We have two relativity theories so far-- Einstein's special and general theories dealing respectively with observers in inertial and non-inertial frames. There have been other relativity proposals like quantum relativity, scale relativity etc. I have made a classification of all possible relativity in general in a recent upload to RG. I find that there can be eight relativities in all -- four objective and four subjective. Do you have any more to add or is my classification exhaustive?
It doesn't really work that way, as in there is relativity 1, followed by relativity 2, relativity 3 or whatever.
First, there was only one relativity theory: it was called the theory of relativity, which states that all inertial frames of reference are created equal. (A specific consequence of this general principle is that the laws of electromagnetism are the same in all inertial frames of reference, hence the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.)
The shortcoming of relativity theory at the time was that it applied only to inertial frames. It was Einstein's desire to go beyond inertial frames and formulate a physical theory in which all frames of reference (including non-inertial, e.g., accelerating, rotating frames) are created equal. Part of the process of developing this, the "general(ized)" theory, was the realization that it necessarily has to include gravity, because of the weak equivalence principle. Over the years, on several times Einstein expressed a belief that such a theory is not even possible, but ultimately he succeeded: he created a theory, and more than a theory, a framework for physical theories, which treats all frames of reference on the same footing. This then became the general theory of relativity, and the earlier theory, which is a special case for inertial systems only, became henceforth known as the special theory.
And here is the thing: you cannot go beyond "all". Once a theory treats all frames of reference on an equal footing, you cannot create a theory that treats all frames and then some on an equal footing. There are no more. This is it.
That is not to say that general relativity is the final word on physics! Einstein himself, along with others, struggled with an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to create a theory that incorporates both gravity and electromagnetism. Einstein tried nonsymmetric metrics; Kaluza and Klein, extra dimensions; or Weyl, treating the "linear groundform" (the electromagnetic 4-potential) and the "quadratic groundform" (the spacetime metric) on an equal footing. Ultimately, these attempts were superseded by the rapid development of the quantum theory, which ultimately led to what is today an inelegant but immensely powerful partial unification of three of the four fundamental forces and all known particle fields. But even if Einstein or someone else had been successful with those attempts at classical unification, the result would not have been called the "even more general theory of relativity" or whatever... as unlike the general theory, which was about treating geometric frames of reference on an equal footing, these attempts were about providing a framework for fundamental interactions.
Hello Rajat,
Einstein was able to explain Gravity with help of curvature of space time which lead to 4D world.
Next level would be to unify all 4 fundamental forces with help of curvature of space time alone.
This was Einstein dream which is not yet achieved.
Regards,
Bhushan Poojary
It doesn't really work that way, as in there is relativity 1, followed by relativity 2, relativity 3 or whatever.
First, there was only one relativity theory: it was called the theory of relativity, which states that all inertial frames of reference are created equal. (A specific consequence of this general principle is that the laws of electromagnetism are the same in all inertial frames of reference, hence the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.)
The shortcoming of relativity theory at the time was that it applied only to inertial frames. It was Einstein's desire to go beyond inertial frames and formulate a physical theory in which all frames of reference (including non-inertial, e.g., accelerating, rotating frames) are created equal. Part of the process of developing this, the "general(ized)" theory, was the realization that it necessarily has to include gravity, because of the weak equivalence principle. Over the years, on several times Einstein expressed a belief that such a theory is not even possible, but ultimately he succeeded: he created a theory, and more than a theory, a framework for physical theories, which treats all frames of reference on the same footing. This then became the general theory of relativity, and the earlier theory, which is a special case for inertial systems only, became henceforth known as the special theory.
And here is the thing: you cannot go beyond "all". Once a theory treats all frames of reference on an equal footing, you cannot create a theory that treats all frames and then some on an equal footing. There are no more. This is it.
That is not to say that general relativity is the final word on physics! Einstein himself, along with others, struggled with an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to create a theory that incorporates both gravity and electromagnetism. Einstein tried nonsymmetric metrics; Kaluza and Klein, extra dimensions; or Weyl, treating the "linear groundform" (the electromagnetic 4-potential) and the "quadratic groundform" (the spacetime metric) on an equal footing. Ultimately, these attempts were superseded by the rapid development of the quantum theory, which ultimately led to what is today an inelegant but immensely powerful partial unification of three of the four fundamental forces and all known particle fields. But even if Einstein or someone else had been successful with those attempts at classical unification, the result would not have been called the "even more general theory of relativity" or whatever... as unlike the general theory, which was about treating geometric frames of reference on an equal footing, these attempts were about providing a framework for fundamental interactions.
Thank you Bhusan,
The ultimate unification of all forces is still lacking. Would that be the theory of everything including therein all possible relativities? I think it would only include the simplest kind of objective relativity i.e. frame relativity. Some of the other relativities discovered in QM like contextuality will remain outside.
Thus we are far off.
Rajat
You are right Toth.
The unification would provide only a framework for considering all forces as having originated from one source. The problem is we may discover new forces at planck regime. Then spacetime dimensionality may not be absolutely fixed by the theory from first principles. Consistency requirements as in String theories don't help much in this matter. If at all higher dimensions were compactified on some manifold why they were so compactified and what determined the remaining large dimensions at 3+1. And so on and so forth.
Even when all this is addressed, there remains the problem of the relativities thrown up by quantum measurement theory. We seem to be getting into an abyss of relativities all the way down! I have enumerated them as being eight in total. If tehse eight are tackled we will get to the truly unified TOE.
Rajat
I see you uploaded an abstract if it is the article I think you mean. It might help if I could see the specific to clarify. I published a little article recently on relativity, causality and an expanded gauge group with an eye to combining gravity with the other forces. It is meant to give a maximal expansion of the notion of gauge/relativity in a way that gives all equivalent descriptions of observers that can live in the space itself. I'd like to know if there are any similarities with what you are discussing.
Article Gauge Freedom and Relativity: A Unified Treatment of Electro...
H. Weyl tried relativity of scales. He sketched a theory with scales changing from one point to another. The changes were specified by a vector field such that there is a change in a closed path. This theory was called gauge theory. Passage to quantum mechanics turned changes of scales into that of phase and was interpreted as electrodynamics by Fock and London.
Dear Clifford,
Thank you for the info. I didn't know that only the abstract was uploaded. Anyway, I've sent you the full paper by email. My analysis and classification is quite general and for the first time an exhaustive treatment of all possible relativities is made, out of which only one has been tackled by STR and GTR together which both come under frame relativity which is one of the four possible objective relativities.
Regards,
Rajat
Thank you Zafar for the little piece of information about how scale became gauge. Do you have any knowledge of anyone having classified all possible relativities in science as is done by me? I could not find any and set about doing it and this publication was the result. We are stuck up with only the frame relativity and are unaware of the other seven kinds of relativities staring at us to be tackled in a scientific manner in order for us to have a truly unified TOE.
Regards,
Rajat
Well, there are relativity of phase, of orientation in the local isotopic space and similar in all gauge theories. There also was an idea of Fermi-Bose relativity called supersymmetry, but it has no correct realization. The only way they found is to make spinor components additional dimensions, but it is possible only for flat space-time. Otherwise spinors belong to a non-trivial fiber bundle, therefore their components cannot be coordinates.
Zafar, phase and orientation etc. are already included in my scheme say in frame relativity. Fermi-bose relativity is a duality and it has nothing to do with relativity of observation.
@ George
For example....?
At first I was a bit skeptical but I respect this line of inquiry now that I have seen your paper. I read Max Jammer's book and some other philosophical themed work years ago and have always felt we have relied too much on differential geometry (manifold theory) and Hilbert spaces in our formalism at the expense of serious conceptual discussion.
The motivation for my work above was to give a description of dynamics that incorporated observers in a more general (maximally general?) form than is possible in the point and coordinate approach of manifold theory. Encoding observers in this way is much more subtle and even how to define and prove causality is not obvious (unlike the manifold approach). I'll be interested to see more of how to intend to tackle the problems of subjective measurement and non self adjoint operators.
I would want to contribute to the raised request signaling the Theory of Reference Frames that treats all reference frames, inertial and non-inertial, through one only theory. I am author of this theory and it is described by numerous papers. I attach a file of the paper: "Physico-Mathematical Fundamentals of the Theory of Reference Frames" in order to allow its reading and in case considerations.
Article Physico-Mathematical Fundamentals of the Theory of Reference Frames
Yes, but I meant orientation in the isotopic space or similar. I just try to recall all possible kinds of relativity. Well, any internal symmetry can be visioned as a kind of relativity. They all are already included.
Thank you Zafar.
An internal symmetry is a symmetry, though like in relativity, invariants are there.There are theories which geometrize the internal symmetries in such a way that they also become some sort of example of frame relativity, e.g.kaluza-Klein theories and theories in higher dimensions like string theory, where all internal quantum numbers corresponding to so-called internal symmetries are generated from the original by dimensional reduction and compactification.
It seems without invariants nothing will make sense. If as is sometimes loosely claimed by many, everything were relative, nothing would have been possible, precisely because of relativity!
When are we going to go beyond frame relativities?
Regards,
Rajat
Modern and post-modern physics have emphasized without reason the concept and the role od relativity in physics like the emphasizing of the concept of indeterminacy. The Principle of Relativity defines and describes only the behavior of physical systems with respect to different reference frames that are inertial each other. Inside every reference frame physics of events is defined by fundamental laws of physics and not by relativity. The gravitational field, for instance, has its physical consistency that is independent of the relativity otherwise than agreed in GR that changing the kinematic spacetime considers all is a consequence of the relativity. But this paradigm of relativity isn't the true meaning of the relativity.
Similarly also the general concept of symmetry is related always more to the concept of relativity, but a scrupulous analysis proves often a relativistic event generates the breaking of an initial state of symmetry. Therefore it isn't right to claim "all is relativity", like many say, but the Relativity represents a fundamental principle of physics and of nature on a pair with others.
Dear Rajat Pradhan and Clifford Chafin.
I my opinion the Metric theory of relativity is more common than special and general relativity, see https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Metric_theory_of_relativity . There is also Scale relativity in 5-dimension which is related to Scale dimension, see https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Scale_dimension .
I do not agree with absence of preferred reference frame in your Frame relativity. There is a preferred reference frame where the speed of light is isotropic. It is an axiom of Extended special theory of relativity , see https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Extended_special_theory_of_relativity .
About TOE see the General field, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/General_field .
The Theory of Reference Frames proves a preferred reference frame and a preferred observer exist in physics but it proves also that system and that observer don't have absolute character and consequently the existence of an ether like an absolute reference frame isn't necessary. On the other hand Lorentz's Transformations were demonstrated empirically before by Lorentz and Poincarè, who supposed the existence of ether, and later the same transformations were demonstrated also by Einstein, who instead denied ether. The concept of ether, or of absolute reference frame or still of isotropic reference frame, isn't necessary in physics but simultaneously it is possible to demonstrate numerous contradictions that are present in SR and in the Lorentz Transformations. Attempts of changing the behavior of ether with respect to moving systems involves only an useless complication of mathematical models that describe physical events without it implies theoretical advantages for the understanding of the physical reality. Similarly the introduction of more general symmetries, that have no physical relevance, has only the end to complicate mathematical models and structures that have reached already a highest level of complication without giving some result of greater understanding of the physical reality.
Dear Fedosin and Sosso,
Both of you are right in regard to what you say on the preferred frame. It is logically possible. But: what do you say about these two questions that are addressed in my work.
Is the frame the observer? Or is the observer different from the frame?
Is the observer conscious?
Regards,
Rajat
The reference frame is apparatus for space-time measurements. If it uses a program as in computer it looks like conscious.
In the Theory of Reference Frames (TR) the reference frame is a physico-mathematical structure characterized by a physical spacetime where the event happens and by parameters mathematical like coordinates for the qualitative and quantitative description of the event.
The observer doesn't coincide with the reference frame but he is placed inside. Besides TR demonstrates also the observer has to assume a position of symmetry inside the reference frame in order to eliminate possible errors of measurement, i.e. two different resting (non moving) observers inside the same reference frame can measure different values, for example of time, but the preferred observer is only the observer who respects also conditions of symmetry. It is manifest that from this viewpoint the observer is certainly conscious about what he does.
Dear Fedosin, If computer takes measurements can it be said to be conscious although it may seem to be so? Does it know that it is taking measurements a we know? We have to make a clear distinction here.
Regards,
Rajat
The reference frame is a part of physics. So first we need determine connection of physics and conscious with the help of philosophy.
@Fedosin. Consciousness is an attribute of human mind. It is the mind that becomes conscious or unconscious. Mind is made from food, just like the body. Materials of mind which come from food are unknown to physics. The thing that makes the mind conscious or unconscious is its connection with the Spirit behind the mind. The minds are many but the Spirit is only One. The Spirit is perfectly motionless and therefore presents the ultimate frame of reference but the minds present many frames of references. Spirit is also capable motion. When fraction of this Spirit begins to move, it becomes energy. So energy is Spirit in motion which makes up everything in Physics. Following article describes connection between physics and consciousness in more detail.
Article Unified field of consciousness
Ok. I understand your approach. And I can imagine a lot of some other approaches to the problem. I hope you agree that the theory: 1. must explain phenomena. 2 predict new phenomena. 3. find new connections in nature and physics. If we have only 1 it is too little.
It is rather strange, that formulation of PHYSICAL PRINCIPLE contains a reference to a coordinate system and its transformations. There is a coordinateless formulation of the relativity principle: Space-time geometry contains the only structure. It means that the space-time geometry is described completely by the space-time distance. Such structures as temporal distance and spatial distance are absent objectively. They can be introduced only in the nonrelativistic approximation. Such a formulation of the relativity principle supposes, that we know well geometry. Namely, we know that a geometry is completely described by its metric.
The strangeness instead is to deny the objective existence of quantities like space distance and time distance that we measure usually, also in relativistic terms, and to claim on the contrary the objective existence of a space-time distance that never has been measured and it is only the result of a theoretical mathematical model.
A physics without reference frames and without observers is an unconscious physics in the meaning that like that it would be only a mathematical theorization that would not consider the importance of the experimental scientific method that is based similarly on mathematical consciousness and on experimental consciousness.
The metric geometry is able to describe only the kinematic of space and time while laws of physics have dynamic nature. Therefore the metric geometry is unable to give an exhaustive description of the nature and its dynamic behaviors.
No. The development of the theory of relativity has ended. Who needs the theory which demands from clocks to show at once several readings, the theory which in general cannot describe the curvilinear processes? There are a series of experimental data, (for example that we exist, or a sidereal period of tidal waves K1, or a sidereal period of shifts of bands in experiments in non-zero medium on interferometer of type of Michelson-Morley), which contradict to relativity theory. The future - for theories with "absolute simultaneity", without «relative simultaneity», without the relativity.
Dear Daniele,
Experiment of Mikelson has shown, that there is no absolute space (the space of absolutely simultaneous events). It means that there is no absolute temporal distance. But space-time distance exists absolutely. The absolute spatial distance does not exist also, because it is a distance between absolutely simultaneous events, which do not exist. Coordinate system is a means of description, which can be not used. For instance, Euclid presented the Euclidean geometry in the coordinateless form. I repeat my statement. It is rather strange to formulate a physical principle, referring to a means of description.
Dear Yuri,
the Theory of Reference Frames is a critical theory towards main preceding theories of relativity.It is a new theory that starts just from the Michelson-Morley experiment and from a just choice of reference frames. I affirmed neither space is absolute nor time is absolute, I have only claimed the importance of the experimental method through wich we measure separately whether space distances or time distances and never an undifferentiated space-time element has been measured.
I say always contemporary research follows today three directions: 1. post-modern physics that is in continuity with the modern physics (SR, GR, QM, SM); 2. neo-classical physics that would want to return to classical physics with some small adjustment.
I follow the third direction: the contemporary physics that is represented by the Theory of Reference Frames, Deterministic Quantum Physics and Non-Standard Model. The fact is that I know preceding directions and I chose the third direction just because the preceding two directions were not convincing. The fact the absolute space doesn' exist doesn't mean the space doesn't exist. The Theory of Reference Frames for example establishes an exhaustive relation between space and vacuum and an exhaustive relation between time and mass. When we talk about modern and post-modern physics, about classic and neo-classic physics I know what we talk. I would want also other researchers could know what we talk when we talk about contemporary physics.
Dear Daniele,
You refer to different direction of the contemporary physics development. But, who does know, what of this directions is valid. It is incorrect to refer to such global things as direction of development, when we discuss very simple things. I believe, it is evident, that coordinateless description is better, than a use of coordinate systems or reference frames, because both are only means of description. It is very pity, that we not able to describe geometry without a use of coordinate systems, or reference systems. Euclid could describe geometry without a reference to a coordinate system, but Euclidean method of description contains many geometrical concepts, and it cannot be generalized on the case of curved geometries. Now there is metrical approach to description of a geometry, where all statements of a geometry are described in terms one quantity metric d. It is a monistic conception, and it is very covenient for generalization. This method of description is generalized on any geometry by a change of the metric. See details in my paper “Metrical conception of the space-time geometry” Int. J. Theor, Phys.54, iss.1, 334-339, (2014), Electronic version in
http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~rylov/mcstg2e.pdf , The paper is short (about 5 pages)
Dear Yuri!
Miller (1925) in Michelson-Morley experiment clearly showed that the shifts of interference fringes exist. However, calculation speed, which gives this shift was incorrect because it did not take into account the refractive index of air.
The accuracy of the results of experiments was increased by Academician Demyanov and he showed this dependence. http://ether-noo.narod.ru/index.htm
http://ether-noo.narod.ru/index_ru.htm
No shifts of the fringes were in vacuum, but this is not a consequence of the absence of a preferred reference frame, this is the limit of the amplitude of the shifts, .Shifts of the fringes were not in vacuum, therefore, this experiment clearly indicates the presence of the preferred reference frame.
Dear Yuri,
we cannot know which direction of research is right but anyway everybody has to do his own choice. The necessity of making use of reference frames derives directly from Galileo's scientific work who firstly established the Principle of Relativity and from the new Copernican conception who proved what seems verisimilar to one observer isn't always the scientific truth and among all reference frames there is always a preferred (non-absolute) reference frame in which the preferred observer is able to observe and to measure the scientific (non-absolute) truth that nevertheless for a fundamental principle of science can be always confuted as per subsequent scientific progresses.
In the abstract of your paper you affirm: "It is important at the construction of the general relativity". Your research is aimed therefore towards an original construction of General Relativity (without reference frames) and consequently you maked your choice in continuity with the modern physics. Your choice is legitimate like also my choice of unsubscribing it is legitimate. The Minkowski spacetime is a linear spacetime in which no deformation is present while the deformation of spacetime is present in Einstein and it is defined by the tensor non-linear spacetime element. I have demonstrated because I disagree with this mathematical model. The monism then represents the philosophical translation of unifying theories that still represent a character of modern and post-modern physics.
Dear Alexander,
if you believe shifts of interference fringes exist in the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is not sufficient to affirm Miller showed it relative to that experiment because it is normal to believe to Michelson and Morley who did that experiment. It is necessary in that case to repeat the experiment..
I believe that, to do good physics, it is better to start with physics concepts, representing phenomena that we can see and measure, than from mathematical concepts. Mathematics are tools in this case, nothing more, but it is better to understand them.
If we assume that there is a container, a physical universe which contains all physical objects, then we shall assume that location is absolute (a point is not comparable to another point). If we assume that material objects occupy a location at anytime, then we shall assume that motion is absolute. And it is not difficult to show that it leads to a proper time (without the need of any metric). Location, motion, velocity, are absolute, but their measure is relative : it depends on the observer. Indeed this is the crux of the well known formulas in a change of frames. So the answer to the question is : as far as we consider physical theories of the Geometry of the universe, there is only one Relativist Theory, that of GR (ans I would say the only one which is consitent with the observations). Quantum Gravity and all others are theories which encompasses other aspects, such as the states of particles and other fields than gravity.
The pity is that physicists are so well used to think in orthonormal frames that they forget the physical world. Do you know anyone who uses, in his work, an euclidean frame to find his location ? Ask the captain of a ship, or a the pilot of a plane.
@Fedosin. I think your are right in saying that we can have many more approaches to the problem. But the correct approach can only be one. With respect to the three points you mentioned, the scientific truth in physics is verifiable with experiments because the phenomena presented are in front of the (5) human senses. Whereas in philosophy and particulary in the matters of consciousness and Spirit, the human senses are not capable of detecting the phenomenon and therefore experimental verification is not possible but such phenomenon can certainly be experienced by the human mind (without the help of the senses.)
jean claude, the captain of a skip and the pilot of a plane are into a reference frame with central and radial symmetry that has a pole. Consequentlly it is normal they make use of polar and non-Cartesian coordinates. Well-known relations of transformations exist between polar coordinates and Cartesian coordinates. The choice of polar (or spherical) coordinates is a matter of expediency. It has no geometric influence on the space, but only the way of mathematical representation changes.
To Daniele,
Of course. But the point is that the common use of euclidean coordinates hides the fact that coordinates and location are different things, and that the space in which we measure vectors (almost all physical quantities) is different than the space in which we measure the coordinates of a point. Affine spaces have some very specific properties, that we do not actually see in our life. Galilean Geometry, as it is taught in all books of physics, is not a natural formal system. Actually the manifold + tangent space of General Relativity is closer to the natural way of thinking the geometry of space time. I underline this because in many posts on this site it is obvious that the specificities of the usual representations of space time are not understood.
More generally. Physics is comprised of several theories, the first, because it gives a framework for all the others, is the theory of the physical space time,that is how we represent location and motion of material bodies. And there are only 3 theories : galilean geometry, special relativity and general relativity. All the other theories use one of the pervious framework and add assumptions about particles, energy, whatever,...but they do not add anything new about geometry. All 3 theories aknowledge the existence of a universe with 4 dimensions, galilean geometry assumes that space and time are independant, galilean geometry and SR assume that the universe can be represented by an affine space. So GR is the most general of the 3, and the others are just approximations, valid in the most usual cases.
Yet 4 pages about the relativity; and again without some reconciliation of positions. But here (and in a huge number of other cases) that isn’t by any means something surprising - that follows again from existent here uncertainty of some primordial and fundamental notions, when they should be firstly introduced to this conversation. So:
(1) – the “relativity”. In physics that means, first of all, “the relativity principle”, which posits that “If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.”
That isn’t true totally, for example the absolutisation of this principle, which was formalized in the special relativity as the postulate that all inertial reference frames are totally equivalent, immediately has led to evident logical self-contradictory (Dingle problem) and other “paradoxes”.
(2) – the relation “the consciousness – the reality”. Because of that any [human’s] consciousness is some separate informational structure, though is “self -perceiving”, the consciousness has no a priory information about External – neither about other consciousnesses (society) nor – for this thread – about external Matter. In the last case – moreover, the consciousness and material objects are principally different, both are elements of two different informational structures.
Thus any consciousness can obtain any indeed new information about External only at experiments, at that – cannot to repeat material process, but can only build an adequate informational model.
(3) Just because of Matter (and, evidently any Her element – particle, body, etc) is some informational structure that is organized basing on a number of rigorous logical rules, which don’t change on any stage of the evolution and act totally equally on every material object, it turns out to be possible for some conscious being to “decode language and messages of interactions” between the objects into the model that is correct in some limits.
(4) Any physical theory, if it claims that it is “fundamental”, including, of course “relativistic” ones must operate with the fundamental notions “Space” and “Time”. The definition of the notions, since they are Meta-physical, can be obtained in the informational conception only and they are as:
“Space” and “Time” are universal rules/ possibilities that provide existence (for Matter – “4D Euclidian spacetime container”) and separation of different material objects and their different states, if objects change.
For that Space and Time establish that between objects in space and between states principally must be non-zero “space intervals” and “time intervals”. But nothing more, the rules act only implicitly – concrete intervals between objects and states aren’t determined by “space” or “time”, they are only results of concrete objects interactions at Matter evolution. However every change is necessarily accompanied by corresponding – space and/or time intervals; what creates some illusions, for example, of “the time flow”.
(5) Matter – because of the energy conversation – evolves constantly, what realizes as continuous changing of objects positions and/ or of internal objects’ states (including – internal states of every particle). At that, since on the utmost fundamental level every change of any – time (internal state) or space in the “space” (spatial position) in the 4D spacetime container happens as the fundamental [the intervals’] step that is equal in both directions, all material object move in the spacetime uniformly, with identical speeds that are equal to the standard speed of light.
That realizes as, for example, Lorentz transformations, which describe relations between the intervals; and, also, allows to construct rules and clocks, which measure usually relative values of the space and time intervals. Nonetheless it is possible to measure the absolute (i.e. independent on any reference frame) spatial [vector] speed in the spacetime of some clock and further, using this speed value, to measure absolute values of, for example, the speed for any material object; with, of course a limited acuracy for remote ones.
More for the points (1) - (5) above – see at least “To measure the absolute speed is possible?” http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190 and the rest viXra links in the reference list.
From the points above follows that it seems that it is no too much sense for some theory to have in its title the word “relativity”; especially if it claims that it relates to something fundamental.
In other cases that can be sometimes justified in certain sense; for example – the SRT can be applied rather effectively in the condition when a number of material objects compose a “rigid” system, including, for example important practical case, where Earth and objects are connected rigidly enough mutually and with Earth by at least gravity. But this application must be without “real” Minkowski spacetime, “time dilations”, “space contractions”, etc.
An application region for the GRT seems as not so evident, though in this case it is evident also that there is no “real” pseudo Riemannian spacetime, “gravitational time dilation”, etc ; and – first of all – the postulate that “bodies’ world lines are determined by the spacetime geometry “isn’t correct, any concrete trajectories of any body in the 4D Euclidian spacetime are determined by concrete forces by using the force’s mediating particles.
Besides - even at estimating of the (indeed real) "gravitational time dilation" (in reality – of the slowing down of the rate of the internal states of material objects changes and corresponding clocks’ tick rate slowing down because of the gravity) - the GRT result is very possibly [twice more then real value] wrong (http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0031), etc.
Again – to develop some theory, where the space and the time notions are critically important, it is necessary firstly to understand – what is the space and what is the time; and only at this condition these notions can be properly introduced - and used - in the theory ...
Cheers
Dear Sergey,
Thanks for your looooong explanation.
What happens to my original question in the process?
Are we serious about incorporation of conscious observers in the scheme of physics in general and relativity in particular?
No observer, No relativity.
Agreed?
Rajat
Dear Rajat,
I have answered your question. Here I can only repeat the same in other words. The question is incorrect. Formulation of a physical principle cannot refer to transformation of coordinates. The space-time geometry must be formulated in the coordinateless form. Your question is equivalent to the statement, that the relativity principle may be formulated in English, in Russian and in Chinese.
I view the matter in simple terms as follows.
In physics, we have only 'one relativity' (in two forms: 'special' (or 'restricted' [Einstein's term]) and 'general'. Special Relativity is a generalization of Galileo's Relativity Principle -- in the sense that the relativity principle is generalized to all physical laws, not only the laws of Mechanics. However, this is restricted to inertial frames. Here comes General Relativity which generalizes the physics to noninertial frames.
Other 'relativities' are a question of unfortunate semantics -- just like 'relaativity' in philosophy (even in ethics). In science, we should guard our precise, unambiguous language; any imprecision is usually refined by the physics community in due course.
Kindest regards.
Dear Rajat,
If briefly – the answers see in my loooong post above: “observer - always no”, in many cases – but principally not always, “ the relativity – yes”.
Not too briefly – again, the consciousness is non-material and can only create some models that decode [informational in depth] connections and interactions of material objects. When level of adequacy of models to the material reality depends on the adequacy of “observers”.
Rigorously speaking, there are no “theories of the relativity”, though well known pair of “relativity theories” are essentially basing on the “relativity postulate – but any other theory uses this postulate necessarily also– in a huge majority of real physical situations it is adequate to the material reality.
At that – any material object doesn’t know any theory, it simply exists and interacts in accordance with real logical riles that work in Matter. So, for example, the Dingle problem is the problem of just the SR, and by any means is not a problem of, say, a pair of particles that move relatively; they don’t think about – “dilates or not the vis-à-vis’s time”. And a result, say, of an interaction of the particles will be totally “in accordance with” the postulate about the equivalence of corresponding “particles’ reference frames” – when from the postulate follows the self-inconsistence – and so some global non-adequacy to the reality – just of the SR, i.e. of some product of human’s consciousness.
More concretely the SR (and the GR, though) is self-inconsistent, first of all, because of it’s non-adequate claim that the space and the time, moreover – any “reference frame” (! - what is purely human’s invention) are some active phenomena/objects that govern by material objects. When, for example, at, say, some interaction of two particles above, for any of the particles it is indifferent – what is the time coordinate of its vis-avis in the spacetime.
Again – the adequacy of any theory depends, mainly, on the level of its “internal subjectivity”, i.e. dependence on an observer, when, again, - material objects were, are and will be in a vast majority of physical situations objective, they don’t depend on any consciousness. Including (here were some references on) – that is true for the quantum mechanics...
Cheers
Science assume that there are observers to identify and measure physical phenomena, using concepts (which relate properties of the phenomena with mathematical objects) and protocols to make the measures. Observers are assumed to have free will : they are not part of the experiment, they can choose their units, frames,..
A law is scientific if the same relations between the data provided by the results of an experiment can be checked for any occurence of the experiment, done in the same conditions. This requires the principle of relativity : scientitc laws do not depend on the observer. Because experiments are never done in the same conditions (at least they are done at different times and places), we need, following the principle of relativity, to assume that there are rules which allow to compare the data coming from different experiments : they come from the relations between the mathematical objects involved. The simplest expression of this principle is that scientific laws do not depend on the choice of units.
These are the basic philosophical requirements of science, whatever the topic or the domain. The empiricists contend themselves with the repeated occurences of the same experiment, statitiscally measured, without the need for concepts. But without concepts one cannot build theories which encompasses more than one experiment. And Physics is the quest not only for a long list of probabilist laws (an Apps to answer any question with a super smartphone), but a quest to understand how the physical world works.
What is called Relativity is basically a physical theory about the geometry of the universe, that is the way we measure locations in space and time, and velocities. As such it does not involve any concept of energy, interactions, fields,...And there are so far only 3 theories about the geometry of the Universe : the galilean geometry, the geometry of special relativity, and the geometry of general relativity, which are based on some few assumptions about space and time. They do not need more. After that, in the framework of these theories one can have a theory of kinematics (the momenta and inertia), of force fields,...but they require as a preamble a Geometric Theory.
Dear Yuri Rylov,
Coordinateless physics is unthinkable, to say the least. Coordinate invariance is acceptable. How do you do physics without coordinates?
Regards,
Rajat
Dear Humam B. Ghassib
Don't you think there is need to combine QM with relativity? In view of the discovery of Quantum contextuality etc we need to look forward and generalize the old concept of relativity to include all possible sources of relativity. This is achieved in a very succinct manner in my work. But a lot remains to be done. How to address relativity including quantum measurement problem? Some light is thrown in ti=his issue also. these are extremely fundamental and extremely important issues that should bother us since we want a unified theory of everything.
Regards
Rajat
Dear Daniele Sasso,
See http://ether-noo.narod.ru/index.htm
There is the description of repeating of experiments and observation of fringe shifts
Dear Alexander Chepick,
I would prefer you send me details of your experiment in pdf. Thanks.
Dear Rajat,
I am answering your question: “How do you do physics without coordinates?” Look my paper on geometry (it is short about 5 pages) “ Metrical conception of the space-time geometry” Int. J. Theor, Phys.54, iss.1, 334-339, (2014)
Electronic form: http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~rylov/mcstg2e.pdf . The same can be done in physics.
Yuri has a great line in his paper: "I believe that
disinclination of the scientific community to consider new conception is conditioned
by disinclination of revising the existing conception."
Dear Clifford,
The problem is not only in “disinclination of revising the existing conception." The problem is in the number fundamental quantities (concepts). Fundamental quantities are the quantities, which are introduced at the beginning of the conception construction. At usual construction of a geometry (for instance, Euclidean) one uses several fundamental conceptions (dimension, straight line, etc). At the metric approach to geometry there is only one fundamental quantity world function \sigma=1/2d2, where d is the metric. All other quantities are expressed via \sigma. In particular, dimension n is expressed via \sigma. Segment of straight line T[AB] is also expressed via \sigma. Dimension is defined as a maximal number of linear independent geometrical vectors. Geometrical vector AB is the ordered set of two points A and B. Generally speaking, AB is not an element of the linear vector space, were linear operations over vectors are defined. For geometrical vectors only scalar product of two vectors and linear dependence of k geometrical vectors are defined. They are defined via \sigma. Maximal number of linear independent vectors exist not always. It means that it is possible a metric geometry without a definite dimension. Besides, the straight line segment T[AB] is not a one-dimensional set. It is a surface (tube). Linear operation over geometric vectors appear to be multivariant. The metric geometry appears to be nonaxiomatizable, generally speaking. Researchers perceive hardly all these surprises of monistic conception of geometry. Such a situation lasts for twenty years. We have the Galiley phenomenon, when concept of inertia was not perceived by the scientific community during almost hundred years.
I subscribe fully Yuri's line. It is also my line. I disagree with Yuri's conclusions with regard to the uselessness of reference frames.
In a recent paper of mine I wrote: "not nature but observers need reference frames". The removal of reference frames involves just the removal of observers and of scientists who have to do observations, measures and experimental verifications besides theorizations. The same Principle of Relativity, in its only formulation accepted whether by Galileo or by Einstein says: "laws of physics are invariant with respect to inertial reference frames", and therefore reference frames have a fundamental importance because all other reference frames, non-inertial, are excluded. The extension then of the principle maked by Einstein also to accelerated or gravitational reference frames is based on a principle of covariance and not on a principle of invariance for wich General Relativity isn't a theory of relativity but a theory of equivalence between accelerated reference frames and gravitational reference frames. Therefore also GR, that I don't subscribe, does much importance to reference frames. On the other hand not only in physics but also in mathematics as per different basic axioms we have different algebras, different arithmetics, different geometries.
It seems to me then that Yuri's line is only abstract and non-substantial because he reaches the conclusion of demonstrating the validity of General Relativity that certailnly cannot be considered a new conception.
I disagree then also with unifying theories, monisms and theories of everything because the purpose to bring all nature diversity to one only principle seems to me a far-fetched hypothesis.
“I disagree then also with unifying theories, monisms and theories of everything because the purpose to bring all nature diversity to one only principle seems to me a far-fetched hypothesis.”
- That isn’t so. First of all – the “theory of everything” is quite possible, if we have in mind the theory of Matter only. That follows from (i) - seems evident fact that Matter evolves rather long time under laws, which are unchanged very probably in the evolution’s total time; and (ii) – the number of these laws is non-infinite (in other case the stability above seems as unlikely); moreover, it seems that this number is rather small.
At that – since everything, including material objects and their interactions, is/are some informational patterns/messages, the TOE will be eventually some “informational” theory.
Though there is the principal limitation – since everything, including Matter, exists as some elements of absolutely infinite fundamental “Information” Set, where every element exists always, or “in absolutely long time” and every element always is connected – i.e. interacts – with all absolutely infinite number of other elements, including – if it changes – with itself “in all other times”, the sub-Set “Matter” is principally open system that has absolutely infinite number of interactions.
One of such interactions that seems as rather probable – appearance “from somewhere” of the start portion of the energy, which launched Matter’s evolution, and, what isn’t impossible – some other global physical phenomena, first of all – phenomena that are “explained” now as “spacetime extension”.
But, again, Matter exists –and in long time exists – as some “stable” structure that is governed by a stable set of rules. That is because of, first of all, that (i) - all/every rule, all/every message in Matter are exclusively true , and (ii) – in depth every material object, including mediating particles, is built by some strongly logically closed fundamental elements (FLE), whch are so strongly stable in the Set.
Thus the TOE, of course, will not be a “totally comprehensive TOE in the Set”, but only the theory that depicts the logical connections/ rules ”laws”, which work in Matter [practically] only.
Cheers
i) The principle of relativity, in its general formulation, does not mention inertial frames, whose definition is difficult and realization impossible. We do not need this. The well known formulas for going from one orthonormal frame to another at the same point hold for any observer even in GR, as it can be proven without involving light signal or other artifacts..
ii) The concept of matter, embodied in the material point of machanics, has a distinctive property : it has has a definite location in space at each moment. This the keystone in a geometric construct.
Dear Daniele,
I have nothing against your thesis: "not nature but observers need reference frames". I have nothing against coordinate systems, frames of reference and other means of description. They should be used, provided a use of them is effective. However, as far as the natural phenomena exist independently of observer, there exist such a description, which does not refer to the means of description. Of course, along with such a description another description may exist, which contains a reference to means of description.
As to the relativity principle, it is not clear, what it means, because different authors treat this principle in different ways. If the relativity principle means the fact, which has been obtained in the Michelson-Morley experiment, then it means that there are no absolutely simultaneous events. In this case the relativity principle is formulated as follows: There is the only structure in the space-time, namely, space-time distance. The relativity principle was formulated as a negation of the nonrelativistic physics, where there are two space-time structures: (1) spatial distance and (2) temporal distance. This fact can be interpreted also as follows: there is a three-dimensional absolute space and the time as a quantity, which is independent of this space. At such an meaning the relativity principle states: “There are a unique space-time structure (world function \sigma) in the space-time, but not two space-time structures (temporal distance and spatial distance). Of course, one can calculate the number of the space-time structures only in the case, when geometry is a monistic conception, described by one fundamental quantity.
If geometry is a pluralistic structure, described by several fundamental quantities, it is not clear, what means the term “structure”.
As to monism of the geometry conception, it is necessary to obtain maximal number of generalized geometry. In the monistic conception of geometry all geometric quantities are expressed via fundamental quantity: world function \sigma. Any replacement of Euclidean \sigma generates a new generalized geometry. In the pluralistic conception of geometry there are several fundamental quantities (see my previous post). Any modifications of fundamental quantities (or axioms) must be concerted. It is impossible practically. Only the proper Euclidean geometry is consistent. Even the Riemannian geometry is inconsistent , see " New crisis in geometry?." (Available at http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0503261 ) Besides, the “number” of Riemannian geometries is much less, than the number of non-Riemannian geometries, obtained as a generalization of the monistic conception of Euclidean geometry. This fact is very important in the General Relativity (GR), which is based on a use of Riemannian geometries. Extended General Relativity (EGR) based on a use of non-Riemannian and Riemannian geometries differs from GR. In particular, there are no black holes in EGR, because in EGR exists induced antigravitation, which stops the collapse and formation of the event horizon. See my paper "Induced antigravitation in the extended general relativity ". Gravitation and Cosmology, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 107–112,( 2012). Electronic version http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~rylov/ialgr1e.pdf
Dear all,
Thank you very much for So much of wonderful discussion.
But I wish to bring the focus back unto my original question again.
When it comes to talking about subjectivity and the role of conscious observer in relativity, we beat so much about the bush and often show no inclination towards addressing the issue fairly.
Is it because we are terribly afraid of consciousness (i.e. ourselves)?
Or is it because we are so dogmatically objective that subjectivity fails to make an impression upon us?
I wonder if the relativistic observer has the ability to observe! Or is it just a dumb recording instrument like a photographic plate?
Regards,
Rajat
Dear Rajat:
Relativity is always dualistic. This duality is the subject object relationship. In relativity, the subject is always the human mind. Science do not consider mind as made up of matter because it has not yet discovered the materials of which the mind is made up. So it can very well be a dumb recording instrument. The connection of this mind with the Spirit behind it makes it conscious. So in front of the mind are all the objects of the universe and behind it is the Spirit. The mind is so much focused on the objects in front of it that it has absolutely no time or strength to focus on what is behind it. When the mind acquires sufficient knowledge and strength to turn around and focus on what is behind it, then opens up a new world for it. But again the duality is not destroyed. The mind is the subject and the things of the Spirit are the objects. As the mind progresses deeper and deeper into the realm of Spirit, there comes a time when it completely dissolves into Spirit and the duality of Subject Object relationship disappear. This is like a salt doll trying measure the depth of the ocean. As soon as it enters the ocean, it dissolves. Now who is there to tell others how deep the ocean is?
Dear Vikram,
Very nice response. How to incorporate the ubiquitous subject-object duality in the mainstream scientific investigation? This is one of the most important problems facing us today.
Science and most members of the scientific community are yet to shake themselves out of the pleasant slumber under the umbrella of objectivity of science which is nothing but inter-subjective agreement elevated to the status of an undisputable truth.
Right from Newtonian mechanics we have to start working all the way up to QM and STR and GTR and QFTs and finally Quantum Gravity, taking into account the inevitable role of the conscious observer in the entire scientific endeavor through the centuries.
May be some fundamental modifications are required in our equations and teleology may have to get its share in science at long last.
Regards,
Rajat
May I remind that some philosophers such as Kant, Popper have worked on this topic ? We do not start from nothing. And it seems to me better to look at the fundations of QM QTF or quantic gravity than to start again on well known philosophic subjects.
I agree with Dr. Dutailly. (In this regard, let us not forget Bishop Berkeley as well.) It would be a pity to go back to ill-defined metaphysics after Humanity's arduous and tortuous journey in science throughout the ages. At any rate, 'subjectivity' has irreversibly penetrated physics through the act of measurement (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle); QM is ultimately a theory of measurement. As for the notion of 'conscious observers', it contradicts -- in my humble opinion -- the idea of science as a universal language. It reminds me of the long debate that went on for decades among several illustrious physicists about the possible attributes of 'Maxwell's demon'. One must admit, however, that such debates are mind-opening. We have to thank Dr. Pradhan for kicking off the present lively debate.
>Right from Newtonian mechanics we have to start working all the way up to QM and STR and GTR and QFTs and finally Quantum Gravity, taking into account the inevitable role of the conscious observer in the entire scientific endeavor through the centuries.
Dear Rajat:
Quantum gravity is not the final word. In your list you have missed out on a very important and popular emerging area of science "The theory of everything." In such a theory everything whose existence cannot be deneied must be included and this is the only way to get the complete overall picture of the universe and its origin. In order to come up with "The theory of everything", I suggest that we divide Science in two compartments.
1. Lower Science (LS): Which is the familiar scientific knowledge acquired with the help of five human senses. In this scientists do get PhD degrees, Nobel Prize, earn lot of money, and enjoy life. In this kind of research, if the funding stop, all motivation for the research disappear and the research also stop. This science is often dependent on mathematics. Many times mathematicians not only confuse others with their theory but they themselves get confused. Most of the time LS is organised science. This science is dependent on experimental verification and experimental laboratories. Scientists are allowed to marry and the strength of the mind is not a criteria. In LS experimental verification is done by a small group of scientists and rest are only believers in their findings.
2. Higher Science (HS): This is the search for truth which does not depend on five senses or any funding agency. Mathematics is not required. Experimental proof is replaced by experiential proof. To acquire the experiential proof, the human body is utilized as the laboratory. This requires extraordinary effort to condition the human body as a laboratory. Just imagine how much effort has gone into building LHC. In human body you can detect more subtle particles than Higgs Boson. As part of conditioning, sensual enjoyments are forbidden. Marriage is not allowed. This is the way to acquire strength of mind required to focus it on the subtle substances of the universe such as mind and spirit. This kind of research is individualistic and not organised. In HS, experiential verification is often done by a single individual or some times more than one and rest are only believers. People get into HS only when they get tired of going round and round in LS. So this requires some kind of renunciation of LS.
I disagree strongly with the distinction between Lower Science and Higher Science. There is only one Science and it is based on the Galilean Experimental Method (maked by experiments and mathematics both supported by senses and mind). The post-modern culture often forgetts this method that started about three millennia ago with Aristotele who established a fundamental distinction between Physics and Metaphysics. Aristotele's work continued with Copernico, Galileo, Newton etc..... The field of investigation of Science is the nature in all its aspects and Science has a great respect for Metaphisics whose field of investigation is instead the Supranatural and the Spirit. Physics and Metaphysics aren't in conflict but it needs to have consciousness of that distinction.
Dear Rajat Pradhan,
According to my theory of the quantization of gravity in my paper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 there is no more than one theory for quantum theory and relativity. Relativity will lead to quantum theory and quantum theory will lead to relativity theory. They are both one theory. The problem exists in the interpretation of Einstein to the Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity. That led to the concept of space-time continuum, and then when generalizing this concept in the case of non-inertial frames in case of gravity, it is resulted the concept of curved space-time. According to relativity of Einstein you keep on objectivity. Because of that it resulted all the contradictions between quantum theory and relativity of Einstein. I solved all of these contradictions by a simple way. You just reinterpret the Lorentz transformation according to quantum theory, the Copenhagen school. According to my transformation equations depending on the Copenhagen school, all the problems in physics will be solved. you will understand how the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and what is the wave function and the collapse of the wave function by imaginative way. You will understand why Einstein was hating quantum theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. and you will understand why quantum theory was built basis on observation and experiment. In fact discreteness produced by the relativistic effect, and relativistic effect produced by discreteness. They are one theory.
What I found according to my reinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation according to Copenhagen school. Zeno's paradoxes are solved and Zeno was right when proposed motion is an illusion. In his Achilles Paradox, Achilles races to catch a slower runner–for example, a tortoise that is crawling away from him. The tortoise has a head start, so if Achilles hopes to overtake it, he must run at least to the place where the tortoise presently is, but by the time he arrives there, it will have crawled to a new place, so then Achilles must run to this new place, but the tortoise meanwhile will have crawled on, and so forth. Achilles will never catch the tortoise, says Zeno. Therefore, good reasoning shows that fast runners never can catch slow ones. So much the worse for the claim that motion really occurs, Zeno says in defense of his mentor Parmenides who had argued that motion is an illusion. In fact Zeno was talking about the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertain principle.
Actually this is a good illustration of all the dangers that await physicists who strive to cut hairs in four (or digitalise everything). So let us imagine Socrate discussing with Ménon, the sophist, who had just brillantly proved that Achille will never reach the tortoise.
"My dear Ménon you will agree with me that it would also hold if, for instance, there was a lion who tries to catch Achille, and he had a headstart?"
"Assuredly"
"You divide your run in parts which are each half the part that pecedes it. You would agree that it would still hold true if you choose another integer, say 3 or four ?"
"I do not see any objection, of course"
"So, because the lion does not know how to stop at each step to compute, you will agree that his run, and Achille's, is continuous, meaning that that your reasoning holds true for any real number, that is you have to compare the length over which the lion has run, to the length over which Achille as run in the same time"
"This is the point, actually"
"And I believe that the lion run faster than Achille"
"We all know that Achille was a superb hero, but I doubt that even him could run faster that a normal lion"
"and this means that, during the same elapsed time, whatever it is, the lion will have run over a longer distance than Achille"
"yes, of course, this is just what we mean by speed"
"and so there is some time such that the lion has catched Achille"
And Ménon discovered the integral. What is important in an experiment, and for sure for an empriricist who compares two states, without regard for what happens in the interval, is the final state : the Lion has catched Achille.
Daniele Sasso:
The reason I found it convinient to classify science in two categories is this. Before a person can enter a graduate school he has to give up the high school and before he can enter the post-graduate studies, he has to give up the graduate school. This is also the relation between physics and metaphysics. This does not diminish the importance of Lower Science in any way. So I agree with you that Physics and Metaphysics aren't in conflict.
Dear Vikram, thanks for your explanation. I didn't understand your distinction is educational.
Dear jean claude Dutailly,
Do you know why physicists refuse to make any changes in SRT in order to be unified with quantum theory? because the change is required in the Lorentz transformation equations interpretation by refusing objectivity. And that leads to solve the Zeno's paradox by physics. That means the death of materialism, and the idealism will back again controls the world. In this case the world will become moral. Because all the world will understand and see by mind how God governs the universe. This illustrates to you how Plato concluded the Concept of Utopia by the philosophy of morals.
The consequences of the unified theory that the laws of physics and the motion are illusion, and if they are illusion, then who governs the motion and the laws of physics as I see. That means God governs the universe. You will see the word of God in the laws of physics. I'm not religious at all, but I'm honest!
Because of that some people believe if relativity changed, then it is the end of the world, and this is not true. Because of that they refuse any new ideas regarded to changing relativity specially special relativity theory.
I presented a paper in the conference Toward a science of Consciousness 2008 Toscon, Arizona about the philosophical aspects of the unification of quantum theory and relativity http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002
Also read my paper about the quantization of gravity http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002
To Azzam,
About QM I do not need any God. Simple mathematics suffice to prove what it means. And GR is easily understood with some sane, basic, reasoning and a bit of mathematics.. There is no mystery at all in all that. But of course because the media love mysteries this is not very fashionable.
Actually your ideais are just a repeat of the philosophers who see in a full determinism of Science the realization of God's will (Spinoza for instance). This is the negation of free will, the negation of Science. If there is no objectivity, meaning no possibility, even no need, to confront ideas with facts, this opens the gates to every ideology, murderous as crazy.To do this in th name of moral is frightening, but not new. From millenia some people have tried to impose their "idealism" in the name of one god or another, only to make life more miserable. And we need to fight them. Import such ideas in Science is not only false, it is not only the rejection of centuries of sane thinking by the greatest philosophers and scientists, it is just infamous. This is the perfect illustration of the diliquescent state of theoretical physics towards which, decennies of statements such as "nobody can understand quantum physics" have lead. You can add your interpretation of QM to a very long list. Some years ago a "serious" paper (meaning accepted by the Academia) published an article on Quantum suicide, an idea based on Evertt's mutli worlds that was discussed in american universities. The idea is simple : if you kill yourself with a decision based on a quantum event (???) then in most of the times you will be dead and not there to be sorry, but in some occurences, you bill be rich and famous in another universe. And if not you try again. Nowadays killers do not even bother with scuh troubles to kill in the name of god.
Who mixes and confuses Science and Religion is unconscious to do a damage to both and to do a wrong thing. Science and Religion are two different domains of the human activity and they aren't in conflict. As I wrote before and now I repeat, Science attends to the Nature while Religion attends to the Supernatural.
Inside Science then the determinism isn't "the realization of God's will" (Spinoza is only one of so many philosophers), but it means that every effect has a cause. That is if a body is falling on the earth there is a physical or natural cause that produces that effect, if the light reaches the earth there is a physical cause that produces it, if an electron is accelerated there is a physical cause that produces that acceleration, etc....
For definition QM is indeterministic, but it is due only to the use of a non-necessary mathematical model that generates indetermination. The indetermination is also the result of the philosophic idealism of the 19th century that established a perfect identification between reality and reason denying like this the fundamentals of the Science that is based on the experimental method that is maked of both: experimental reality and mathematical rationality.
Dear All,
Vikram's classification is painfully correct. But to tone it down a bit, we may replace "lower" by "external" and "higher" by "internal" or some such nomenclature. When we are through with our external sciences then we can concentrate on the internal science, the science of the self or consciousness. But we have to make a beginning somewhere. From the empirical realm we have to move beyond via some bridge and my position is that an exploration of subject-object duality or of the role of the conscious observer in sciences in general and in relativity and QM in particular will go a help a lot.
Regards,
Rajat
Dear jean claude Dutailly,
I do not say we need God to understand relativity or QM. God created a mind for us, and he informed us to think. Now let's discuss by physics. You contradicts yourself when you said "About QM I do not need any God. Simple mathematics suffice to prove what it means. And GR is easily understood with some sane, basic, reasoning and a bit of mathematics". while you are sharing us in question related "Are there only two relativities possible-- the special and the general? Or are there more to come in future??" And there is no exact answer for this question till now. That means we still do not understand. Can you answer me about the quantization of gravity (unified theory) and why physicists till now do not understand if the speed of light is constant or variable, and there are hundreds or thousands of questions regarded to quantum and relativity. Relativity theory built basis on objectivity, and that clear from the Einstein interpretation of the Lorentz transformation. From objectivity it is resulted the determinism, causality and continuity. While quantum theory was built basis on observation and experiment, and it is resulted the indeterminism, uncausality, and discontinuity. If the micro and macro world are controlled by the one theory, then the unification between quantum theory and relativity theory must be built basis on the same concepts and principles. Reinterpretation the Lorentz transformation according to removing objectivity will solve all the problems in physics, and I illustrated that in my paper. That means according to quantum theory I do not know what will happen with me after a time equals to Planck's time (Probability), and because of that religious people say (if God wants to do this thing, then I'll do this thing). Relative to Schroedinger's cat if I opened the box and I found the cat died, then God wanted the cat to die, and If I opened the box and I found the cat in life, then God wanted the cat to live. This is physics. Now if I want to understand the motion according to quantum theory, then the motion is an illusion, because each part of motion is carried by the wave function, and collapsing the wave function will translate the motion in reality. The wave functions that illustrate the motion are separated with each others they are unrelated, and that means the motion I see in micro world is an illusion. In macro world I do not see this effect because of the low speeds first! where the time dilation and the length contraction is negligible. Second Lorentz transformation built basis on objectivity. But reinterpretation of Lorentz transformation according to Copenhagen school will lead to the wave particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that means the observer in the ground and the rider of the moving train will not agree at the location of the moving train the same point in space at the same time because of the effect of time dilation and length contraction, and that refuses the objectivity which adopted by Einstein's interpretation. Because of that it is observed the discreteness in QM, interference and diffraction, indeterminism, and uncausality. Because of that quantum theory built basis on observation and experiment. Relativity and QM are lead to each other they are one theory. So there is no QM and relativity. There is only one theory.
In my interpretation to the Lorentz transformation I refuse the reciprocity principle which was adopted by Einstein in the SRT. Refusing the reciprocity principle in my theory leads to disappearing all the paradoxes in the SRT; the Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. Furthermore, according to my interpretation I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect.
Now according to that since motion in micro world is an illusion, then it is also an illusion in the macro world, because the theory that governs the micro world is same theory that governs the macro world now! That means God let the train to move, the plane to move, the wind and the cloud to move. And God told us that in the holy books, but we do not believe, why? because we believe in objectivity that exists in the Lorentz transformation equations.
Dear jean claude Dutailly,
I think now you do not have more than 1 choice if you disagree with God, you try to interpret the micro world according to objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. and then unify between micro and macro world according to objectivity in the Lorentz transformation.
Sorry Azzam,
I you have not the answers, I have them.
Quantum Mechanics is not a theory in Physics, just mathematical features which appear with mathematical models, as usually used in Physics (see my paper on this site). No need for any assumption about the physical world. And wave functions are a bonus.
About General Relativity it can be built simply from few assumptions, and all the results are well explained, including the (very simple) twin paradox, and even the fact that fields propagate at a constant speed for any observer. No need for exotic assumptions, just clarifications of the basic conepts of Physics : matter, field, espace, time, motion.
Mix together concepts and theories that nobody is assumed to understand does not make Physics simpler or easier to understand. Before involving QM, start with what we mean by time, space, motion, matter.
Dear jean claude Dutailly,
Relative to GR, there are alot of experimental results contradict with GR. One of them the recent paper http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst and according to this paper treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation. Second The energy momentum problem is not solved yet by GR. The Pond-Rebka experiment; Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of the results of the The Pound-Rebka experiment that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. Relative to the Twin paradox Proponents of relativity offer five different conflicting explanations, and Lorentz symmetry is not important for Lorentz invariance, it is only to keep on objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. and there are more and more! So I'm ready to discuss all of these problems in details. and then how 1 solution which is related to reinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation according to QM can solve all of these problems with completely agreement with the experimental results. Relative to your comment "Quantum Mechanics is not a theory in Physics" I hope to read
(1) Heisenberg, W., "Physics and Phylosophy", (1958), Allien and Unwin.
(2) Pais, A., "Einstein and The Quantum theory", (1979),Rev. of Modern Physics, vol.51, No. 4.
(3) Stapp, H. "The Copenhagen School Interpretation and the nature of space-time",
(1972), American Journal of Physics, 40, 1098.
All these paradoxes call for concepts which are not clear. Define what is a photon, precisely (even in the standard model it is a composite boson) and how it could slow down,.. What is a frame of reference, what is the gravitational field,...Mix all this together and you find paradoxes. Just in passing, the law of equivalence says that gravitation and inertia are the same thing. No need to call for acceleration (which is difficult to put in the picture). It is simple to prove, just check that two bodies fall in the vacuum at the same speed.
Dear jean claude Dutailly,
Re:fields propagate at a constant speed for any observer.
speed of light is locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum...yes right! But depending on observation as in quantum depending on observation it is not... why and how according to objectivity in Lorentz transformation equations and the constancy of the speed of light? read this recent paper https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
no change. Do we speak of the speed of propagation of light or the measured speed of a photon ? As it seems that a photon has a structure, what is it exactly ?
In the Lorentz equations we need a universal constant to go from time to length. It happens experimentally, and it can be proven, that this is the speed of propagation of force fields. As for photons, we need to know what they are.
Dear Rajat.
There is a well defined terminology in sanskrit for distinguishing dualistic relative knowledge and non-dualistic supreme knowledge. This is called Apara Vidya and Para Vidya respectively. Para Vidya leads to the immediate knowledge of the ultimate truth. Knowing the ultimate truth intellectually is one thing and realizing (experiencing) the ultimate truth is another thing. Only Para Vidya claims that, knowing the ultimate truth there remains nothing further to be known. Therefore only Para Vidya can lead to the theory of everything. Dualistic relative knowledge (Apara Vidya) can never lead to the theory of everything.
Dear jean claude Dutailly,
You are Wrapping the truth. Simply this experiment violates the objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. If the measured photon's speed depends on the structure of the photon, that means the observed measured speed of light does not only depend on the direction of the velocity in x direction for example in Lorentz transformation, it depends on y and z coordinates also! That means you must multiply the y and z in the Lorentz transformation by the Lorentz factor also, if the direction of the velocity in x. In this case the time dilation and the length contraction will lead to remove objectivity that adopted in the interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in SRT. And thus by refusing the reciprocity principle, it is disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT. According to this transformation, we keep on the Lorentz invariance, and the Lorentz symmetry is only for keeping on objectivity. This transformation will lead to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty. Because of that Einstein was hating Quantum theory and Heisenberg uncertainty. According to this transformation the speed of light remains constant locally and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. But according to observation and measurement it is variable. According to this transformation Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent not relative velocity dependent, and the concept of acceleration is vacuum fluctuations. Because of that Heisenberg uncertainty principle depends on vacuum fluctuation. Now you can understand how Proponents of relativity proposed 5 conflicting solutions for solving the paradoxes in SRT by proposing acceleration, while they do not understand what is the meaning of acceleration according to quantum which is vacuum fluctuations, and from here they could not unify between quantum and GR basis on the objectivity in the Lorentz transformation which leads to the space-time continuum. Actually there is no space-time continuum or curved space time. It is only time! Because of that the recent the observed measured decrease in the speed of light depends on the gravitational potential, not on the strength of the field as Einstein predicted in his GR. Now every thing becomes clear and very simple. A student in a high school will understand relativity and quantum in a very simple way.
Of course it is not too difficult to prove, starting from basic assumptions which does not involveany light signal, photon or anything else than geometric assumptions, the so called lorentz formulas, for any two observers, in the GR framework. And these formulas include all cases, naturally the y and z spatial coordinates. This is basic mathematics. The pity is that the proof of these formulas for more than one century is based, usually badly, on the original demonstration by einstein, which was very good physics but was dedicated to theMaxwell's laws. Fortunately, more than one century later, we can do better.
There is only one relativity---so-called "special" relativity. "General" relativity is not a relativity in the same sense, and is misnamed: it should be called something like Einstein's geometric theory of gravitation. My inference from the history is that Einstein's physical intuition was that G. Nordstr\"om's scalar field theory of gravity (1912) wasn't correct, and he sought a geometrical theory that looked formally the same in any coordinate system, which Nordstr\"om's conformally flat scalar theory did not. Einstein (1915) proposed a metric tensor field for the gravitational potential field, the field equations of which do look the same in any reasonable coordinate frame. There have been attempts to find special families of coordinate systems that somehow exhibit the physics of Einstein's general field equations in a less generic way, but they are not considered to be successful. (To be sure, physically special problems as the FLRW universe, the Schwarzschild metric, the Kerr metric, etc., benefit hugely by description is special coordinate systems.) "Special" relativity, based on the Poincar\'e group, is a geometrical symmetry of flat space-time: any translation (in space or time), rotation, or Lorentz boost of a solution to the equations of motion is also a solution to the equations of motion, irrespective of the fixed coordinate system in which the equations are expressed. On the other hand, given a fixed coordinate system, there is normally no deformation of the metric tensor field and matter distribution that also satisfies the equations of motion. (There are exceptional cases in which there is such a symmetry; these are associated with the name W. Killing and so called Killing fields of symmetries.)
In fine, I think that Einstein erred in naming his theory of gravitation as a more general type of relativity than that based on the Poincar'e group. It isn't.
I think that the use of the Poincarré's group, which has a precise and valid mathematical definition, is wrong in Physics, even in the framework of SR (meaning an affine space). For several reasons.
1. The physical universe, whence we accept that it is 4 dimensional, is not isotropic : all the directions are not equivalent. So to define how to go from one frame to another the path matters. This is what is expressed in the involvement of the speed v in the Lorentz's fromulas. It is clear than in Physics one does not jump from one frame to another (as in mathematics), but transport a frame to be compared to another, and the path matters. In passing this explains the spin. And this explains also why it is futile to look for a substitute to the Poincarré's group with the group of isometries in GR.
2. An element of the Poincarré's group is defined by 10 parameters (4 for translations, 6 for rotations) which means that a motion would be defined by 10 independant parameters in SR. But, as we can see in the same Lorent's formulas, the speed appears 2 times. We need only 6 parameters to define the physical motion of a material body, both in SR and in Newtonian Geometry, and not 10.
3. The reason is that a rotation in the 4 dimensional space (6 parameters) has a meaning which is totally different than a rotation in the 3 dimensional space (and this is true whatever the group). To use the same mathematical tools (the semi group of displacements) to deal with different physical problems is wrong.
And to complete, we do not need to involve gravitation to build a consistent geometry according to the General Relativity (and similarly we do not need electromagnetism to build SR). Einstein has done it a century ago, we can do bettter now, without being a genius.. Gravitation comes after we have a decent geometry, as a theory in which inertia = gravitation.
Moreover it was customary to base GR on the metric. Nowadays we can do it using fiber bundles and connections. This is simpler and more general (we are not stuck with the Lévi Civita connection and unending computations) and provides the right framework to deal with spinors and any fields. This no more complicated than in SR, and more illuminating.
Dear Gerhard E. Hahne,
I agree that there is one relativity in classical physics and I put it in the bracket of frame relativity in my most general analysis of relativities owing to observer-observed interaction.
But Quantum relativities due to Quantum measurements require us to broaden our notions further as proposed in my paper. Moreover there are subjective relativities waiting to be tackled before we embark upon the task of maintaining the objectivity of of Sciences and this requires a thorough understanding of the biology and psychology of the conscious observer. Quantum theory provides a plank that can be used for the purpose and we can then look positively i the direction of a final theory.
Regards,
Rajat
I agree with many observations that have been done in preceding comments. I would want to add some observation of mine.
1. "There is only one relativity" (G.E. Hahne) and I would want to add it is represented by the Principle of Relativity defined before by Galileo for mechanics and then extended by Einstein to all physics. Einstein nevertheless was obliged to add the second postulate on the constancy of the speed of light as per a misinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment that is due to Poincare and Lorentz on changes of lengths and times. On this account Einstein strove to demonstrate the Poincare-Lorentz Transformations in Special Relativity.
2. "General Relativity isn't a theory of relativity" (G.E. Hahne) and I would want to add it is a physico-mathematical theorization of space-time in the presence of a mass that makes use of a tensor mathematical model. The purpose of GR is to explain the gravitation through a kinematic change of space-time. I don't subscribe that exclusively kinematic and geometric interpretation of gravitation that doesn' t considers dynamic implications due to the field of gravitational force. Besides in GR the equivalence doesn't concern "gravitation and inertia" but it involves "gravitational mass and inertial mass". On this account GR cannot be considered a theory of relativity.
3. "The Poincare Group" (jc Dutailly) is related to the Minkowski space-time and both have Poincare-Lorentz's Transformations like sub-group. On this account for the Poincare Group the same criticisms are valid as for those transformations.
4. Implications of relativity in quantum physics and in particle physics (R. Pradhan) are always governed by the Principle of Relativity with the difference that for elementary particles a concept of electrodynamic mass is valid and that concept is different from mass of ordinary bodies. Besides the purpose of science isn't a final theory that doesn' t exist but only an improvement of our knowledge of nature in agreement with the theoretical, experimental and technological development.
"@Gerhard Ernest Hahne
"There is only one relativity---so-called "special" relativity. "General" relativity is not a relativity in the same sense, and is misnamed: it should be called something like Einstein's geometric theory of gravitation"
This is also the point of view illustrated by Vladimir Fock in his book about gravitation. GRT was supposed to be the theory of everything in which SR was a particular case, so the name of General...
@ jean claude Dutailly ·
"Moreover it was customary to base GR on the metric. Nowadays we can do it using fiber bundles and connections. This is simpler and more general (we are not stuck with the Lévi Civita connection and unending computations) and provides the right framework to deal with spinors and any fields. This no more complicated than in SR, and more illuminating."
Before changing the theory a step is necessary. Recognise first that GRT does not work properly, and the points where it does not work.
For some authors GRT is a mathematically perfect theory giving right predictions as long as you don't reach the limits in which QM is valid... so everytime it does not work it means that we are gone in the Quantum realm. this is unacceptable...
According to my theory the quantization of gravity http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 which I discovered there is no graviton it is photon. quantum and relativity are one theory and they are related to each other. Relativistic motion will lead to discreteness, and Also according to my equivalence principle relativity can resulted from discreteness. In each quantum state Lorentz transformation is linear. According to my theory, there is no special or general relativity or quantum theory, all of them one theory. All the problems solved.
In fact I succeeded in unify between quantum and relativity!!! and now I found you adopt a lot of my ideas in my paper in your comments.
To Stefano,
"as long as you don't reach the limits in which QM is valid". The big issue is that nobody knows these limits.
If you take the simple QM axioms, they do not fix any condition, scale,...As I said several times on this site, actually the celebrated axioms are nothing more than mathematical theorems (which explains that there is no need to invoke a scale), so there is no trouble with GR.
And for the others aspects of Quantum Physics it would be difficult to define what these limits could be. The real problem is Quantum Physics, a theory that nobody is assumed to understand, and does not know when it is valid, not GR. This is the issue with all the interpretations of QM, quantum gravity, they strive to match a badly conceived theory, quite often inconsistent, with GR. The proof should come from QM, not the other way.
There are two relativities. One is the special relativity and another is the periodic relativity. Periodic relativity is a more generalized relativity in which special relativity appears as a special case. Special relativity is based on the linear time and periodic relativity is based on the periodic nature of time. In terms of subject object relationship, human thought is also a particle wave with a period just like material particle wave. In periodic relativity Lorentz transformation factor includes an additional deviation factor "n" which takes a value of 1 in special relativity
http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-11.PDF
Article Periodic relativity: Basic framework of the theory
Dear Vikram,
In fact I interested in your concept of periodic relativity, and I found it is same what I predicted in my paper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 related to quantization of gravity and photon mediates gravitation not graviton. If you study my paper well, you will understand well the concept of periodic relativity is impossible to be right without modification of Einstein to Lorentz interpretation basis on Copenhagen school. That required to remove the objectivity and the reciprocity principle. That leads the Lorentz transformation must be vacuum energy dependent, and then that leads to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Then when you generalized the modified Lorentz transformation in case of gravity, you get a periodic relativity. That means there is no space-time continuum or curved space time, it is only time that responsible for measuring a decrease in the speed of light in gravity depending on the gravitational potential. Here Lorentz transformation according to my new equivalence principle is depending on the escape velocity at any point in space for a free fall particle in gravity, where at any point in space in the gravitational field Lorentz transformation is linear (Review Pond-Rebka experiment). And because of the gravitational potential is variable in each point in space, where it is equivalent to vacuum fluctuations. Because of that and according to my new Lorentz transformation, and my equivalence principle, you must measure a decrease in the speed of light (red shift) depends on the gravitational potential, not on the strength of the gravitational field as in GR. Review the recent paper http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst
The periodic relativity produced by removing objectivity and the reciprocity principle in the Lorentz transformation equations which leads to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty, they are one thing and vacuum energy dependent, where Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent. read this new paper also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm?utm_source=feedburner
And the decrease in the speed of light is produced by the vacuum fluctuation, which is equivalent to the acceleration, read this paper also
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
I succeeded in quantization of gravity!!!!!!
Dear Azzam K Almosallami:
Photon cannot mediate gravitation. In my theory photon cannot exist till 10^(-21) sec. after big bang but gravity existed at 10^(-43) sec.
Unfortunately GRT does not account for Gravitational Energy. That is why the free falling frames or "free rising frames "(ballistic trajectories) come to be inertial reference frames, according to which any experiment can be repeated equal.
There is a relation between "small masses" and "big masses" responsible of the field. The equivalent interaction between the respective center of masses, which is classical mechanics cannot be cancelled out by an unwise choice making gravitation a non interaction.
The Einstein "happiest thought" regarding free falling can actually be complied in situations like circualr orbiting satellites, space stations at 400km in which only tidal effects are presents . The effects of Inertia an gravitation are there balanced.
IN a radial free falling situation the inertia and gravitation effects are not balanced at all, infact a massive object speeds up, even if from within there is no way to notice such acceleration.
Unlike what affirmed in GRT, radial free falling clocks at fix distance will have to have a time dilation between eachother. Although exchanging photons no shift will be noticed, the doppler effect is active due to kinematics and the time dilation has to be present to cancel such effect (explanind in Pound and Snider experiment). This way with two sufficiently accurate atomic clocks and an entanglement connection between them, which Einstein would see like plague, one could assess in real time what is the intensity of the gravitational field, denying the possiblity for a free falling system to be an inertial reference frame.
GRT is good in treating null mass objects like light following geodesic trajectores and for which it is valid the local Minkowskian approximation (gravitation does not affect energy of photons). Somebody infact relegates GRT as geometrical optics. The Schwarzschild solution is not only the linearized solution of EFE, but is a solution of FG too, meaning that some manipulation was made during the simplification.
Unfortunately the "original Sin" of GRT is to infringe the conservation laws by denying the presence of a gravitational interaction as active, as already said.
Bodies do not free fall for directly for "God's grace", because the space-time curves and nothing else happens. God created the symmetry of space and bodies respect them , so the geodesic motion of a body implies energy exchanges with the field which cannot be negligible.
I'm afraid that before any unification with QM, which instead complies with the symmetries, being build on them, a more satisfactory theory of gravitation has to be found. Always as derived from the Space-time hypermedium curvature which is a wide shared point of view, respecting energy conservation in primis.
Dear Vikram,
It is photon....not graviton! If we consider the concept of acceleration or deceleration in classical motion or relativistic motion is changing velocity which means gaining or loosing energy of hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency which that is quantized. So, what is the concept of acceleration or deceleration according to quantum theory? And then if energy is quantized, how the accelerated particle in a uniform acceleration will moved in a continuous path 1/2at^2?
It is impossible to understand the relationship between continuity in classical physics which also adopted by Einstein in his interpretation of the Lorentz transformation basis on objectivity in order to keep on continuity, and the concept of discrete energy in quantum physics. The problem starts from the interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equation basis on objectivity in order to keep on continuity, and basis on that it is resulted the concept of space-time continuum. And Einstein generalized his interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations in SRT, it is resulted the concept of curved space-time. My new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation leads to the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent instead of the relative velocity in Einstein’s interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations in the SRT. Furthermore the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. In my interpretation to the Lorentz transformation I refuse the reciprocity principle which was adopted by Einstein in the SRT. Refusing the reciprocity principle in my theory leads to disappearing all the paradoxes in the SRT; the Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. Furthermore, according to my interpretation I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the SRT in this paper. My new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations leads also to the wave-particle duality as in quantum theory, and thus agrees with Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The generalization of my transformation leads also the concept of acceleration or deceleration is vacuum fluctuations as in quantum field theory. In my proposed quantized force, the force is given as a function of frequency. Where, in this paper I defined the relativistic momentum as a function of frequency equivalent to the relativistic kinetic energy held by a body and time, and then the quantized force is given as the first derivative of the momentum with respect to time. Subsequently I introduce Newton’s second law as it is relativistic quantized force, and then I introduce the relativistic quantized inertial force, and then by my equivalence principle which agreed completely with the experimental results of QFT, I introduce the relativistic quantized gravitational force, and the quantized gravitational time dilation. According to my transformation equations and the quantization of gravity the measured decrease in the speed of light by gravity depends on the gravitational potential not on the strength of the gravitational field as in Einstein equivalence principle. GR of Einstein is not completely relativistic.
Dear Azzam,
What do you mean by "Einstein based his interpretation of Lorentz Transformations on OBJECTIVITY"? Please elucidate.
Regards,
Rajat
Dear Rajat,
Objectivity means "event occurs, then it occurs for all observers" Event is independent of the observers. For example suppose a plane flies from London to Paris in a constant speed v. Now ignore the concept of classical acceleration or deceleration, because it is related to some thing in quantum. Now according to objectivity, when the plane flies from London, then the plane flies from London for the observer on the ground, and for the Pilot of the plane. And when the Plane arrives Paris, then the Plane arrives Paris for the observer on the ground and for the Pilot of the plane. Both the observer on the ground and the pilot on the plane will agree at the location of the plane at any point in space between London an Paris, and from that it is resulted the continuity as observed according to objectivity for both the observers on on the ground and on the plane basis on symmetry. Symmetry is only to keep on objectivity.
Basis on objectivity Einstein defined the Lorentz transformation depending on the concept of the relative simultaneity and the constancy of the speed of light depending on the difference between two events in space and time, which resulted the concept of space-time continuum. The Minkowski diagram provides an illustration of the properties of space and time in the special theory of relativity basis on objectivity which leads to continuity.
Dear Azzam,
«Objectivity means "event occurs, then it occurs for all observers."»
Do you want to say that in Lorentz's theory there is no Objectivity, and here "event occurs, then it occurs not for all observers"?
However, this your statement is false within the framework of GR! For example, any falling observer crosses the event horizon in the "Black Hole" in his moment of time t', but for any other observer this event does happen never!!!
In addition, in the framework of GR, there is no continuity! If we consider the world line of a point on a rotating circle then we can see the breakings of continuity of the world line. See « Landau-Lifshitz-Langevin coordinate problem» http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_coordinates
---
Dear Azzam,
«Objectivity means "event occurs, then it occurs for all observers."»
А разве в теории Лоренца нет Объективности, и здесь "событие происходит, то оно происходит не для всех "наблюдателей"?
Однако именно в рамках GR это ваше утверждение неверно!
Например, падающий наблюдатель пересекает горизонт событий в «Черной Дыре» в свой момент времени t', но ни для какого другого наблюдателя это событие не происходит никогда!!!
Кроме того, в рамках GR нет непрерывности! Если мы рассмотрим мировую линию точки на вращающейся окружности, то увидим разрывы.
См. « Landau-Lifshitz-Langevin coordinate problem» «Координаты Борна» https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Координаты_Борна
Dear Alexander,
I am not really sure of the meaning of your thread. Just some remarks.
I do not conceive Science without the existence of a world which does not depend of the observer. So, an event occurs. Period. The issue is then how different observers measures the event, and at first if they can see the same events. One key point in Relativity is that the system, the area over which an observer can do measures, depends on the observer. The most obvious instance of this fact is the existence of horizons (no need to use a black hole). When this fact is forgotten one can build many paradoxes.
About the Landau-Lifshitz-Langevin coordinates, it underlines the fact that it is not obvious to go from one coordinate system to another for observers who are spatially distant. And I would be specially careful in inventing metrics. In GR the metric is given, this is not something that one can choose at will. The observer can measure the change of the metric, he can choose his spatial frame, not the 4th vector, which is always along his velocity. This is one of the constraints in a change of gauge, and a key argument in proving the well known formulas for a change of observers (which hold for any observer, located at the same point). For observers who are spatially distant, in Physics to compare their frames they must transport them along a path, and because the universe is not isotropic, the path matters. So, this requires a connection, and is a bit more complicated.
Another point is that rotation is more complicated than it seems, notably when one introduces kinematic quantities, and is totally different in a 3 dimensional universe and a 4 dimensional universe. And of course rigid solid, disk or others, do not exist in relativity.
Dear Azzam, Alexander and Jean Claude dutaily,
it is common knowledge that an event may already have occurred and be in the past for one observer in one Lorentz frame and it may not have occurred and be in the future of another observer in another Lorentz frame. So there can be disagreement amongst observers in Special Relativity (What to speak of general relativity) in regard to the happenning of an event.
In this sense there cannot be objectivity. Only respite is the results from different frames on the particular event can all be understood on the basis of Lorentz transformations. The transformations are objective, form invariant equations in respect of STR, while there is no such objectivity in the observations themselves in regard to the event's occurrence.
Regards,
Rajat
Dear Rajat,
This is the point : the fact that different observers cannot always see (measure) an event does not mean that the event does not exist ! This is true in Relativity as well as in the real common life. And the celebrated Lorentz formulas are proven using this fact : that a 4 dimensional vector is a geometric quantity which exists by itself, and then can be measured (by its components) differently by two observers. The formulas are a consequence of the intrinsic nature of some quantities (such as the velocity of a material body), and not the reverse. If not, how do you prove the formulas ? And there is no "objectivity" in any formula, whatever it is. This is just a conventional formalism that we use to exchange information.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics