For almost a decade, I have been saying this. Special Theory Of Relativity needs revision. My revision is more than enough.Please go through the research papers in this group for the same.
The convincing link being
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uVZEg9gxM8
The field of physics may be turned on its head soon. --Nima Arkani Hamed
The people who predicted the revolution.
We can extend general relative to symmetry of dual symmetric membranes holding matter and antimatter and separated by a quantum field. Just like two parallel mirrors generate images of the space between them in time. The further on looks back into the mirrors, the older the image. Dual membranes treat gravity as a by-product of a quantum Casimir attraction fields between states on the spaces that tries to annihilates the states back to a quantum soup symmetry. The Casimir field causes curvature of the membranes just like two magnets on rubber membranes will curve the membranes. This solves the riddle of gravity which in GRT is a self-inconsistent field that matter causes gravity and gravity bends space. Thus quantum field bend space and "anti-space" and it becomes a local gravitational well controlled by quantum theory.
It's known since 1905 that special relativity is an approximation, since it assumes that Lorentz invariance is a global symmetry-but it is a very useful approximation, since gravity is so weak. The generalization to local Lorentz invariance is known since 1915.
How global Lorentz invariance might be broken has been studied for many years, e.g. http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html
and, for the moment, all experiments are consistent with Lorentz invariance being an exact symmetry, when gravitational effects can be neglected.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Kosy & readers,
It strikes me that given what Greene has to say in the short video you link to, the point would be that special relativity is also affected by the general problem of reconciliation of GR and QM. The view expressed is that special relativity is "an approximation." But in what way would it be an approximation?
Special relativity is built into quantum field theories and has therefore often been thought to be immune to doubts directed at GR arising from various approaches to a theory of quantum gravity. But on the other hand, QFT requires techniques of renormalization in order to remove calculated infinities and arrive at sensible, confirmed predictions. One way to look at this is that renormalization effectively removes (progressively removes?) the assumption of continuous quantities of space and time, brought in by special relativity. But if renormalization amounts to an effective modification of the concepts of space and time assumed by special relativity, then, in a sense special relativity has already been modified.
It is not that Greene is arguing for some particular, evidenced-based revision of special relativity. Instead, it is much more a theoretical reflection based on the problem of quantum gravity--or the problems of string theory. He's projecting the future development of theory, given theoretical problems. But direct evidence of the sort capable of confirming or disputing the various approaches to quantum gravity is chiefly inaccessible.
H.G. Callaway
Perhaps the continuity of GRT as a spacetime theory is the problem. What if it is made discontinuous but only in time? Note that the quantum theory started with this same discussion of the continuity of waves in a cavity (the ultraviolet catastrophe)! After all what we perceive to the past is really never a tangible reality since the very experience of a spacetime is that the past surrounds us and it is causally intangible. My dual space symmetry solves this problem since it allows this discontinuity to be generated by continuous spaces and brings in the Casimir effect..
Well that statement can be easily found to be wrong, since it isn't true, already in quantum mechanics. Time isn't discontinuous in quantum mechanics. That the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are discrete doesn't mean that time isn't continuous.
The Casimir effect isn't the consequence of broken time reversal symmetry-it's an example of the fluctuations of energy about their average value.
Stem, I want to tell you that you that in fact time can be quantized as per Feynman. I attach the following time ordered analysis. Although the notion of time is continuous as a differentiable quantity in the local space of observation, there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be discreet intervals in a higher dimension. Also, what is the notion of time other than in relation to space? What is the perception of motion of time? As far as the Casimir effect is concerned, you are still looking at it from the perspective of a the usual. The Casimir effect occur whenever an "information trap" is generated by confining waves in a continuous and infinite spectral field. The confinement defines a "privileged set of waves" that are fundamental notes of the trap. Nature abhors such privileges and hence wants to annihilate the trap. The break in symmetry of an infinite continuous space defines a Casimir trap! AS a simple example, take two parallel mirrors and stand between them. If you wave your hand, the images formed are time stamped and discreet intervals between the mirror and they are a complete history of what happens between the mirrors. Now view Causality as a simply a break in symmetry between the mirrors that generates the notion of an ordered set of images rather than as generated by a time difference. Time is no longer needed since the asymmetry between the images is equivalent to time. If you wave you hand fast enough, the difference between the images becomes evident. So let's say that this difference is a relative measure of relational symmetry of the mirrors. If these mirrors are falling in a gravitational well, they will distort to curves that have minimal Lagrangians..and the images will also distort accordingly as if the clocks are beating at different values at different places. Yet all we have are waves bouncing back and forth yet they obey the reflection rules that look like GR!
I agree with Thierry, causality must be obeyed! So those that see the event first are in the past of those that see it later, and so on. The problem is an event for some observers may not exist for other observers...The collection of causal relations for a particular observer depends on the frame of reference and its spatial and temporal relation to a particular event selected for the query. At each moment in time, an event is only defined for a selected frame of reference by its spatiotemporal relation to the observer. SR theory does not consider how two frames are related by space and time, it only considers the Mobius transformations that can be used to relate measurements in the two frames in relation to any causal event they observe. There is no notion of a causal connection between the frames. For example is a star explodes at point A, one observer O may see it blue shifted at a different point in time than another observer OO who sees it red shifted. So that particular event may not exist in Observer O's world but it does in OO's world. Yet the entire spacetime fabric must be subjected to the transformations that describe the entire motions in the spacetime fabric for that observer... and THEREFORE, one has to treat the entire Mobius transformations of an observer as a moment by moment collapse that may or may not include particular events. It is a private space of relational observations. So, how would one possibly explain an event that is independent from the observer, as being SR when SR does not depend on location? The answer is Einstein's leap is to make the observers simultneous. SR deals with how the derivatives of space in time(relative motion) affects space and time measurements of relative observers in motion, but does not deal with the entire space or time itself that they are emerged in. It leaves the local spacetime intact for each observe.
Very important discovery:
“Matter does not have Gravitation”
Adrian Ferent
“Moving Faster Than Light you will see Black Holes”
Adrian Ferent
“Because Gravitons travel Faster Than Light, they do not see Matter, only Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“Because Gravitons do not see Matter, this means Matter does not have Gravitation”
Adrian Ferent
“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Gravitation is wrong”
Adrian Ferent
“Dark Matter does not emit light, Matter does not emit Gravitons”
Adrian Ferent
“Ferent Quantum Gravity theory is the right Gravitation theory”
Adrian Ferent
“Riding on a beam of light you will see Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity, means l < Planck length”
Adrian Ferent
“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Special theory of relativity is wrong”
Adrian Ferent
“At Ferent wall was created Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
You learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists…about Special theory of relativity:
Special theory of relativity is "special" in that it only applies in the special case where the curvature of spacetime due to gravity is negligible. In order to include gravity, Einstein and Hilbert formulated general relativity in 1915.
If you move fast enough through space, the observations that you make about space and time differ to some extent from the observations of other people, who are moving at different speeds.
The speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the light source.
Length contraction:
Length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object and it is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light.
Time dilatation
The rate of a single moving clock indicating its proper time t0 is lower with respect to two synchronized resting clock indicating time t.
This means the duration of the clock cycle of a moving clock increased, it is measured to be running slow.
This means ‘Riding on a beam of light’ time would stop, and distance would be zero.
“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Special theory of relativity is wrong”
Adrian Ferent
In Ferent Quantum Gravity beyond the Planck wall is another wall, the Ferent wall.
At Ferent wall were created Ferent matter and gravitons.
“Ferent Matter is Dark Matter with the density greater than Planck density”
Adrian Ferent
“At Ferent wall was created Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
Today we know that the space is not an infinitely divisible continuum, it is not smooth but granular, with the Planck length and Ferent length.
At Ferent wall was created Dark Matter and at Planck wall was created Matter.
What means l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity in Ferent Quantum Gravity?
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity, means l < Planck length”
Adrian Ferent
This means:
“Riding on a beam of light you will see Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“Moving Faster Than Light you will see Black Holes”
Adrian Ferent
“Because Gravitons travel Faster Than Light, they do not see Matter, only Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“Because Gravitons do not see Matter, this means Matter does not have Gravitation”
Adrian Ferent
The conclusion:
“Matter does not have Gravitation”
Adrian Ferent
You learned the wrong thing, that anything that has mass also has Gravity.
This means:
“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Gravitation is wrong”
Adrian Ferent
All quantum gravity theories like String theory, LQG… are wrong theories because Einstein’s Gravitation theory is wrong and are limited to speed of light.
“Dark Matter doesn’t emit light, Matter does not emit Gravitons”
Adrian Ferent
This is another proof that:
“The elementary particles contain Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“Ferent Quantum Gravity theory is the right Gravitation theory”
Adrian Ferent
The apple did fall on Newton's head not because the apple has Mass and Gravitation, but because the Dark Matter inside the apple has Gravitation!
129. I am the first who discovered that Matter does not have Gravitation
130. I am the first who discovered that at Ferent wall was created Dark Matter
131. I am the first who discovered that in Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity, means l < Planck length
132. I am the first who discovered that riding on a beam of light you will see Dark Matter
133. I am the first who discovered that moving Faster Than Light you will see Black Holes
134. I am the first who discovered because Gravitons travel Faster Than Light, they do not see Matter, only Dark Matter
135. I am the first who discovered because Gravitons do not see Matter, this means Matter does not have Gravitation
136. I am the first who explained that what you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Special theory of relativity is wrong
137. I am the first who explained what you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Gravitation is wrong
138. I am the first who discovered that Dark Matter doesn’t emit light, Matter does not emit Gravitons
139. I am the first who explained that Ferent Quantum Gravity theory is the right Gravitation theory
140. I am the first who explained that the apple did fall on Newton's head not because the apple has Mass and Gravitation, but because the Dark Matter inside the apple has Gravitation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328761370_Matter_does_not_have_Gravitation_Moving_Faster_Than_Light_you_will_see_Black_Holes
Well PCC Theory states that gravitation is a symmetric curvature induced between two space sheets that are separated by quantum waves or energy like a Casimir trap. So matter and antimatter are dipoles on these sheets and gravity is just the induced curvature of these sheet due to a parametric symmetry between the sheets.. matter and antimatter attract but some negative Casimir energy pressure keeps them apart.
That special relativity needs some revision, because it did not describe gravity, was known already to Einstein 1910 or so. The revision made by Einstein is named general relativity. Special relativity remains a good approximation where gravity is irrelevant. As an approximation, it is fine and does not need further revision.
Dear Thierry,
it looks like your statement is based on some vague and strange interpretational issues, which you, for SR, exaggerate in one direction and for GR in the other one. That in every sufficiently small environment of every event GR can be approximately nicely described by SR is straightforward and completely unproblematic.
Dear Thierry, nice quote, but it essentially only shows that the spacetime interpretation is a little bit confusing the situation. Whatever, the situation is similarly confusing in the spacetime interpretation of GR. And similarly simpler in the Lorentz ether interpretation of the GR equations as described in http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether
Given that I know the mathematical equivalence of SR and Lorentz ether, I can use the much simpler Lorentz ether to get a correct but intuitive picture, and leave the confusion to those who know only the spacetime interpretation.
Are you not using the very definition Einstein used to say this? 100 will see the same event at different places and time but then they must use adjustment glasses called Lorentz transforms to see the effect properly defined.
Thierry, 100 observers have seen the same event in a 100 of different ways already in Newtonian gravity, and even in the time of Socrates. So, this is not a point at all.
There are realistic theories, which describe these 100 different observations using a single model of reality which looks, of course, differently from different positions. One can give up realism and start mysticism at every point, from Socrates to GR or quantum gravity, but there is no reason at all to give up realism. And there is also no reason to give up simple 3D realism of things existing in space and changing in time. I see no reason to care about mystical interpretations of the same equations if a realistic interpretation like the Lorentz ether exists. Even more if it clearly superior because we know how to quantize a Lorentz ether in a classical Newtonian framework, quantum condensed matter theory is well-known, while the spacetime mysticism has not given anything regarding quantization.
Mr. Thierry De Mees seems to concur with my views. So why one should dodge the issue.Why not worldwide acceptance and consensus of " Cosmic speed limit of spaceships is one-third the speed of light." It is another reason we don't find UFOs.
That like saying the cube of the speed of light is the Avagrado density which is equal bit just coincidence.
What means l = 0 from Special theory of relativity in Ferent Quantum Gravity?
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 from Special theory of relativity, means l ≤ Planck length”
Adrian Ferent
This means:
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity, means l = Planck length”
Adrian Ferent
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed Faster Than Light from Special theory of relativity, means l < Planck length”
Adrian Ferent
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of the gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s from Special theory of relativity, means l = Ferent length”
Adrian Ferent
That is why Special theory of relativity is wrong.
Ferent length: lF = 1.296 × 10^(-69) m
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity riding alongside a graviton you will see the Ferent length”
Adrian Ferent
That is why:
“Because Gravitons travel Faster Than Light, they do not see Matter, they see only Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“Gravitons moving Faster Than Light, they see Black Holes”
Adrian Ferent
“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Dark Matter is wrong”
Adrian Ferent
Article Einstein did not explain the photoelectric effect. There are...
Dear Thierry De Mees
you wrote "Special relativity however, as originally written, is only showing how a light beam would deform when it is send from a moving inertial reference frame to another inertial reference frame."
The words confuse me. One cannot send physical things to reference frames. Reference frames can be used to describe states of physics, but are not physical objects themselves. The point with the parallelograms, that the metric we see is not Euclidean, is also not different to what we see using usual light outside the vacuum, with matter influencing the speed of the waves.
I also do not understand the point with EM theory. Of course, one uses EM theory to describe light and charged particles. But classical Maxwell theory has already relativistic symmetry from the start, so there is no difference. For the movement of charges, one needs equations of movement which incorporate relativistic effects, Newtonian theory would not be sufficient for them.
Whatever, the Lorentz ether is a viable, well-defined theory, compatible with all of modern physics, and it is based on simple classical realism, with Newtonian absolute 3D space and 1D time and an ether moving inside following standard condensed matter equations. As long as this does not change, one does not need any 4D spacetime, curved or not, and we also do not need other theories of gravity to make the ether work - it already works nicely.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts