"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Reply to this discussion

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.

To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

--

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).

--

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Wolfgang Konle added a reply:

"Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum."

Richard Feynman's idea is perfect, and there is no reason to reject it. The existence of vacuum energy, or better dark energy is consistent with Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant.

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

"How do we understand special relativity?"

- the answer to this question, which is really fundamental one, since is about what is some physical theory as a whole; what really means – why and how the postulates of a theory, in this case of the SR, really are formulated, and why and how the postulates

- which in any theory fundamentally – as that happens in mathematics, where axioms fundamentally cannot be proven – aren’t proven; while are formulated only basing on some experimental data, which fundamentally prove nothing, though one experiment that is outside a theory prediction proves that this theory is either wrong, or at least its application is limited.

Returning to the SR, which is based on really first of all four postulates – the SR-1905/1908 versions relativity principle, SR-1905 also on the postulate that light propagates in 3D XYZ space with constant speed of light independently on light source/ an observer’s speeds; and, additionally,

- in both theories it is postulated (i) that fundamentally there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) - [so] that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

In the standard now in mainstream physics SR-1908 additionally to the SR-1905 it is postulated also that observed contraction of moving bodies’ lengths, and slowing down of moving clocks tick rates, comparing with the length and tick rates when bodies and clocks are at rest in “stationary” frames, is caused by the “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc..

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so some “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space can exist, while applications, i.e. measurements of distances and time intervals, of moving in the space inertial frames aren’t completely adequate to the objective reality; and

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- according to SR-1905 relativity principle there is some extremely potent entity “light”, the constancy of which for/by some mystic reasons/ways forces moving bodies to contract and moving clocks to slow down tick rates; and

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

All that above in the SR really is/are only postulated illusions of the authors, nonetheless, again, the Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle is really . extremely mighty, and the SR indeed in most cases at everyday physical practice is applied in completely accordance with the objective reality. The fundamental flaws of the SR reveal themselves only on fundamental level.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

In the SS post above it is pointed that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, however to say more it is necessary to clarify - what are “space” and “time”, just because of the authors of the SR – and whole mainstream physics till now - fundamentally didn’t/don/t understand what these fundamental phenomena/notions are, the really mystic and simply fundamentally wrong things in the SR were/are introduced in this theory.

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., which is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics,

- can be, and is, clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

More see the link above, here now only note, that, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model, Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system of informational patterns/systems – particles, fields, stars, etc., which, as that is shown in the model, is based on a simple binary reversible logics.

So everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space, momentum P[boldmeans 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation and motion c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].

Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by a practically infinitesimal P impact; but if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation of the “FLE-flipping point” in the 4D space above along some 4D helix,

- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above, mis inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS posts above it is pointed that everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of FLEs, which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, spacetime,

- and that happens always in utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and corresponding spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z ct), where ct is the real time dimension.

At that particles, most of which compose real bodies, at every time moment exist as “FLE –flipping point” that move along some4D helixes that have frequencies ω, having 4D momentums P=mc, m are inertial masses, a helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

So in Matter there exist two main types of particles – “T-particles”, which are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis [more generally – by 4D momentums cτ-components, but here that isn’t too essential], and so, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along cτ-axis with the speed of light, and at that a T- particle’s algorithm ticks with maximal “own frequency”, the particle’s momentum is P0=m0c, where, correspondingly, m0 is the “rest mass”.

If a such T-particle, after some 3D space impact with a 3D space momentum p, moves also in 3D space with a velocity V, having 4D momentum P=P0+p, its speed along the cτ-axis decreases by the Pythagoras theorem in (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. in reverse Lorentz factor,

- and, at that, despite that the helix’s frequency increases, the algorithm is “diluted by “blank” 3D space FLEs flips. So the “own frequency above” decreases in Lorentz factor, so the algorithm ticks slower; and so, say, moving clocks that are some algorithms as well, tick slower in Lorentz factor as well; if a particle algorithm has some defect, and so at every its tick it can break with some probability, so the particle is unstable and decay, such moving in 3D space particles live longer.

Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS post above it is explained why and how internal “own” processes rates in moving having rest mass [and it is explained what is “rest mass”] particles, bodies, etc., are slowed down comparing with the case when the bodies are at rest; and to derive that it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem; Matter is rather simple logical system,

- but that isn’t a unique physical effect that differ “rest and motion”. As that is pointed in 2-nd SS post, particles are some “4D gyroscopes”, the 4D “rotation axis” of which is always directed along particles 4D momentums P.

So if a T-particle is at rest in 3D space, the axis is directed along the cτ-axis, if the particle moves in the space, say, along X-axis, it rotates in the (X, cτ) plane so that the Cosine of the angle between P and X-axis is, again by Pythagoras theorem, equal to (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. reverse Lorentz factor, while Cosine of the angle between P and cτ –axis is V/c.

If particles constitute some moving rigid body that has, if is at rest in 3D space, length L, they rotate the body as a whole in the (X, cτ) plane on the angle above, and so:

(i) - the body’s length 3D space observable projection is contracted comparing with when it is at rest in inverse Lorentz factor, what is observed experimentally, say, that was yet at M&M experiments, at that, of course , nothing happens with the 3D space; any postulated in the SR “space contraction” fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist; and

(ii) - the body’s front end has lesser coordinate value on the cτ –axis than the back end, the difference is correspondingly –VL/c.

Since the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed extremely mighty, motion of everything in real time ct-dimension in mainstream physics, and, of course, in everyday humans practice, till now isn’t observed, so in the mainstream the rather specific really space cτ- dimension is used as the time dimension in both – classical 4D Euclidian with [usual, when t-coordinate isn’t multiplied by the c constant ] metrics (t,X,Y,Z) , and the SR Minkowski with metrics (it,X,Y,Z) [“i” is imaginary unit], spacetimes.

So in this metrics a moving body’s front end is “younger” than the back end on –VL/c2,

- what is the Voigt-Lorentz decrement in the Lorentz transformations.

Correspondingly, if we remember that moving body’s [including moving reference frames] clocks showings are slowed comparing with the rest case, and that

Lorentz transformations – quite equally as that Galileo transformations are also, really are equation of motion of points of the moving body’s [including systems of the bodies that are inertial reference frames systems of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks] in a stationary “K” frame with using data of measurements that are made in the moving “K’ ” frame,

- we above, by using Pythagoras theorem, derived these transformations.

At that, again – these equations/transformations relate only to points of rigid bodies /rigid systems of bodies that they occupy in the 4D space /mainstream spacetime at a current time moment. If in a system the bodies are free, that above, including the Lorentz transformations, is applicable only limitedly, so, say, the Bell paradox exists,

- but what is much more important in this case, by using a system of free bodies it is possible to observe motion of the bodies in the absolute 3D space and to measure the absolute velocity of a system, while, say, Poincaré stated that that is impossible. Corresponding experiments were proposed yet in 2013-16 , more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS post above some introductive clarification of what is the SR, and what happens in Matter really, relates mostly to physics and physical practice when the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle really practically completely acts; and so the SR is well applicable [and the case when doesn’t act completely, so it is possible to observe the 3D absolute motion], is given,

- here below a few comments that relate to cases where the SR isn’t applicable, and so its application resulted/results in some really strange/mystic things in mainstream physics.

First of all that happens because on the SR Matter’s spacetime is 4D , and, while the strange fact that in the SR time coordinate is imaginary, really isn’t too essential – as that Poincaré showed in 1905, Lorentz transformations can be derived by condition that the quadratic form s2= x2+y2+z2-(ct)2 is invariant in a 4D “spacetime”, where the time coordinate is imaginary. That is another thing, that while for Poincaré that was interesting mathematical result, Matter’s spacetime is, of course Euclidian one, but Minkowski postulated that this spacetime is real Matter’s spacetime.

But, again, really all what humans, as they think, observe in 4D Euclidian/Minkowski spacetime, they really observe only in 4D space, while the utmost universal “kinematical” real Matter’s spacetime has [5]4D metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct) [in the mainstream the space cτ-dimension is the time t/ct-dimension].

Correspondingly in the SR [and in classical mechanics] energy of a particle/body is [as √from] E2= (m0c2)2+p2c2– what is “Hamiltonian” , while really that is equation for absolute value of 4D momentum P [more see the SS posts above], by Pythagoras theorem P2=(m0c)2+p2,

- where m0 and m0care particle/body rest mass, and Pmomentum’s cτ-component; pis 3DXYZ space momentum/3D Pspatial component.

So in mainstream QM Hamiltonian is energy operator Ĥ, which was used in indeed nice 1928 Dirac’s derivation of relativistic electron Ψ-function time dependent equation, iћ∂Ψ/∂t= ĤΨ.

In this case really the non-adequacy of SR spacetime metrics above revealed itself in that this equation [though that relates also to Schrödinger equation] the evidently derivative by time dimension variable – while in QM derivatives by space dimensions variables are momentums operators is, as that is postulated in QM the energy operator;

- and, at that, the equation really was valid for ± Ĥ. So to interpret the negative Hamiltonian Dirac assumed existence of some really evidently mystic “sea of negative energies” and states of some particles in this sea.

Nonetheless particles “positrons”, which, of course, have quite positive energy, were really detected.

In the late 1940 to fit quantum electrodynamics with experiments it was necessary to introduce in QED “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation”, where antiparticles for/by some mystic reason and way move back in time, while really in time only motion in the positive direction is possible.

All these mystic points in QED [including in Dirac’s equation] become to be quite natural in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

- really the operator ∂/∂t is quite naturally momentum P operator, which relates not to the scalar always positive E, but to vector, which can have ±directions, as that in QED assumed, etc.

The post is long already, so now

Cheers

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:

Sergey Shevchenko

Thank you, Sergey, for lots and lots of information. I am just picking one aspect to focus the discussion.

"Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute."

I fully agree here but only if I understand you correctly. It is matter that is the source for spacetime; space and time are actually not part of the discussion. Rather, all words apply to the behavior of matter and nothing of these words applies to space or time. though the words are implying they are.

Einstein did not yet know about the Big Bang when he wrote his relativity theories. That means he completely missed out on the most important behavior for matter.

With the Big Bang, we have matter moving at its fastest speed in a singular direction.

In plain English: a straight line for matter will not be based on gravity.

So, there are four motions for matter, and Einstein's spacetime is based on just three of the four.

First Motion: matter moving through space in a straight line.

Second Motion: matter moving collectively in galaxies, circular motion.

Third Motion: matter revolving as planets around stars, circular motion.

Fourth Motion: Planets spinning (moons in tow), circular motion.

Einstein worked with Second, Third, and Fourth Motion. He did not know about the First Motion.

Since his motions are all gravity-based and the First Motion is not gravity-based, Einstein did not have to recalibrate spacetime to end up with correct answers. Because... spacetime is not about all motions of matter but only about matter's behaviors in light of gravity.

That is the point I'd like to discuss, Sergey. Do you agree that spacetime was taken out of its limited (and correct) context of matter in their gravitational settings, and that this got applied by others incorrectly to the universe as a whole?

Reply to this discussion

Michael Barry added a reply

Make it simple, we rederived relativity from the point, Time is a dynamic operator (movement of the wave function) when one defines "time" this way, one could say according to our model, that special relativity is understanding,

when a wave function is at a given tensor in the bulk, another wave function in the bulk, at another tensor, is also fluctuating at that same state of existence (frame of existence).

if one considers the Hubble constant, the gravitational field, the given commuting fields (effected), and the elaborated tensors, rolled into one matrix, your given the table that effects the parameters that make up "time" or the local propagation speed of existence.

see? simple. not even one paragraph.

Larissa Borissova added a reply

Special Relativity (SR) is based on the 4-dimensional flat Pseudo-Eukledian space E4 (flat space-time) --- the Minkowski space. It is flat, as its 4-dimensional curvature is zero. SR does not include gravitational fields in principle, because gravitatiion is llnked directly with the spatial derivative of time component of the metric tensor g_00 (it is 1 in SR).

Branko Vasilije Mišković added a reply

The answer must separate the relativistic dynamics (mas function and Einstein's equation, founded on the classical physics and logic, from the kinematical speculations calling in question the reality of space and time.