"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

Vacuum

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

April 17

Fred-Rick Schermer "He (Einstein) used the term Spacetime to help declare aspects about the gravitational effects of matter, in specifics the anomalies as for instance seen with the perihelion of Mercury."

Spacetime is a term in relativity theory which only indicates that the structure of space and time is related.

"Once a person accepts that matter came about in the Big Bang model, then one cannot declare at the same time that unification is real as well."

The big bang model is bullshit.

The only relevant model is about an eternal universe. Instead of a big bang only cyclic bangs happen, which affect about 10% of the mass of the universe. The restricted cyclic bangs release astronomic signs, which we misinterprete as traces of a big bang.

The cyclic bangs resolve all black holes, once every 20 billion years, and retransform their matter to new star fuel.

All arguments against that model of the eternal cyclic universe can be disproven in a factual way.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

April 17

The thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1.

Dear Fred-Rick

- in that

“…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...”

- you understand what is in the SS posts above correctly, however only in certain sense, though.

To understand more it is necessary to read at least first few pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, where it is explained what are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”; and their concrete actualizations in every concrete informational pattern/system - concrete spaces and time

[ while in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter is nothing else that some the Set’s element.

At that the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception” .]

I.e. the “Logos” set elements “make something to be an information”, and any/every concrete pattern/system, including Matter, is made absolutely obligatorily by some concrete “composition of the “Logos” elements actualizations”.

“Space” and “Time” are just the “Logos” set [besides any informational pattern/system “is made” also, first of all, by “Logos” elements “Energy”, “Change”, “Logical Rules”] and their actualizations in concrete cases are concrete space, that can have any number of concrete “space dimensions” [the number is equal to number of degreases of freedom at change of state of a pattern/system], and the unique in the Set “time dimension”.

Any concrete pattern/system can exist and change, in a system its elements interact, etc., only in its concrete space and time.

So, including any “behavior of matter” is possible only in some space, Matter is rather simple logical system that is based on binary reversible logics, and so Matter’s utmost universal space has 4 dimensions – X,Y,Z are necessary – “allow” to make binary operations, cτ- dimension allows reverse binary operation.

Correspodingly the space and time intervals between elements, motion of elements in space and time dimensions, etc., are absolutely necessary for existence of everything in Matter –

- and at description and analysis of what exists and happens in Matter. If you don’t know these data, you by no means can describe and analyze “behavior of matter”.

Besides, really it is fundamentally senseless to ask “what appeared earlier – Matter or its spacetime”, Matter could appeared only in its spacetime, which – as logical possibility to create, and to exist of, Matter – existed as a part of the Set’s spacetime, which contains all spaces of all Its elements – and one time dimension;

- while the Set exists absolutely “eternally”, having no Beginning and no End, since absolutely fundamentally - logically - cannot be non-existent.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

April 18

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you, Wolfgang, I understand better now where you are coming from.

The model you embrace is not the model I embrace, and this helps us understand what each of us is saying.

I do not support the cyclic universe; it was a one-time event in which the prior state broke at a fundamental level. Hence my saying that, once we have an omelet, we know that the egg was broken. There is no return to the original state available.

An eternal universe requires that we have evidence for that eternal aspect. We do not have that evidence. I will not stand in non-scientific grounds. I will only stand with my feet on the ground (even when that is on a planet floating through space) and I will not stand with my feet on space.

It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions.

Matter returning to an immaterial state is not supported by scientific evidence. At best, it can be read in models, but then we need to discuss the value of these models. I am not convinced that black holes are actually real, but that is a different discussion.

I am standing with the scientific evidence, Wolfgang. I do not extrapolate it into additional dimensions. I may not be the best scientist, but I will not stand outside the scientific realm.

Thank you again for explaining where you are standing.

Cosmin Visan added a reply

20 hours ago

Spacetime doesn't exist. "Spacetime" is just an idea in consciousness.

… Read more

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

15 hours ago

Fred-Rick Schermer "It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions."

We do not have the faintest valid explanation about a possible creation of electrons and protons without the simultaneous creation of positrons and antiprotons.

This fact and the unlimited lifetime of electrons and most atomic nuclei leaves us with the only possible conclusion that matter must be and must have been eternal.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

13 hours ago

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you for that answer, Wolfgang. We are not thinking fully along the same lines. That is very clarifying; after all, communication is difficult enough.

Let me find out if this is about language or if we really say something else.

I can say that the unlimited lifetime of electrons points to a potentially eternal nature of Energy. This is what you may want to say, but you placed eternal with Matter, which is in my model not possible.

If the transformation of Energy into Matter occurred some 13.8 billion years ago, then the term eternal cannot be applied to Matter. A (fundamental) transformation undermines being able to use the word eternal.

It is not known how old Energy is, so I cannot make the claim that Energy is, or is not eternal. We just don't know. Yet Matter is a result. We know therefore that it cannot be eternal; it was produced at one point in time, something new got produced from something old(er).

--

In my model, I do not need to start with the same amount of matter as antimatter because the starting point for matter begins under extreme circumstances. It is not an ordinary circumstance. Antimatter will occur, but it is a circumstantial byproduct.

We can discuss this further if you want, but the special circumstance is more interesting now.

There was a special circumstance in which the prior normal conditions of whatever or however energy existed before caused itself to move toward that special circumstance. This could have been done in a happenstance manner, or in a directed manner. But it was a step that led to a fundamental undermining, with either option we pick.

As a consequence, (some) original energy got deformed during these special conditions, and a quark soup got created (to keep the storyline simple). Then, the special conditions were reversed, everything back to normal, yet the deformed quarks were not able to return to their original state. They were and are deformed packages of original energy.

The reversal of the special conditions occurred at the CMBR, when conditions were normal again. Here the quarks aligned themselves immediately into neutrons and protons.

That is the point Zeus overthrew Cronus, if you allow me to throw in some Greek mythology as support that I am not thinking up something structurally never considered before. Where immaterial Energy was first the only circumstance for energy, with the transformation of some energy into quarks, they actually took the lead.

Matter became the center of energy (quarks in nuclei of atoms). Everything else remaining in the original energized state then falling in place, aligning themselves with the quarks in the center.

Yes, electrons then also part of the original immaterial energy, but then pulled into the deformed reality of the energized quarks, causing the tip of that iceberg to become material.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Cosmin Visan added a reply:::

Wolfgang Konle Matter doesn't exist. "Matter" is just an idea in consciousness.

Cosmin Visan added a reply:::

Fred-Rick Schermer You really do have a communication problem. Have you tried a psychotherapist ?

Reply to this discussion

Mercury

Stam Nicolis added a reply

May 20

We understand it just fine and it would be a good idea to learn it. Special relativity is nothing more and nothing less than the covariance of the equations of motion under Lorentz transformations.

Stefano Quattrini added a reply

May 20

under Einstein's formulation of the Lorentz Transformations...

Christian Baumgarten added a reply

18 hours ago

"How do we understand special relativity?"

By unlearning Newtonian mechanics and (re-) learning Hamiltonian mechanics.

Abdul Malek added a reply

16 hours ago

Abbas Kashani >"How do we understand special relativity?""

By not trying to understand Special Relativity (SR), because it is a Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself. In Einstein’s own word, “Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?” A. Einstein, in "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" (Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961).

Special Relativity is a brain-cooked fabrication, have no basis in objective reality and was meant to be an imaginary shield against the newly recognized “Evil Quanta” – a new Satan menacing God’s universe of perfect order and certainty. SR and related mathematical fabrications based on Pythagorean geometry, i.e., LTs, "spacetime". gamma factor, etc., are mental and mathematical fabrications, all derived from the false “axiomatic truth” that light photons are massless and their velocity c is an absolute and universal constant. A cursory glance at the following few publications (in order the first one last) will make it clear”:

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2"

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/9900

"New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity". JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Recommend

Issam Mohanna added a reply

15 hours ago

Abbas Kashani,

Question:"How do we understand special relativity?"

Answer:"Shut up and calculate."[Richard Feynman]

Lena J-T Strömberg added a reply

5 hours ago

It's not so typical Einstein, since he was concerned with curved spaces and more deterministic physics. Reading this, I remembered changing time for some plants at home, with magnets. They don't grow so fast, and need not so much water. In honour of Einstein, an area format for modeling is given in my latest paper.