the difference between being critical and being revolutionary.

>> So what happens if the train stops? Does it regain the original length?  How long does it shrink in physical actuality also depend upon who is witnessing it.

> Yes. Strange as this may seem I have proven it to be consistent.

I have not seen the proof yet. To begin with what do you mean by "consistent". Logically speaking it makes zero sense to say that a prediction of a theory is consistent. Your inexperience on logical thinking is sticking its ugly head here again.

Let us go  into the issue now. Whatever the proof you have, it is false. I have already shown that SR contradicts at the length contraction. This contradiction manifests in this train pit setting as follows:

Assume a train runs on a track with a constant speed. Assume we place all synchronised clocks along the track. This is possible by the method I explained. Under the protocol that at location O at 12:00 light signal is flashed. Then at a location which is x [km] away from O when this signal is observed we set the clock at 12:00+x/c.

Then a person at the front of the train mark the track when he observes that the clock on the track right in front of him is say 12:00. At the rear of the train another person does the same thing when he observes that the clock on the track right in front of him is 12:00. Let A and B are the points on the track marked. Then the ground observer can measure the length of the running train as the length  d of the line segment AB.

But according to SE's length contraction, he will observe the length of the train shorter than d.

The former uses direct measurement which does not use optical instruments. The latter is optical measurement.

As the former is simpler than the latter, it is natural to conclude that there is something wrong with the optical method (LC).

Also, as I showed, SR itself deduces both LC and its negation. When we consider that the point from which light was emitted towards a moving mirror is a point of the frame of the track, LC is deduced. When we consider this point to be a point in the frame of the moving mirror, negation of LV is deduced. So, what is groundless is LC itself and SR. 

In either way the LC is invalid.

I have been very critical but I am not a revolutionary. Being critical is matured act. being revolutionary is juvenile act.

The last century was marred by the juvenile acts of all kinds of revolutionaries. In physics we had relativity theory and quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics. I heard a laughable nonsense that in physics on has to be below mid 20's to do creative work. "creativity without critical thinking" is nothing but disasters. In politics the last century was marred by the worst political revolutionary ideologies  in human history such as  Bolshevism, Fascism, religous fundamentalism  and NEOCON.

Critical people try to see false in anything presented. I am critical of classical physics and modern physics.


Best regards,

AKT

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/09/2010

Photon again

Mr. Smith questioned the connection between photons and Uncertainty Principle. He thinks that photon obeys Uncertainty Principle.

Photons satisfy uncertainty principle only as waves not as particles. So, photons have trajectories. According to QM, no particles have trajectories.

Best regards,

AKT

• 579 Days Ago
• 07/11/2010

Mr. Smith

Hello Mr. Smith,


>> I said it is not even a theory. it is just a hypothesis which did not make any mathematical sense.

> I don't agree with pilot wave theory either, but it is mathematically consistent.

Mr. Smyth, I urged you to study pure mathematics and logic before you make this kind of sweeping statement. I have difficulty in  following your flip flop in your opinion. You first said that the De Blogile's equation on connection between group speed and phase speed was false.

Please tell me what do you really mean by De Broglie's "theory" which is nothing but a bunch of hypothesis is mathematically consistent. I can not stop feeling confused by that those who bash the critics of SR as those who do not understand "simple logic" can be this much sloppy about logic. 


I think I made it clear in this blog that unintentionally De Broglie paved a path to an "inconsistency" proof of Einstein's relativistic theory of waves rather.

>>> So, photons have trajectories.

>> No, they don't.

>> Learn optics. Light path itself is the trajectory.

> Learn quantum optics. Light only has paths in classical optics.

So, where is the classical limit of Quantum mechanics which you claimed in recent past?


> We do not see exact, trajectories, since the bubble chambers are not infinitely precise. This is permitted. Quantum physics allows uncertain trajectories, just not exact ones. After all, a trajectory is just a sequence of locations and quantum physics allows uncertain positions but not exact ones.

I do not see your logic. Just before this you claimed that in quantum optics, photons have no trajectory. As I said and you omitted, the concept of photons have no meaning as there are so many different definitions of photons. So, I made it clear that we need not any "development" of quantum theory of photons. None of such attempt makes any sense at all. Quantum optics people should really question what they are doing. They are building a castle upon dung heap. As long as the whole issue of contemporary theory of "photons" stay in this complete incoherence, I said we might as well just stick to the classical optics and consider the light path of classical theory as the trajectory of photons.

I do not know if you do it on purpose or you do not see your logical flaw, but it annoys me that you misrepresent (misunderstand) what the issue is and lead the discussion to diverging direction.

All of the problems we are dealing with will resolved if you can present a convincing coherent definition of photons which somehow unify all of these troubled definitions of photons.

Best regards,

AKT

BTW, I am still waiting eagerly for your proof that SR is consistent.

• 578 Days Ago
• 07/12/2010

Consistency of relativity theory

Hello Mr. Smith.


>> A location on the track is a point on the coordinate which represent track. Time is represented by a coordinate orthogonal to the track coordinate. (1,2) represents that a train is at position 2 km away from the origin of the track at time (2,47) represents  that the train is at a position 47 km away from the origin of the track at time 2. etc. etc.  The continuous motion of the train can be represented by a curve on this coordinate system. But (1,2), (2,47) etc do not move at all. Contrary to your confusion none of these points move.

> The points do not move. A Lorentz transformation does not move the points it relabels them. In your train example, we could move the origin and call the points (0, 0) and (1, 45). This would change the way we label the points with numbers, but it would not move them. (Of course we must realize that you cannot compare the coordinates points in two frames without transforming them into the same frame.) A Lorentz transform is almost the same thing. Assuming that time was measured in seconds and speed in km, then, moving to a new frame, we could call the points (0, 0) and (0.999999989, 0). They are the same points, but with different labels. Like in the first example where we moved the origin, the laws of physics do not change, just the variables. A Galilean transformation could do something similar but, instead of (0.999999989, 0), we would get (1, 0). Note that the time coordinate did not change, because Galilean transformations preserve simultaneity. The Galilean transformation would be wrong, since the form of the laws of physics would need to change in order to still get the right answers, and they would need to change in a different way for each possible transform. You can see that (0.999999989, 0) and (1, 0) are very close, which is why it took us so long to discover that Galilean transformations are only an approximation to a true description of reality.

I am not talking about Lorentz transformation. I am talking about the basic theory of inertial frames upon which both Galilean and Einsteinian relativity theory are developed. Lorentz Transformation is sitting upon this base and all logically minded people readily agree that when this foundation collapses the whole relativity theory collapse.


The problem here, I repeat again and again and again, my friend, is that the theory of inertial reference frames upon which Einstein developed used moving reference frames to build all thought experiments needed to frame the theory. The very concept of reference frames moving is mathematically invalid as reference frames are nothing but coordinated geometric space. No point in a geometric space moves. How in the world can an entire geometric space move?



>> This is precisely the problem with Einstein's genius. It is not fixed stationary train track Einstein is dealing with. he is trying to capture the gravitational dynamics of our universe.

> Not in SR.

I do not think you can carry out discussions of some decent scientific standard in this way. This quote  comes from a much larger very important context. You as usual omit vital part of the context and just pick one line to make your "points' which is usually flat wrong and have no relevance to the issue discussed. Please learn to discuss decently. I am getting rather frustrated by your manipulation.

I am disturbed  by your twisting of the discussion indeed. I am saying that in GR, Einstein failed to capture the gravitational dynamics of the entire star systems. I am saying that the universe is dynamic and cannot be formulated in the way Schwaltz Schield did. To protect Einstein's honor, let me add that  Einstein rejected the current form of GR which was created by this German pseudo mathematician and Minkowski.  Due to the gravitation, all stars keep moving in our universe and we cannot capture this dynamics using current formulation of GR. This theory can deal with only how a test particle will move in the stationary universe. This is analogous to my reference to the train diagram which assumes that the there is no dynamic change in the train track itself. No stations, no crossings etc. will move along the track.

I have been making  sincere effort to discuss with you.  I do not appreciate irrelevant thoughtless sweeping statement without substantiation.



> Raymond Cote of NPA described this situation "good only for test particle."

Can I have some context? He could have meant anything.

The context is in what you omitted in your quote. Also as I said many times, and you keep ignoring, GR in its original form could not handle expanding universe for this precise reason. Einstein rejected the view that this universe is not stationary.

>> GR is not something which can handle cosmology. GR is good only for a stationary universe

> No, GR can model very complex motion, it is just harder to do the calculations.

The problem of multi body problem even in classical dynamics is  known to be impossible to be dealt with analytically.  All we can do is to find numerical solutions. But at least, in  classical theory can specify the entire dynamics mathematically.

>> in which something moves such as the stupid light bend problem which was "experimentally verified" by the faked data on Sir Arthur Eddington.

> It has been verified many times since.

It does not save the face and credibility of theoretical physics which promoted lies. Eddington, and JJ Thomson lied to the public. They blackmailed Royal Society. I am saying that this problem which was marred from the start by lies is a trivial test particle problem which has no significance in real physical world. it is a problem which is good only for undergraduate HW in the US universities. Please do not diverge from the issue. 

> This is why Einstein had to consider cosmological constant to make the universe expand.

> No, he introduced the CC because he was uncomfortable with the fact that GR predicted that the universe would expand. He abandoned it once this prediction that he had originally considered a flaw was backed up by experiment.

History tells other wise. It is amusing as Raymond Cote pointed out that academic physics revise the history of physics. He first believed that the universe was stable. This is precisely what the original GR assumed. Einstein later changed his view.

>> But expansion of the universe and the internal gravitational dynamics of the universe as per the massive system of moving stars are different things. This problem cannot be handled by Einstein's GR.

> The laws of physics apply to everything. GR makes the right predictions in both cases.

What do you understand about Einstein's theory. It is not something which can be understood or analised by people with the so called theoretical physics background. It is not physics. It is metaphysics. Space time is metaphysics as Mendel incisively state in his book "Mathematical Physics".

After all what you are saying has nothing to do with what I was talking about. That we cannot use diagram to deal with the situation where the stations and bridges etc are changing their location does not talk about "laws of physics". It is talking about the wrong mathematical formulation of the situation. In this sense, GR is based upon the wrong mathematical formulation.

Just read Karl Popper and you will see that there is no such thing as Laws of Physics. Popper correctly understood that all empirical theories are dealing with contingent truth. All of them must be empirically falsified in the development of physics. So, Laws of physics are time dependent. To begin with it was  ignorance of Galileo and Einstein to assume that there is such thing as permanent laws of physics. So, the whole concept of PoR is false, invalid. This is yet anther deep problem with any kind of theory which uses PoR.

>> I made it clear that you do not understand Newtonian mechanics either.

> Why do you think this? Because of your misinterpretations of my comments about space time?

Your made no scientific sense. It is very clear even within this communication. You did not understand the issue I brought up and you "responded" without reasoning. Of course this is all one can do when he quote out of context and "respond".

> When an axiomatic system deduces both A and notA the theory is inconsistent. When this happens the law of logic takes over and the so called "deductive explosion" takes place allowing the theory to deduce anything. If you understand logic, a very very basic one, you will see that LC is not an axiomatic reasoning system.

>  I agree.

Oh really?  I presented so many contradictions coming from the basic assumptions on the inertial frames and axioms {d=vt,PoR,CSL} which is called SR.


> I think this is more straightforward than my original proof.

> Theorem: A certain Hamiltonian system, which could be described as SR applied to point masses (it's really more of the same to apply it to other stuff) makes unique predictions for any set of initial conditions and these predictions are not modified by Lorentz transforms.

> The energy of a system is given by E = [sum over all p_i](sqrt(m_0^2 * c^4 + p_i^2 * c^2)), where m_0 is the rest mass and p_i is the canonical momentum in direction #i. The behavior of the system can be determined given its initial state using Hamilton's equations. The velocity of any particle in direction #i is dx_i/dt = dE/dp_i = p_i*c^2/[sum over all p_j](sqrt(m_0^2*c^4 + p_j^2*c^2)) = p_i*c^2/sqrt(E^2) = p_i*c^2/E. The numerators dx_i and p_i*c^2 both transform the same way under the Lorentz transformations, that is to say that if both members of all such pairs are equal to the same factor (call it u_i for pair #i) times a Lorentz invariant (ie dx_i = u_i*sqrt(dt^2 - sum over all x_j(dx_j^2)) and p_i*c^2 = u_i*m_0*c^2) in one frame, this must hold in every frame. If they are proportional, as was shown, they must therefore be proportional in all frames since the u_i's cancel and the rest is invariant under Lorentz transforms. The same argument applies to the denominators (dt = w*sqrt(dt^2 - sum over all x_j(dx_j^2)) and E*c^2 = w*m_0*c^2). Transforming from one frame to another is therefore simply a matter of replacing the u_i's and w's, so dx_i/dt = dE/dp_i holds in all frames if it holds in one.


If you present this "proof" of consistency of SR to a starting student of mathematical logic, he will just laugh his head off.  You have no definition of SR as an axiomatic system. As I keep saying the concept of inconsistency by definition is associated with axiomatic deduction system. It is a property of axiomatic deductive system, We say an axiomatic theory T is consistent iff it does not deduce all sentences of the theory. You have not shown anything at all about the consistency of SR. All of this clearly proves that you do not understand logic at all and you make sweeping statement on logic. I do not consider these people as scientists.

You do not understand what is SR and this is: why you cannot prove its consistency?

As I said repeatedly, proving consistency of even a simple deductive system is quite involved. It can never be done by those who cannot specify what their theory is about in precise way.

As an exercise tell me how one can prove the consistency of formal propositional calculus. This is the absolute  minimal to understand how the consistency proof of formal theories work.


>>> I meant that the theory is consistent, despite appearing 'strange' to the layman.

>> What theory? You said LC is consistent.

> I meant to say that the theory of SR is consistent.

The proble here is that it is physicists who are layman when we consider the concistency problem. You understand asbolutely nothing about it as you have proved in this blog repeatedly. It is not only you. All physictsts are completely ignorant of rational thinking. The so called"defense" of SR presented vividly shows that these people go overbord and make sweeping stetemtn on what they do not understand at all.

You do not know what SR is. If you know you should specify it precisely and prove its consistency. Of course you must define formal propositional calculus and show its consistency. Only after that you may take part in some very elementary discussions on the consistency of SR.

>>  SR is inconsistent and so it is mutually inconsistent with all other theories regardless of the consistency issue of them.

> I agree that any inconsistent theory is inconsistent when combined with any other theory. Why did you bring up thermodynamics at all?

Ha, you said that SR might be inconsistent but GR resolved the problem. GR is a logical extension of SR. Einstein knew better than you. He admitted that iif SR fails then the entire GR fails. Apparently everybody in the academic physics believe that all of these existing mutually inconsistent theories (some of which are internally inconsistent) can be extended into a "consistent"  unified theory? Is academic physics a mad house?


Best regards,

AKT

• 578 Days Ago
• 07/12/2010

no subject

> > You first said that the De Blogile's equation on connection between group speed and phase speed was false.

> Sorry, I misread your equation.

Don't be sorry.

> The equation is correct (at least as an approximation, though the refinements are not relevant to my rebuttal).

I am sure as usual you are mixing up so many different "theories" in your "refinement". Physicists have no understanding of the assumptions upon which  their reasoning (if any) is standing. This is why they end up with undermining their assumptions in the further development of their theory. In the normal world of normal people, once this happens, we just ignore such "reasoning" as madness. People have been too polite too physicist I presume.

> Your real error is assuming that phase speed of a wave corresponds to motion.

I am not assuming anything. I am just asking questions about De Broglie's hypothesis. I do not even think that his idea of associating a particle in motion with mathematical wave makes sense.

> If one part of the wave were changed by the application of a force, than the effects would propagate along the wave slower than the speed of light.

I do not know what do you mean by applying force to waves. We are discussing the transformation of mathematical waves, which are just cos functions from T*S to S. This is all SR can handle as SR is a theory over vacuums. 

> The phase speed is not real motion, but an illusionary motion caused by different parts of the wave being coordinated in advance.

The phase speed is the speed of the wave front.

> In the full Schrödinger's equation, this coordination is not used as a simplifying assumption, so it is possible to mathematically see that the FTL effects are illusionary.

Nobody but you is talking about Schrodinger's equation. De Broglie transformed general mathematical representation of wave as a cos function over S*T to S.

>> Please tell me what do you really mean by De Broglie's "theory" which is nothing but a bunch of hypothesis is mathematically consistent.

> The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics is mathematically equivalent to normal QM. I am not familiar with the exact equations since I do not agree with this interpretation, but they should be easy to find. If you want, I will look them up for you.

If you said this when I was a graduate student, you would have been kicked out of school. De Broglie's pilot wave "theory" was considered to be a contempt of Copenhagen as in Copenhagen there is no trajectory.

Bohm's QM has little to do with De Broglie's pilot wave theory. Bohm transforms Schrodinger's waves into two parts, particle equation in classical form and  quantum potential equation which causes qm effect on the particles. Bohm's theory is not relativistic. I do not know why you say Bohm-De Broglie qm. Indeed, as Bohm ignored relativity theory, Einstein did not support Bohm when Bohm needed his support badly.

After all Bohm's theory and Copenhagen are entirely different theory. The former treats time as observable while the latter reject time as observable. It may be that for some experiments they are pretty much the same thing but mathematically they are entirely things.


>>> Light only has paths in classical optics.

>> So, where is the classical limit of Quantum mechanics which you claimed in recent past?

> Light does have approximate, uncertain paths. As the length or scales or the energy of the photons become larger, these paths become more and more precise and closer and closer to the classical theory.

This is just a layman's speculation. I m asking a more general issues. I said, what is the classical limit from QM to classical theory. Moreover, there is no such thing as photons until physicists present a coherent general concept of photons which "unifies" all existing mutually contradicting definitions of photons. Good luck.

>>> Quantum physics allows uncertain trajectories, just not exact ones. After all, a trajectory is just a sequence of locations and quantum physics allows uncertain positions but not exact ones.

>> I do not see your logic. Just before this you claimed that in quantum optics, photons have no trajectory.

>>> Photons have no exact trajectory but they do have uncertain trajectories.

>> As I said and you omitted, the concept of photons have no meaning as there are so many different definitions of photons.

> I gave the most modern definition of photon. All others are either mathematically equivalent or approximations. This definition has the properties I described in our discussion of quantum optics. Other definitions are only in use to make the math easier. For example, a simple modification of the Klein–Gordon equation is enough for almost all practical applications of quantum optics.

I have already told  you this many times: You did not provide a scientifically acceptable argument which proves that the "modern" definition of photons can integrate all existing mutually contradictory definitions of photons. Please be scientific. We are not dealing with indoctrination. We are scientists.

>> As long as the whole issue of contemporary theory of "photons" stay in this complete incoherence, I said we might as well just stick to the classical optics and consider the light path of classical theory as the trajectory of photons.

> No, since the classical theory cannot explain diffraction gratings or lasers, among other things. These inventions only make sense in quantum optics, but are extremely useful. The computer you are using in this debate probably uses a laser to read CDs.

This again has nothing to do with what I have said. Please try to understand what is asked and after thinking through, reply. Thank you.

>>  I do not know if you do it on purpose or you do not see your logical flaw, but it annoys me that you misrepresent (misunderstand) what the issue is and lead the discussion to diverging direction.

> Sorry, I could not think of much to address your concerns about multiple definitions of photons that had not already been said. I do not see why you have a problem with the fact that most of them are approximations and not part of the full theory.

You still do not understand my concern. You just live in your own very limited world.

>> All of the problems we are dealing with will resolved if you can present a convincing coherent definition of photons which somehow unify all of these troubled definitions of photons.

> The second quantized photon with interactions with other particles has all the other definitions as approximations.

Do you really think you have answered the question raised?

Best regards,

AKT

• 578 Days Ago
• 07/12/2010

>>> The points do not move. A Lorentz transformation does not move the points it relabels them. In your train example, we could move the origin and call the points (0, 0) and (1, 45). This would change the way we label the points with numbers, but it would not move them. (Of course we must realize that you cannot compare the coordinates points in two frames without transforming them into the same frame.) A Lorentz transform is almost the same thing. Assuming that time was measured in seconds and speed in km, then, moving to a new frame, we could call the points (0, 0) and (0.999999989, 0). They are the same points, but with different labels. Like in the first example where we moved the origin, the laws of physics do not change, just the variables. A Galilean transformation could do something similar but, instead of (0.999999989, 0), we would get (1, 0). Note that the time coordinate did not change, because Galilean transformations preserve simultaneity. The Galilean transformation would be wrong, since the form of the laws of physics would need to change in order to still get the right answers, and they would need to change in a different way for each possible transform. You can see that (0.999999989, 0) and (1, 0) are very close, which is why it took us so long to discover that Galilean transformations are only an approximation to a true description of reality.

>> I am not talking about Lorentz transformation. I am talking about the basic theory of inertial frames upon which both Galilean and Einsteinian relativity theory are developed. Lorentz Transformation is sitting upon this base and all logically minded people readily agree that when this foundation collapses the whole relativity theory collapse.

> My explanation is a defense of reference frames in general, with Lorentz transformations as a particular example. Please read it again with that in mind.

This again clearly shows that you have no understanding of logic though you make very strong statements on logic. Lorentz transformation is defined on the concept of inertial frames and I have shown that this concept is flawed. How can Lorentz transformation be defended by Lorentz transformation.

It is unfortunate but I have to say that physicists in general have NO understanding of logic and therefore their "theories" make no sense. In Karl Popper's words, their theories are not: All theories must be consistent logically and mathematically. Physics is nothing but embarrassing  exhibit of what proof by examples combined with illogical reasoning can do.

>> The very concept of reference frames moving is mathematically invalid as reference frames are nothing but coordinated geometric space. No point in a geometric space moves. How in the world can an entire geometric space move?

> The space is not actually moving. What is happening is that the transformation equation between two coordinate systems depends on the t coordinate as well as x, y, and z.

What is v in the LT? When I asked this question to Prof. Kitada, who also is a completely lost soul, he said that v is just a number! I told him that then Lorentz transformation (LT) is not a physical transformation as it has physical dimension. It is a well know fact that "none" of those who played roles in framing SR were mathematicians or physicists. A bunch of second rate mathematicians and second rate physicists got together and "banged out" an embarrassing theory. Laymans like you became believers.


>>>> This is precisely the problem with Einstein's genius. It is not fixed stationary train track Einstein is dealing with. he is trying to capture the gravitational dynamics of our universe.

>>> Not in SR.

>> I do not think you can carry out discussions of some decent scientific standard in this way. This quote comes from a much larger very important context. You as usual omit vital part of the context and just pick one line to make your "points' which is usually flat wrong and have no relevance to the issue discussed.

> When I do this it is because I think that I have addressed the rest of your argument in response to a different quote. I only pick individual lines to ma