"In recent years several new particles have been discovered which are currently assumed to be “elementary,” that is, essentially structureless. The probability that all such particles should be really elementary becomes less and less as their number increases. It is by no means certain that nucleons, mesons, electrons, neutrinos are all elementary particles." -Enrico Fermi
The Standard Model of particle physics -- with its six quarks in three colors, its three generations of charged leptons and neutrinos, the antiparticle counterparts to each, and its thirteen bosons, including the Higgs -- describes all the known particles and their interactions in the Universe. This extends to every experiment ever performed in every particle accelerator. In short, this is a problem: there’s no clear path to what new physics lies beyond the Standard Model.
So physicists are looking for any possible anomalies at all, at any theoretical ideas that lead to new predictions at the frontiers, and any experimental result that differs from the Standard Model predictions. Unfortunately, we’re looking at thousands of different composite particles, decays, branching ratios, and scattering amplitudes. Our standards for what’s a robust measurement and a compelling result need to be extremely high.
Science is based on definitions and agreed upon postulates. My tuppence worth on defintions is that fundamental particles that should be included in the Standard Model are the stable ones.
Because leptons are unstable and decay into electrons or positrons depending on their charge, only the electrons and positrons should be included in the Standard Model (SM). The muons and tauons should be treated as higher energy versions of the stable leptons.
Because quarks cannot be isolated, they shouldn't be SM at all. You'll find that the only stable composite particle is the proton. Since mesons eventually decay into stable leptons, we can assume that they're high energy leptons. Mesons are found in particle accelerators after proton-proton collisions which means they're fragments of protons. This implies that the stable protons are composed of stable leptons probably structured like atoms: positive nucleus orbited by electrons.
Lastly, there should only be one fundamental force in the SM table and the other 3 should be explained as manifestation of the EM force as this is the force that exist between the only 2 stable particles in the new SM. This means that matter is composed of positive and negative particles in equal measure.
This means that the van der Waals/London force is an EM force and the same goes for the Kasimir effect. Even the frictional forces have to be described in terms of the EM force because they produce heat which is in the infrared part of the EM spectrum.
I know it's difficult to explain gravity in terms of the EM force but some scientists have postulated 'dipole gravity' where the poles are electric poles - it's a start.
The Hint of New Physics is not in Particles, but Smallest Particles, better is Smallest Particles Dynamics! Unfortunately, the paradox between Space and Smallest Particles is even worse for Today Physicists to understand or to see the solution in Particles Physics, because Smallest Particles are not Smallest Particles, but Space is as the Smallest Particle, then it is even more Problem from Small into Big or Big into Small, THE MATRIX or PARTICLES FIELD OF THE UNIVERSE.
I AM GLAD I HAVE CHANGED THE NAME FROM THOHH PARTICLES FIELD OF THE UNIVERSE BECOMES THE MATRIX AFTER 6 YEARS.
With the Matrix I got more imaginations, I got more interesting, and I got more factors than before; however, THE MATRIX has nothing to do with the Movie MATRIX or any other Matrix before. All has to DO WITH and to deal with or from THOHH PARTICLES FIELD OF THE UNIVERSE!
Do not go around from one Particle to another around and around and come around IN Circle for ever without seeing the Matrix to end your wandering in Physical Conditions Universe or lost in Physical Conditions Universe from Life to Life to Lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE MATRIX or /and Smallest Particles Dynamics will put LNC and LHCb into obsolete or retirement, simply LHC has reached its limits or LHC cannot break thru SPACE-PARTICLE, noway!Besides, THE MATRIX is everything, it is not THE PARTICLES ARE EVERYTHING AS LHC HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Matrix is as Final Limit of this Physical Conditions Universe; therefore; it is also Final Limits for Human Science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE MATRIX is as the Causes for this Physical Conditions Universe, PCU!
THE MATRIX is as the Origin for this Physical Conditions Universe!
THE MATRIX is as everything you are looking for to end your sufferance and miseries in Physical Conditions Science which leads you from one another without ending and a way out!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dark Matter Maker
Smallest Particles Dynamics
Final Particles Mfg
I called this Universe is as Physical Conditions Universe. In other Article I have written and called as Physical Spiritual Conditions Universe, PSpiCU or just Physical Spiritual Universe, PSpiU, due to results of observations from Non-Spirit Rock to Spirit Rock , you can laugh, but do not laugh to loud. . . . . . . . .Depend on Observations . . . . .
My tuppence worth on defintions is that fundamental particles that should be included in the Standard Model are the stable ones.
So does that mean U shouldn't occur on the periodic table, since there are no stable isotopes of it? That seems...odd.
Chemists use molecular vibration time to distinguish arrangements of atoms that are not-a-thing vs. a thing: if it lasts more than one vibration, it's a thing. I imagine physicsts do something similar for atomic nuclei and other subatomic particles: if you smash things together and the intermediate stays around longer than the time it takes the constituents to interact with and react to the new arrangement, it's a thing. If it flies apart as fast as those interactions occur, it isn't.
A uranium nucleus is thus a legitimate particle because the protons and neutrons hold together much longer than their interaction time. Even though the configuration is not technically stable and will break apart if you leave it alone for long enough.
I'm talking about fundamental particles that inhabit the Standard Model, not composite particles that don't. You didn't have to quote uranium (U) when the free neutron could've done.
In my post, I alluded to the theory that composite matter are made of positive and negative particles which are the positrons and electrons respectively. This means that protons and neutrons have similar structures except that protons have an extra positive charge in its nucleus and the neutrons have equal numbers of electrons and positrons. When nucleons combine to form nuclei, they do so by nuclear bonding i.e. electromagnetically.
So, my definition of stability only applies to fundamental particles. The instability of composite particles is due to structural problems. In my theory, even protons can be unstable; but they regain stability either by expelling a positron or capturing a shell electron. Remember, the instability is caused by structural problems.
Today a planetoide discovered in 1988 got to be named after a local weatherman. Looks like the LHC is starting to fall in the same category of relatively unimportant 'discoveries'. Who knows they might call one these bumps one day an 'Ethon' if they keep on doing this for an other 50 years with every 10 years a small upgrade … collecting rubble.
You think protons are made up of two positrons and an electron? And that protons are held together by the EM force?
Hey Ethan, maybe you want to cover 'are protons composed of electrons and positrons' and 'are protons held together by the EM force' in your next 'ask Ethan' column...
I never said the proton is made of 2 positrons and an electron. I used the plural but never gave any numbers just that there's an extra positron in the proton's nucleus. I'm aware of the mass ratio between the proton and the electron.
"The Standard Model of particle physics — with its six quarks in three colors, its three generations of charged leptons and neutrinos, the antiparticle counterparts to each, and its thirteen bosons, including the Higgs — describes all the known particles and their interactions in the Universe."
Except for that little thing we call gravity. Not much of a model of the universe if that isn't included. Your 'Higgs' field isn't even remotely close to explaining that despite it's claimed discovery years ago.
details details details, you're not so good with pesky little details.
Science is based on definitions and agreed upon postulates.
No, it is mathematics that is based on definitions and agreed upon postulates. Science, on the other hand, is based on testable explanations and predictions of the universe. You can build up mathematical models that attempt to explain and predict the behaviour of things in the universe, but of course these models have to match the actual behaviour of these things as shown by experiments or observation. Your model does not seem to match the observed reality. Existing experimental data contradicts it all.
Mathematics is the language of science says the scientists. Experiments are about concensus agreements on interpretations of data which are taken as defacto proofs.
In any case, thanks for admitting that SR, GR, and QM are mathematical subjects.
Are you thinking of Preon Theory?
No. Just simple electrons and positrons structured in a similar fashion to atoms i.e. with a central nucleus made of positrons and orbited by electrons.
Mathematics may be the language of science, but by itself it is not science. The actual sciences like relativity and quantum mechanics are concerned with the behaviour of real things. The equations in which they are expressed must be able to predict the behaviour of real things to some degree. If you believe that experiments are only about consensus agreements on interpretations of data, that means that transgressing the consensus doesn’t matter. And if you believe that, I invite you to try transgressing the consensus from the windows of my apartment. I live on the 21st floor.
The problem with your hypothesis is that experiments have been done showing that when an electron and a positron come together, they disappear and become two high-energy photons. It is possible to create an unstable bound state of an electron and a positron (a positronium), but it certainly doesn’t behave in any way like a neutron.
>>The actual sciences like relativity and quantum mechanics are concerned with the behaviour of real things.
Let's deconstruct this sentence:
Relativity: Galilean, Special, General
QM: wave equation, Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP)
behaviour of real things (?)
In Galilean relativity, space is a void with nothing in it and acts as a stage in which events take place; time is immutable and is a measure of the interval between events. Also time advances at a fixed rate into the future.
In Special relativity, space and time are a fabric woven into spacetime that can bend and curve and enables time travel at least into the future. Time passes at different rates depending on your uniform velocity. And length can contract also depending on your uniform velocity.
General relativity, extends Special relativity and equates the geometry of space with the energy/stress/momentum within it. This is achieved by postulating that mass warps spacetime creating a spacetime curvature that replaces gravity.
My commentary: you may have guessed that I subscribe to Galilean relativity. Special relativity states that your uniform speed affects the rate at which time passes for you. For 2 people travelling at different uniform speeds, time will pass at different rates for each of them. Einstein's relativity uses coordinate systems in which 2 people at different spatial coordinates, cannot meet and shake hands. Similarly, if 2 people are at 2 different time coordinates, they shouldn't be able to meet and shake hands. Yet, in the Twins Paradox, the travelling twin comes back and shakes hands with his now older twin. How is this possible? One explanation is that the travelling twin goes to the future in the forward journey and comes back to the past in the return journey. But that's not what is stated.
Consider how time dilation is described: a moving clock (M) is seen by a stationary observer (S) to be moving in slow motion because light traverses a longer path for S than M but light is moving at the same speed for both of them. Hence, S will perceive M to be running in slow motion whereas M will perceive time to be running normally.
This is actually an optical illusion because S is seeing the images of M which travel at the constant speed of light but M is moving further and further away from S so the path the images of M have to traverse get longer and longer and hence take longer and longer to get to S. Thus S sees an illusion of slow motion, not time going slower. But this is interpretted as time dilation, not for S but for M.
Then there's gravitational time dilation. Instead of describing this as higher gravity hinders the workings of a clock, they describe it as slowing the rate at which time passes. By sheer good luck, our time pieces can detect this change and measure it accurately. Not. GPS clocks use caesium 133 atomic oscillations to mark time. However, in orbit, they oscillate faster because of less hindrance by the lower gravity; yet it's interpretted as proof of General Relativity's time dilation - no it isn't; it's just clock dilation.
Curvature of spacetime is ridiculous because, if spacetime is a fabric and you curve it, it'll leave something behind!! But it doesn't. It mimics the equipotentials of the gravitational field created by the mass that's supposed to be doing the curving. Einstein mistook these equipotentials for curvatures. Besides, equipotentials have perpendicular forces known as gravitational forces which Einstein denied they exist.
Length contraction: If a moving observer (M) is holding a rectangular block (B), a stationary observer (S) will see B as a cube because of length contraction. Now if the effect is real, M should also see it as a cube. But that's not what relativity tells us, hence relativity is false; length contraction is an illusion. A definition of an illusion is when 2 people see the same thing differently. Please don't go into the relativity of simultaneity rubbish; it's just an epicycle to prop up a failed theory. If length contraction is real, M should see the cube as well because the contraction occurs only in the direction of motion. So M should see the contracted length relative to the unchanged width and height.
What I like about QM people is their honesty e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation, the many worlds interpretation etc. In other words, they confess that it's about interpretation unlike relativists who claim that it's actual time that passes slowly/quickly not an interpretation of the result.
QM enthusiasts claim that the wave equation gives us a cloud of probabilities around the nucleus which means that it doesn't revolve around it. Again, this is just an interpretation of what the cloud of probabilities is. Let me show you how scientists misinterpretted the results: consider the blades of a fan while they're spinning. You can write a wave equation to specify the location of one blade at any given time and this will give you a cloud of probabilities. Does that mean the blades are not spinning around the hub? Of course not.
The HUP implies that it's next to impossible to localise an electron in the nucleus. Presumably, the same goes for the positron. Yet we have fast moving electrons and positrons shooting out of the nucleus in beta decay. In fact, sometimes the nucleus captures an atomic electron. How is that possible as it's next to impossible for the electron to be located in the nucleus? You see, it's just a misinterpretation of the HUP and the wave equation. Every concept in science has a domain of validity and the HUP and the wave equation are being used outside their domains which are yet to be identified. As for the electrons and positrons shooting out of the nucleus, it happens due to powerful electrostatic forces within the nucleus implying that electrons and positrons already exist in the nucleus.
Behaviour of real things: this is determined by electromagnetism which uses real forces rather than made up ones like the strong and weak nuclear forces which were invented to explain the inadequacies of existing theories. I've just heard that the LHC has dicovered 5 new fundamental particles. No they haven't. It's just another misinterpretation of the data.
>>I invite you to try transgressing the consensus from the windows of my apartment. I live on the 21st floor.
To do what? To prove that Galileo and Newton are right i.e. that I'll fall to my death? Or is it to prove that clocks run faster at great heights than they do on the ground? But, do we have to do it from the window? Remember, I do believe that clocks run faster at greater heights. What I don't believe is that time doesn't pass quicker at those heights. This actually proves that Galileo and Newton are right, time is immutable; it's just the way we measure it that varies.
>>The problem with your hypothesis is that experiments have been done showing that when an electron and a positron come together, they disappear and become two high-energy photons.
You're right on that point. But, there must be something that's preventing the electrons from meeting the positrons and annihilating each other. It's like why don't the negatively charged electrons fall into the positively charged nucleus. There's something preventing them and I'll describe it shortly. Clue: it isn't the wave equation nor the HUP. First, a recap of what my theory is:
The proton is made up of a nucleus of positrons orbited by electrons with an excess positron in the nucleus. The neutron is the same as a proton but with equal numbers of electrons and positrons. The proton is the epitome of stability. This means that the extra electron in the neutron is destabilising it.
When the proton and the neutron combine to form atomic nuclei, they do so electromagnetically by forming nuclear orbitals just like atoms combine by forming molecular orbitals. This automatically does away with strong nuclear force. My theory explains a lot of nuclear phenomena:
* The nucleus can be viewed as being cloaked by an envelope of electrons which repel the atomic electrons if they venture too close thus preventing them from falling into the nucleus i.e. by electron degeneracy pressure.
* If there's sufficient positive charge in the nucleus to overcome this degeneracy pressure, an electron will be captured. But the captured electron will be at home in the nuclear orbital as it's already populated with electrons i.e. the electron doesn't lose it's identity as implied by current theories.
* Another way to get rid of excess positive charge is to expel a positron which is an alternative decay path when there's excessive positive charge. Furthermore, the positron is expelled by electrostatic repulsion which explains the high kinetic energy of the expelled positron. Just think of the strength of the electrostatic repulsive force by considering the distance through which it acts using the inverse square law. Your theorists claim that electromagnetic forces in the nucleus are negligible.
* The same thing can be said for electron beta decay. This time it's the electrostatic repulsive forces between the electrons in the nucleus.
* The structure of the free neutron explains why it decays into a proton and an electron: it simply loses the destabilising electron to gain the structure of the stable proton. No need for a weak force which borrows 80 times the energy of the neutron to facilitate it.
* The neutron is stable within a stable nucleus because, when it combines with a proton, it forms a nuclear orbital where the destabilising electron freely roams leaving the neutron looking like the proton and just as stable.
>>It is possible to create an unstable bound state of an electron and a positron (a positronium), but it certainly doesn’t behave in any way like a neutron.
Obviously, because a neutron isn't made of a positron and an electron. Have you seen the proton:electron mass ratio? It's about 1840:1. Hence, you need around 900 of each to make a neutron, the rest being binding energy.
The protons and neutrons were created when the primordial energy turned into matter. Current theories claim that it turned into quark-antiquark pairs as well as electron-positron pairs. But, as you know quark-antiquark pairs are known as mesons which decay into electrons and positrons in a matter of nanoseconds. So we end up with an electron-positron plasma from which the protons and neutrons were made. Current theories imply that antimatter would also be produced which would annihilate each other leaving nothing but pure energy. To solve this conundrum, they invented the matter-antimatter asymmetry which enabled 1 in a billion particles to survive the annihilation process in the form of matter particles.
Electrons and positrons also annihilate each other into pure energy. But, Breit and Wheeler put forward a theory that low energy photons can collide, coalesce, and split into electron-positron pairs if they have enough energy. Imperial College London have proposed an experiment to prove the Breit-Wheeler theory. When this is finally proved, it'll make my theory robust and prove that nature is not as wasteful as current theories would have us believe. This is because nearly all the energy will have been recycled and nearly all particles survived.
The plasma is opaque to radiation; so it will have trapped the energy forever forcing them to be recycled. My theory implies that, as more particles are used up in the formation of protons, less of them were available for annihilation. So the annihilations eventually came to a stop. The nucleons eventually formed atomic nuclei and then acquired the remaining electrons to form neutral atoms releasing any left over energy as neutral matter is transparent to radiation. See, there's no need for a matter-antimatter asymmetry. But, I can't explain how this happened; so I'm forced to use the anthropic principle until such time this can be explained more rigourously.
Thank you for your patience.
I can sum up Ethan's blog article about new physics at the LHC in three words: 'they got nothin'.
If the LHC did 'detect' a dozen new particles, not sure how it would actually qualify as new physics anyway, as each new discovery is merely ignored, thrown into the pile of zoo particles, and screened out for the next search (todays Nobel is tomorrow's background! Publish, publish, publish!) . The is all and end all Higgs particle supposedly was detected and yet they can't seem to actually do anything with it, except throw it in the pile and rush to find funding for their next particle collider (I'm sure they will be at the science march with their tin cups ready). This has been going on for decades and pretty much nothing has been done with the previously discovered particles, each of which was in their turn over hyped as 'a major discovery which would change everything!!!'
There is a growing concern in the physics field that HEP has pretty much become a 'make work' project to gainfully employ particle physicists to produce papers (and otherwise not build bombs???), and that's about all it does.
You are characterizing things a bit unfairly. The Standard Model predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson at a certain mass. The experiment was run to determine if the Higgs Boson actually did, in fact, exist. This experiment was an important attempt to falsify the Standard Model: no Higgs Boson within the mass range predicted implies that the Standard Model is wrong and could have led to new theories. The fact that the Higgs Boson exists and has the mass predicted is a confirmation of the SM, but I'm not sure what you mean by "do anything with it". What do you expect anyone to do with the Higgs Boson?
I can see you oppose funding for basic scientific research. That's a position that seems to get a lot of popular support, but it's a dangerous one. Presumably, you'd prefer to fund research into more practical areas that could yield immediate benefit. That's shortsighted, though. For example, if you were around 90 or so years ago, I'm sure you would have opposed funding for experiments into the crazy idea that matter behaves as a wave, that particles can tunnel through potential barriers, and that subatomic particles can only exist in certain discrete energy states. Of course, if people like you had their way back then, I would not be able to communicate with you using this medium, as the inquiry I described, of course, is the fundamental scientific advance known today as quantum mechanics, which formed the basis for modern computers, among many other applications.
The point is that it is not always obvious that pure scientific research will lead to practical results, and it's not always true that a particular line of research will someday give practical benefit. There are some who will argue that knowledge for its own sake is worth pursuing, and I largely agree. However, even if you judge scientific worth solely in terms of practical application, it is still imperative to continue pure scientific research. Development of applied science would screech to a halt absent progress in the realm of pure science. We may not know which pure research project eventually will yield practical result, but we know that absent ALL pure research, there will be no further developments in applied science.
>>The Standard Model predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson at a certain mass.
In the 1960s, when the Standard Model was being developed, its equations would fail if its fundamental particles have intrinsic mass. So, they invented the Higgs Mechanism to give mass to those particles that interacted with a Higgs field; and those that don't, remain massless. Einstein said that energy has mass which warps spacetime. His photoelectric effect theory proved that energy was quantised in packets of energy called photons i.e. photons have mass. According to the Higgs Mechanism, photons don't interact with the Higgs field, which is mediated by the Higgs boson, hence, photons are massless. Either Einstein or Higgs is wrong. If Higgs is wrong then the theories surrounding his theory fall away taking with it the Standard Model and the Higgs boson. If Einstein is wrong, lots of things go wrong. The LHC experiment seems to have proven that scientists will invent anything to save face.
>>if you were around 90 or so years ago, I’m sure you would have opposed funding for experiments
If we were around just over 100 years ago, we would've put a stop to the crazy theories that came during the atomic theory and beyond that depend on us leaving our common sense at the door and describe nature as 'absurd'. You're right, they're crazy ideas but, above all, they're false. All the forces of nature that came out in the last 90 years are manifestations of the EM force which makes Lord Kelvin's statement correct that no more new things will be found, just more and more accurate measurements. Although the atomic theory was a new discovery, it proved that nature is electromagnetic i.e. electromagnetism rules all of nature. Gravity will soon be explained as a manifestation of the EM force.
You mourn all the (false) discoveries science has made if we had our way. From the money saved, we would've discovered how gravity really works - the curvature of spacetime, yeah right. Why not the equipotentials of the gravitational field that has perpendicular forces known as the gravitational forces?
>>There are some who will argue that knowledge for its own sake is worth pursuing, and I largely agree.
I too would agree. I mean who wouldn't? But, what we've got is false theories based on optical illusions (SR) and misinterpretation of data sets and results (everything else). So, it was a total waste - apart from the world wide web, thanks Tim Berners Lee.
>>Development of applied science would screech to a halt absent progress in the realm of pure science.
No it won't. Proper research will be funded not the rubbish we've got now. Remember, that the scientific community are asking for funding super symmetry which is a layer on top of the failed Standard Model. So it too would fail after wasting gazzillions of tax dollars. Similarly, with String theory, quantum field theory, time travel etc.
"The proton is made of a nucleus of positrons orbited by electrons". Okay, how are the positrons held together? If it's all electromagnetic, why don't the positrons fly apart since they repel each other? They would be further aided by the attraction that the orbiting electrons exert on them. There is no reason why these positrons would stay in place to form a nucleus.
"What do you expect anyone to do with the Higgs Boson?"
I had read that it is possible to create a beam of them using a linear accelerator (circular accelerators are good for producing a mix of particles). In particle interactions effect of gravity is ignored because it is too small. I think a beam of HB particles maybe useful to increase gravity of interacting particles to check what happens when gravity is high.
As for the commenters in this website who keep claiming all physicists are wrong and they are right, I am wondering if really there are any readers who think they are right? :-)
I don't think anybody would have problem with those people if they just be respectful to real science and real scientists.
Don't talk like you are really an expert; don't talk like all physicists are wrong and you are right for certain.
It is still possible to talk about your ideas while showing respect for real scientists.
And stop assuming that whenever Ethan does not answer you it is because he is unable to answer your "challenge" and you are "winning the argument".
I don’t think anybody would have problem with those people if they just be respectful to real science and real scientists.
Scientists probably wouldn't have a problem with them if they continued to badmouth modern science yet published reproducible results showing their ideas had some merit. One well-thrown pass is worth a million armchair quarterbacks. Even when the passer is a loudmouth while the armchair guys are nice, it's still the case that the pass counts more than any amount of advice delivered from the couch.
>>Okay, how are the positrons held together?
A colleague of mine is developing mono-charge physics theory which states that all particles are made of mono-charges. I haven't fully developed my theory that deeply. But then, the atomic theory wasn't developed in a year - it took decades. However, using the mono-charge theory, the positrons would be made of mono-charges that would arrange themselves so that they attract each other in a similar way as protons do in the atomic nucleus. This would give a role for neutrinos to play. Failing that I can call the anthropic principle the fact that it is so. A last resort would be to use the strong force; but I'm sure an alternative would be found before long.
>>As for the commenters in this website who keep claiming all physicists are wrong and they are right
I'm not saying all physicists are wrong; it's just that I'm pointing out the fallacies of existing theories that's all. And that's the problem. Because I haven't sung anybody's correct work doesn't mean that I think everyone else are also wrong. My theory revloves around electromagnetism. That means that special thanks go to Hans Christian Orsted, Andre Marie Ampere, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Oliver Heaviside, Heinrich Hertz, Marconi, J.J. Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, Einstein for his photoelectric effect and E=mc^2, Louis de Broglie etc. I could mention Wolfgang Pauli but he left a lot to be desired; I mean I do use his exclusion principle but use electromagnetism to enforce it rather than passive quantum numbers. And that's what's wrong with QM - it's too passive to enforce anything.
>>I don’t think anybody would have problem with those people if they
just be respectful to real science and real scientists.
I do respect real science and real scientists. I respect all the scientists mentioned above especially their theories. From modern scientists, I respect scientists like Neil deGrass Tyson but I don't think he fully understands Special & General Relativity nor QM; he just takes them on trust without question depending on the honesty of his predecessors. And the same thing goes for all other scientists like Brian Greene who believes in time travel just becuase Relativity says so.
I can't accept relativity as it is because the thought experiments used to prove time dilation are nothing but optical illusions. You have to hear me out: a moving clock (M) is SEEN by a stationary observer to be running in slow motion. S is viewing the images of M which take longer and longer to get to him because M is moving further and further away. Surely, this is an optical illusion as S is seeing images of M's past i.e. it has nothing to do with the passage of time. Yet scientists take it as gospel truth that time goes slow for moving clocks. And they don't question it, they just attack anybody who argues against it. Now who's disrepecting who? For the record, do you think the EmDrive is a valid scientific device? NASA scientists think so because they've recently gave it the thumbs up. That's another reason I don't trust current science. For goodness sake, the EmDrive violates conservation laws.
>>It is still possible to talk about your ideas while showing respect for real scientists.
I know, but the real scientists defend, tooth and claw, the lies masquerading as science. I've given an example above; allow me to give you another: a moving observer (M) is holding a rectangular block (B) which is seen by a stationary observer (S) as a cube because of length contraction. Relativity tells us that the change is real but M doesn't notice the change. I mean the contraction only happens in the direction of motion; the width and height don't change. Surely, M would notice the change relative to the unchanged width and height. Let's just say that relativity is incorrect.
If time dilation does not exists how do you explain the experiments with atomic clocks? They show differences for both time dilation due to speed and due to gravity change (height). And the differences definitely do not change randomly each time and always match to calculations done using relativity?
That's easy. The caesium 133 atom oscillates at a particular at ground level. It marks time by counting 9,192,631,770 oscillations to count 1 second. In orbit, the same atom oscillates at a higher rate. The difference in the rate of oscillation is due to gravity is different in both locations. On the ground where gravity is higher, the atom oscillates at the lower rate because the higher gravity is hindering the oscillation by affecting the way the electron transitions between energy levels. In orbit where there's lower gravity, the hindrance is lower so the atoms oscillate at a faster rate giving the illusion of gravitational time dilation. It's clock dilation not time dilation. Get used to it.
Some people think that gravity at the subatomic level is negligible. True. But it's the gravitational force between subatomic particles which is negligible. The effect of the earth's gravitational force is as formidable as it is for you and me. Remember that the acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass.
When GPS engineers make corrections to the satellite clocks, they adjust the software to count a higher number of oscillations to mark each second. It's not time dilation; it's clock dilation.
How do you know? Did you ever used an atomic clock and made measurements for how much it changes due to gravity and speed (which you did not say anything about)? Do you have any formulas to calculate the changes your own way and show that they also match results? No :-)
This link http://www.npl.co.uk/educate-explore/what-is-time/how-do-atomic-clocks-… gives you the standard number of oscillations of a caesium 133 atom at sea-level or thereabouts.
This link http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/020-einstein-gravity-time-dilati… confirms that clocks run faster the higher you go up in the atmosphere. It makes reference to General Relativity is the cause via the Lorentz factor, which I disagree with as the cause. The lorentz factor seems to give the correct results but doesn't tell what causes it. Mathematical equations give you numbers, you have to interpret them. But they never tell you how they happen i.e. what causes them to happen.
What I really got used to it is existence of lots the crackpots on these website. :-)
Kasim, are you lying by omission or simply being dishonest to push your crackery?
Onboard clocks are designed so that the "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, by amounts predicted by relativistic calculations, so that once they are in orbit their ticks seem be at the rate expected by reference clocks at GPS ground stations. Your line of nonsense is simply that.
The reason real physicists don't listen to crackpots is because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; not because of any conspiracy. That is the reason why String Theory couldn't become accepted as Theory of Everything for example.
"Timekeepers" keep time at different rates after exposure to acceleration (to increase speed, obviously) or to different gravity fields, depending on altitude here on Eatrh (or proximity to a massive object, we can reasonably assume.)
"Time dilation" is a false reification of "time" as an entity. SR is based on that error. Then the "equations" make physical objects shrink! "Believe it or not!" (I'm going with "not.')
I couldn't agree more. Actually I can, but this is good enough.
As a matter of fact, I don't think anybody here believes me. But that's not the point. It's the same dilemma that Copernicus and Galileo faced in the 16th/17th centuries. Galileo sacrificied his freedom for the truth but he was no socrates i.e. he recanted the truth to save his life.
And now, we are descrating Galileo's name about the truth that space and time are immutable with the lies that space as well as time change with velocity.
The next thing people like me will be told is to recant our beliefs of the truth.
Do you really believe that if you see a moving clock running in slow motion, it means that time is ticking slow for that clock?
"Onboard clocks are designed so that the “tick” at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, by amounts predicted by relativistic calculations".
You mean the GPS engineers adjust the caesium-133 atom to make its electrons transition at a lower rate? If so, which atom do they choose? Probably all the gazillions of atoms. This I have to see.
Atomic clocks have a gizmo that counts the number of transitions electrons of a caesium atom make between energy levels. It's beyond manual control. Aparaently, gravity has an effect on the rate of transitions - higher gravity causes the rate of transition to be lower than when in lower gravity environment such a GPS orbit.
The counts are passed to a software program that determines the time. When the satellites went up for the first time, they put a switch in the software to use or not to use the correction. The default was not to use the correction and this switch can be switched on by remote control from earth. When the clock was in orbit, it was out-of-sync with ground clocks by being ahead of the ground clocks. Maybe that's how they knew what correction to make. Then they switched on the correction and the clocks were back in sync.
All this shows is that the caesium atom oscillates faster in orbit than it does on the ground. That's not time dilation, it's clock dilation. Time dilation means that objects, after sometime has passed will be at different time coordinates i.e. different objects moving differently in time won't be able to communicate with each other.
Do you guys really think anybody believes you here? :-)
I am pretty sure you guys would not agree on everything. How about you two try to argue with each other and we see who will win?
What do you mean argue with each other? We're in agreement that, special and general relativity are based on fallacies that you wouldn't defend. Stands to reason - nobody would defend a fallacious theory.
Arguments of both you and MM were defeated long time ago. You guys just don't shut up and think that means you still have an argument. :-)
However, using the mono-charge theory, the positrons would be made of mono-charges that would arrange themselves so that they attract each other in a similar way as protons do in the atomic nucleus.
Protons do not attract each other in the nucleus via the EM force. Quite the opposite, in fact; the strong force (which you don't believe in) holds them together while the EM force pushes them apart. This is why heavier nuclei are unstable and there is an expected limit to the size of atoms: because as you add more and more positive charges together, the EM force (pushing them apart) begins to overwhelm the strong force (holding them together).
We can test you theory (and show it is wrong) by asking what happens as we add neutrons. These dilute the positive charge. If you were right and the EM force was holding protons together, then adding neutrons would destabilize the nucleus. If we are right and the EM force is pushing them apart, then adding neutrons will stabilize the nucleus. A quick look at the Table of Isotopes shows that as the positive charge of nuclei increase, you must add progressively more neutrons to stabilize the nucleus. This is direct observational evidence that the proton's EM charge is destabilizing the structure, not stabilizing it.
On the ground where gravity is higher, the atom oscillates at the lower rate because the higher gravity is hindering the oscillation by affecting the way the electron transitions between energy levels. In orbit where there’s lower gravity, the hindrance is lower so the atoms oscillate at a faster rate giving the illusion of gravitational time dilation. It’s clock dilation not time dilation.
(a) this would not affect half-lives or chemical reactions, both of which are in fact affected by relativistic speeds.
(b) qualitatively, I want to know whether (in your opinion) your theory predicts anything different from relativity, or whether it predicts exactly the same effects.
(b) quantitatively, I'd also like you to show me your math. Show me you've worked out an equation in which the force of gravity is related to oscillation frequency in electronic transitions. And tell me what else this equation predicts that is different from relativity, if anything.
Oops, replace 'table of isotopes' for chart of the nuclides. Sorry, I tend to think of them together.
So Jason, your argument depends not only on bogus science but a conspiracy of scientists.
What a loon.
Jason? Bad coordination and phone keyboard make a bad input system.
Unfinished business from Comments of Week # 156, lest it be permanently swept under the rug:
"I am puzzled as to what you're contending. Are you saying that if you switch reference frames, or if you go to the rest frame of the object, then that's the "true" physical size? That's nonsense; all reference frames are equally valid. Are you claiming that physical objects aren't really contracted in their direction of motion? They absolutely are, just like you and I are with respect to an incoming comet. It doesn't change how we perceive ourselves or the measurements we make, but it's a real, physical effect that occurs uniquely for every unique observer in the Universe."
Please re-examine your last clause. In fact a "real physical effect" *does not* "occur uniquely" (differently) for "every unique observer." "For the observer" refers to an apparent effect rather than an actual change in a physical object (without any "physics" to explain actual shrinkage.) This is the basic fallacy of SR.
Again, "I have asked you many times to consider the possibility that, contrary to Einstein’s philosophy, there is a “real world” which exists in and of itself, independent of observational differences (the constant “frame of reference” recital.") You disclaim a true physical size of an object as "nonsense" by simply parroting the doctrine,... "all reference frames are equally valid."
I concluded my reply: "Physics is the same for all physical bodies. Observation does not change the physical world."
I repeat my offer: "If you honestly accept as factual that, for instance, Earth’s diameter physically changes as a result of variations in observation, please just say so, and I will leave this forum." (Edit: ...having lost all respect for you as a reasonable scientist.)
I agree. Consider a stationary observer (S) looking at a moving observer (M) holding a rectangular block (B). If length contraction is real. S should see B as a cube and so would M. But, SR tells us that M wouldn't see the change because he shrinks with it and so doesn't notice the change.
This is another fallacy because the contraction is only in the direction of motion i.e. the width and the height don't change. This will cause a change in the aspect ratio which M would also notice; but we're told that M wouldn't notice it.
As for Dean, it's he who's the crank because he tells me that the correction done to the atomic clocks is to make them tick slower so that, when they're in orbit and tick faster, it would make them in sync with ground clocks. He's implying that the GPS engineers adjust the rate at which caesium atoms oscillate.
The last refuge of a true crank: bow to my lack of understanding or I will leave
Another insult from Dean, rather than addressing the substance of my comments. I thought there was a new rule against that.
You made it pretty clear you will not accept anybody's answers (including Ethan). You are the one who are simply parroting here. "having lost all respect for you as a reasonable scientist": You cannot lose something you never had.
"I will leave this forum": Please do.
I made a statement of fact mm. There is no substance in your comments.
Kasim, the item I posted came from a site maintained by physicists. They were explaining the operations of the clock and the need for the adjustments. The fact that you can't, or won't, understand the ideas is not my problem.
The lesson here regarding negative comment is to ignore the garbage & insults instead of firing back & exacerbating the problem.
As far as GPS satellites are concerned, if their clocks were not compensated, I would not have a true 10 Mhz clock reference for my frequency counter.
I'm not arguing about the fact that GPS clocks need compensating. They do need compensating because the atoms oscillate faster in regions of lower gravity than they do in regions of higher gravity.
What I'm saying is that this is clock dilation not time dilation. If it was time dilation, then the GPS satellites would disappear into a different time coordinate. After all, Einstein uses the time axis in Minkowski's 4D spacetime continuum. Hence, regions where clocks run slow would be advancing along the time axis slower than regions where the clocks run faster i.e. the slow regions will be stuck in the past whereas the faster regions will be at a future time coordinate.
Objects at different time coordinates cannot communicate with each other but satnavs can still communicate with GPS satellites because they're at the same time coordinates i.e. the passage of time for both satnavs and satellites is the same rate. SR & GR only affect the rates at which clocks tick i.e. it's clock dilation. I'm arguing against the interpretation of the results i.e. using clock dilation as proof of time dilation.
And who's insulting who? I mean who are the cranks and the crackpots?
The church used to think of Copernicus and Galileo as cranks and crackpots as well. Actually, they were tougher on them than that.
So you are saying relativity (both special and general) is wrong?
How about quantum physics? Is that wrong also?
Are you saying Newton physics is correct?
One thing at a time. SR is based on illusions, at least from the thought experiments that are used as proof for it. Time dilation in SR is not due to speed - it's sometimes called 'speed time dilation' - but is due to acceleration because you have to accelerate from zero to the uniform velocity and from one velocity to another. Time dilation changes during the acceleration. Scientists are fooled into thinking it's due to velocity because time dilation changes for the duration of the acceleration: acceleration X duration = velocity.
Gravitational time dilation is due to the effect of gravity on the time measuring devices not the passage of time. I suppose gravity also compresses lengths; look at what happens to collapsing stars - it's length contraction gone mad. But scientists don't talk about it as length contraction. I suppose it's because it's volume contraction.
As for Newtonian mechanics, I believe that it needs to be updated to incorporate fields because field theory wasn't available in the 17th nor 18th centuries at least not during Newton's lifetime. There are grounds that it's an approximation to reality but not necessarily to GR which describes gravity as being due to the curvature of spacetime. This means that Einsteinian gravity is not a field despite the fact that its equations are called Einstein's field equations. As far as I know, fields have equipotentials and perpendicular forces; Einstein's field equations don't.
This takes us into QM with the quantum field theory (QFT) becoming popular. This fails at the first hurdle not only because its fields don't have equipotentials and perpendicular forces; but also they don't have a source and don't diminsh according to the inverse square law. At least Einstein's field equations have a source and obey the inverse square law. It's just that the equipotentials are interpreted as curvature of spacetime and the perpendicular forces thrown out altogether.
Further, QM enthusiasts are saying that the wave equation gives us a cloud of probabilities which means that the electron doesn't revolve around the nucleus. Think of the blades of a fan: they too give a cloud of probabilities but that doesn't mean they're not rotating.
They also say that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) states that it's next to impossible for electrons and positrons to be localised in the nucleus; and yet, we get electrons and positrons shooting out of radioactive nuclie suggesting that electrons and positrons already exist in those nuclei. What about the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation? Completely ridiculous and it's passed off as science.
So, yes, I'm beginning to think that QM is based on a false premise with all those ridiculous interpretations.
And all of you saying must be accepted as true because just you say so? You don't think you need proof for any of your claims at all?
I can't speak for others. All I'm saying is that SR and GR are built on false interpretations of thought experiments and actual observations. At least the QM people use the Copenhagen Interpretation or the Many Worlds Interpretation i.e. they confess it's just an interpretation. But relativists insists their interpretations are gospel truths.
For example, they tell us that length contraction really happens and I'm saying: if so, then an observer moving with the length should also see contraction. They say: no, because the observer is also shrinking, so he can't see the change. But, I reply, only the length in the direction of motion gets contracted, the width and the height remain unchanged. The moving observer must see the change in length relative to the unchanged width and height. For example, a stationary observer (S) is looking at a rectangular block (B) held by a moving observer (M). S will see B as a cube because of length contraction. If this contraction is real, so will M see the cube. But we're told that M will see no change. Hence, it's an illusion. My only proof for this is the definition of an illusion: an illusion is when 2 people see the same thing differently. This applies to the relativist's thought experiment on length contraction. I'm sure there's scientific proof that it's an illusion; but I'm not a mathematician.
For time dilation, there are many problems: in the light clock thought experiment, it's shown that the light is moving with the clock in violation of Einstein's 2nd postulate which states that the speed of light is independent of the emitting body. The atomic clock, which marks time faster in lower gravity than it does in higher gravity, is taken as proof of time dilation. It's only clock dilation i.e. high gravity lowers the rate of oscillation of the atomic clock not the passage of time.
Then you ask for proof. Well, the scientists have already provided the proof: when the clock is on the ground (high gravity) it oscillates at a particular rate. When in orbit (low gravity) it oscillates at a higher rate. These are physical events and have nothing to do with the passage of time. If it did, the satellites would jump into the future because time is passing quickly for them. But that's not what's happenning because the ground clocks and the satellite clocks are in the same time coordinates. So, you see, we're forced to accept the interpretation of these events on the say so of scientists.
Another proof for time dilation is the muon lifetime which, in the lab survives for only 2.6 microseconds. This extremely small lifetime means that they'll travel a fairly short distance from the upper atmosphere where they're produced; but they have been detected at sea level. The explanation given is that at speeds close to that of light, time goes slowly for them so they survive long enough tp get to sea level. An alternative explanation is that, according to SR, mass will increase. Hence, there's more mass to decay. But the explanation I go for is that the acceleration slows the rate of muon decay in the same way it affects oscillations of atomic clocks - not the gravitational effect, though. So, they survive to sea level. What we need now is test all forms of radioactivity and see if the half life of radioisotopes change with gravity. It's an experiment to do.
" If it did, the satellites would jump into the future"
You do realize those "Back to the Future" movies were fiction, right?
(Actually, reading your 'objections', you probably don't.)
He is just parroting. :-)
S should see B as a cube and so would M. But, SR tells us that M wouldn’t see the change because he shrinks with it and so doesn’t notice the change.
It has nothing to do with 'not seeing.' SR tells us that since M and the block are not moving in relation to each other, there is no time dilation or foreshortening in relation to each other. In SR, distance and time are relational, the same way velocity is relational in regular Newtonian mechanics.
Look, if you shoot me and a cannonball out of a cannon, then the cannonball has no velocity with respect to me. Right? You get that, right? Me and the cannonball, we aren't moving in relation to each other. Well in SR, me and the cannonball aren't foreshortened in relation to each other, and we aren't time-dilated in relation to each other either. But both me and the cannonball have all those things - velocity, foreshortening, and time dilation - in relation to you, standing on the ground. We have a velocity compared to you. Well just like velocity, we have foreshortening compared to you. And we have time dilation compared to you.
It is admittedly anti-intuitive. Humans typically move in relation to their environment at such low speeds that time and space don't appear to us to be a relational quantity like velocity is. Our intuitions are Newtonian. But time and space are like velocity. When the guy on the relativistic train gets out his ruler, he's going to tell you the train is the proper number of meters long just exactly like if you ask him to measure the train's speed compared to him, he's going to tell you 0 mph. Neither effect is merely "perceived", it is actual. The train is actually going 0 mph in relation to the guy on it. And the train is actually whatever proper 'at rest' length it is in relation to the guy on it.
the explanation I go for is that the acceleration slows the rate of muon decay in the same way it affects oscillations of atomic clocks – not the gravitational effect, though.
You and MM seem to be reading from the same playbook. "Acceleration" cannot account for the change in an atmospheric muon's decay time because it never accelerates. When cosmic rays hit atmospheric atoms, they produce muons with an intrinsic velocity. They are 'born moving,' as it were.
In your example, why in the world would observer M see the rectangular block B as a cube? He would see it as a rectangular block. Presumably, M holding B implies that the relative velocity of M and B is zero. Therefore, B is not moving in M's frame of reference and no length contraction is observed.
S WOULD observe B to be a cube (assuming the relative velocity of S's frame of reference with respect to M and B's has the correct value). S is moving with respect to B, so length contraction is observed.
I fully agree with your reasoning. What I'm trying to explain is that length contraction is an illusion i.e. not real. But professors swear blind that it's real.
This has implications because it proves that SR is based on illusions not reality.
Wherever did you get the idea that particle decay times are in any way related to the mass of the particle? That's just nonsense.
Please explain something to me. Suppose a change causes all physical, chemical, nuclear, electromagnetic, etc. processes to slow down. An example might be changing the velocity of the system or its gravitational field. What is the difference between stating that all of these processes slow down and saying that time slows down? IOW, what is time? How can you distinguish between the slowing of all these processes and the slowing of time.
Hint: Modern physics would tell us that time IS the rate at which all these processes occur. There is nothing to distinguish the two.
Wherever did you get the idea that particle decay times are in any way related to the mass of the particle? That’s just nonsense.
It also seems contradicted by the entire right-hand edge of the chart of the nuclides. :)
You've all bought into this spacetime continuum hypothesis where space and time have been woven into the fabric of spacetime that can be curved by masses. The act of curving is an event that occurs on a stage. If spacetime is a fabric, then it needs to exist on the stage that the event occurs in.
Eric, for a given radioistope, the lifetime of that isotope depends on its mass i.e. the more mass of the radioisotope, the longer it lasts. That's what I meant about the muon lasting longer. It's because of its increased mass due to acceleration.
People tend to buy into ideas those supported by experiments and observations; not because someone claims so.
Most experiments in SR and GR are thought experiments most of which are flawed, like the light clock where the photon moves with the clock instead of being independent of it. Physical experiments are often misinterpreted like the GPS clock correction is taken as evidence of time dilation. If you're not talking about time travel then you're referring to clock dilation.
2 clocks running at different rates should be temporally apart if it was time dilation. Convincing you of the fallacy of your ways is as difficult it was to convince the Church that the geocentric universe is false.
Eric, for a given radioistope, the lifetime of that isotope depends on its mass i.e. the more mass of the radioisotope, the longer it lasts. That’s what I meant about the muon lasting longer. It’s because of its increased mass due to acceleration.
The muon's mass does not increase in its own frame of reference. So how is the mass increase we observers measure having an impact on processes internal to the muon?
That's the problem with relativity. It's based on illusions. Even the increase in mass is an illusion as seen by an outside observer. According to time dilation, two things can run at different time rates and still exist in the same environment talking to each other.
The one thing that bugs me is why do scientists talk about time travel when clocks that run at different rates due to relativity, don't exist at different time locations? They're always wth us in the present one going in slow motion but still in the present i.e. no time travel at all.
eric, how much experience do you have with anti-vaccine folks? They are just as ignorant of the science -- and, as relates to me, statistics -- around vaccine safety as cft, kasim, and mm seem to be of relativity.
The difference is that the anti-vaccination folks at least try to support their arguments with some sort of 'analysis'.
It's always wrong, of course (usually data is taken from one type of study and mis-analyzed with a procedure that isn't appropriate) -- but at least they try to support their objections. The three science deniers here don't even try to do that.
Tarring me with the same brush as other ignorant people is the language of losers and shows your ignorance of science.
The effect of gravity on the oscillation of atoms is easily tested and has been done vis-a-vis the GPS satellite clocks. But this is interpretted as time dilation and not the effect of gravity on the rate of oscillation of caesium atoms.
It was you who said that the GPS engineers adjust the clocks before launch so that they tick more slowly. In actual fact, they adjust the software that interprets the oscillations as time intervals. They don't adjust the rate at which caesium atoms oscillate because it's a physical impossibility.
I heard that they put a switch (a software switch) on the clock: in one position, no correction is made; and the other, the correction is made.
You pointed out a website where you got the information from and all I can say is that they've got it wrong. But, you'd rather believe them and not me. Can anybody please verify that GPS engineers actually adjusted the rate at which caesium atoms oscillate.
"But, you’d rather believe them and not me."
Yes, because they were open about their background, explained their reasoning, and gave detailed discussions. You haven't done anything other than say relativity is wrong, make asinine comments about how things should "travel through time if relativity is true", as well as
I heard that they put a switch (a software switch) on the clock: in one position, no correction is made; and the other, the correction is made.
I heard unicorns are real but don't believe that any more than I believe that comment from you.
I make a habit of not buying the arguments of quacks - and you've demonstrated you are in that set.
That's how Wall St fleeced America - with lies masquerading as AAA products. That's the kind of people you'd rather believe. The fact remains, nobody can adjust the rate at which caesium atoms oscillate no matter how qualified (?) the people on your website are.
Eric, for a given radioistope, the lifetime of that isotope depends on its mass i.e. the more mass of the radioisotope, the longer it lasts. That’s what I meant about the muon lasting longer.
Even the increase in mass is an illusion as seen by an outside observer.
Well the change in expected lifetime is real; muons get into the Earth, when they otherwise shouldn't. So you'll have to explain to me where that comes from.
why do scientists talk about time travel when clocks that run at different rates due to relativity, don’t exist at different time locations?
I'm not sure what you think two events running at different rates yet 'talking to each other' should look like, but it seems to me it would just look like the normal world we live in. Your body is filled with different chemical reactions that all run at different rates. They don't need to exist in different "time locations" to do that. In fact there is an entire subfield of chemistry dedicated to studying how molecular interactions that are occurring at different rates interact with each other - kinetics. No extra time dimensions are needed for this to happen.
But this is interpreted as time dilation and not the effect of gravity on the rate of oscillation of caesium atoms.
And it will continue to be interpreted this way until you or a compatriot develop a testable hypothesis that links the gravitational force to the oscillation frequency of a Cs atom. Because GR does that, accurately,, and scientists in general don't give up an accurate hypothesis or theory until someone comes up with a replacement. As Dean says, you saying 'it's wrong' simply isn't enough. You have to develop a way scientists can tell the difference between your ideas and relativity. Then you'll have to run the experiment that tells the difference, or convince someone else to do it. Then you'll have to publish the results. Only then will scientists start to think you might have something.
As an aside, you (and MM) seem to be confusing GR with SR. A satellite experiences relativistic effects from both the gravitational acceleration of the Earth and the velocity of the satellite in relation to practically unmoving objects on Earth. If you don't take both into account, you get the wrong answer. So no, gravitational effects cannot explain SR, because we actually already do put in a correction for gravitational effects on the rate of oscillation (a GR correction) and it doesn't predict or match the time dilation effects from SR.
I want to go back to your half-life claim. It seems to me that you have a potentially testable theory here, so I will suggest an experiment you can do to test it. If half-life changes are not due to relativity but rather mass as measured in some preferred reference frame, then you should be able to do a Michelson-Morely type experiment to show that. Shoot two beams of relativistic, unstable atoms at right angles to each other. Measure how many make it and decay in some detector. But the whole thing on a big table and rotate it, taking lots of measurements. If you are right, then whichever beam is aligned with the Earth's travel through this preferred frame of reference will experience a greate half-life increase than the one aligned at right angle to our motion through the preferred frame. OTOH if SR is correct, then as long as both beams are being shot at the same velocity, they'll have the same half-life. What do you think? Would this be a test of your idea? If so, then I would offer this as the sort of test you should go do (and publish) if you want scientists to pay attention to your claims.
The time travel bit is about 2 clocks running at different rates of the passage of time i.e. the faster running clock should get to the future before the slower one. This means that they should be at 2 different time coordinates. Since we can't communicate with people in the past, neither should the faster running clock and the satellite it's in. But the GPS satellites with the faster running clocks are still communicating with the satnavs that have slower running clocks. In other words, the satellites and the satnavs are still in the same time coordinates just different spatial coordinates i.e. no time dilation just clock dilation.
I believe in SR and GR clock dilation because time is immutable. I believe that the clock dilation in SR occurs during acceleration and the dilation keeps changing for the duration of the acceleration. Thus total change is a function of acceleration multiplied by duration which is a velocity term. This perhaps fooled scientists into thinking it's a function of velocity.
Think of 2 velocities V1 and V2 where V2 > V1. Clock dilation is at a given value and stays at that as long as the clock stays at V1. As soon it accelerates to V2, the clock dilation also changes, proving that clock dilation only happens during acceleration.
As for the Michelson-Morley experiment, it occurs in the same gravitational potential, so it's no good to test radioactivity in the way you suggest. You're putting words in my mouth to make me look a fool.
Your concept of reference frames is different from mine in that lengths contract and times dilate in your reference frames; they are immutable in my reference frames. So, all that fancy stuff you describe that happens in you reference frames don't happen in mine.
"because time is immutable" That is Newton physics from nineteenth century. "You’re putting words in my mouth to make me look a fool": You are doing that yourself pretty good.
Can you tell us more about Wall Street?
The time travel bit is about 2 clocks running at different rates of the passage of time i.e. the faster running clock should get to the future before the slower one.
Your idea of people experiencing different rates of time not being able to communicate still makes no sense to me. Why would that happen? You experience 1 second while I experience 2. Okay. What stops us from interacting? At any given moment, we are both in that moment. Maybe you experienced more or less time getting there, but we're both in that present moment. You are not in my past (or future) while I'm in my present; we are both in that present. So at any given moment, we can interact.
As for the Michelson-Morley experiment, it occurs in the same gravitational potential, so it’s no good to test radioactivity in the way you suggest. You’re putting words in my mouth to make me look a fool.
I'm not trying to. I'm trying to understand how to test your ideas, because they do seem from your declarations that they might be testable.
The Earth's gravitational acceleration downward is constant for orthogonal streams of particles in a Michaelson-Morley type experiment, but we can also induce different accelerations and velocities at right angles to that; north, south, east, and west rather than up or down. We know the Earth revolves on its axis. We also know rotates around the sun. If time and space are absolutes and our movement through this absolute frame changes things like mass, then a beam traveling roughly west to east is moving with the rotation of the earth. Thus it's moving faster in this absolute frame than a beam traveling north to south. If you are right about acceleration through this absolute reference frame changing apparent mass, then the particles moving 'forward' compared to the rotation of the Earth should be heavier than the particles moving 'sideways' compared to the rotation of the Earth. Yes?
If I'm still wrong about your idea, then by all means propose your own experiment instead. I'm all ears. One of the points I tried to make to you in @76 is that you're going to have to come up with such an experiment at some point if you want people to take you seriously. Scientists do not generally abandon accurately predictive theories unless you can show that your alternative theory is more accurate at predicting how the world works. Thus you need to find an empirical point of difference between the two theories, and then you need to show via experiment that on that point of difference, reality agrees with your theory not relativity. That is how you start to change scientific minds.
>>You experience 1 second while I experience 2. Okay. What stops us from interacting? At any given moment, we are both in that moment.
What you're describing is the pereception definition of time i.e. time is not real or a thing. If that's the case, then there's no problem of us communicating. Being both in the same moment means we're both at the same time coordinate i.e. time dilation didn't take place because it's all a perception according to your definition. If that's the case, then the speed of light is no longer constant. In order for the speed of light to remain the same for all obeservers, the time coordinates must change i.e. time must be dilated; and lengths must contract. You see, time and space are being mutilated to preserve the constancy of the speed of light for all observers.
>>If time and space are absolutes and our movement through this absolute frame changes things like mass, then a beam traveling roughly west to east is moving with the rotation of the earth.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. Let me put it another way: I accept Einstein's statement that light speed is independent of the emitting body - that has been clearly shown. What I disagree with is the allegation that light speed is the same for all observers. To me, it's a physical impossibility. You're also putting words in my mouth. You have to mutilate space and time to achieve that effect. I don't say that mass changes with velocity, you do. I'm saying that it changes with acceleration and it does it by absorbing energy which has mass - even Einstein states that energy has mass that can warp spacetime. You can tell it's an illusion because the moving observers don't notice the change. The stationary observers notice the change in Mass, Length, and Time - that's M, L, and T which are also known as dimensions. Ironically, they all change by the Lorentz factor - Mass increases, Length contracts, and Time dilates according to SR.
>>Scientists do not generally abandon accurately predictive theories unless you can show that your alternative theory is more accurate at predicting how the world works.
On that point, I can't do it. I'm just pointing out that time dilation doesn't happen as time is absolute; length contraction is an illusion because it's only seen by the stationary observer but not the moving observer from the thought experiments we're shown. However, accelerated particles do gain mass, that's irrefutable because, when they collide, more massive particle are created than there was mass in the particle before acceleration. However, energy is conserved if you include the energy used to accelerate the particles. It's as if though the particles absorbed the energy pumped into the accelerator.
Since I'm not a scientist, I can't propose any experiments. I'll have to leave it to someone else with the right qualification to propose such experiments. Remember that Copernicus published his heretical heliocentric universe theory on his death bed. I think that's where the words 'publish and be damned' comes from. It was left to more capable people, like Galileo, to prove it; but the church forced him to recant the truth. However, the church capitulated at the hands of Newton. So, I have to withdraw from this debate not because I'm wrong but because you're asking me to do something I'm not qualified to do; and neither are you.
Your concept of reference frames is different from mine in that lengths contract and times dilate in your reference frames; they are immutable in my reference frames. So, all that fancy stuff you describe that happens in you reference frames don’t happen in mine.
Yeah, it's amusing how you can make anything support your belief if you make up your own rules the way you are. It doesn't make your ideas right though.
That’s how Wall St fleeced America – with lies masquerading as AAA products. That’s the kind of people you’d rather believe.
Not at all - but there's no reason to think you have any better grasp on that than you do on the science topic.
It's always a safer bet to look at explanations from people who understand the topics than from denialist crap from people like you who have an internet connection and nothing else. You won't always be correct listening to the scientists, but you'll always be wrong listening to cranks.
What I disagree with is the allegation that light speed is the same for all observers. To me, it’s a physical impossibility.
Okay, if you didn't like my other suggestion then let's test this claim instead. What, in your hypothesis, needs to be different about two observers that would cause them to observe different light speeds? Do they need to be under different acceleration? Well that would be easy; we simply measure c at sea level and c in orbit and if you are right, the measurements should disagree. Is it different velocity? Also conceptually an easy experiment to design. Would either of these experiments show the difference between your hypothesis and relativity?
length contraction is an illusion because it’s only seen by the stationary observer but not the moving observer from the thought experiments we’re shown.
I think you fundamentally don't get how a measurement can be real and yet relative. Just because length contraction is observed/experienced by some observers but not others does not imply or require that it be an illusion. It can be real and only experienced by some observers. Just the same way that a cannonball's momentum is real, but the circus acrobat riding on it doesn't experience that momentum the same way a stationary guy getting hit with it does. The ball's momentum is clearly real; yet it's only non-zero for some observers. It's zero for the acrobat.
Tell me, do you think magnetic fields are real? Are they the same for all observers? What about electrical fields - are they real? Are they the same for all observers? The answers are: yes both are real. But no, neither are the same for all observers. While observers in different reference frames will fully agree on the combined electromagnetic properties of an object, they will experience the same object as having a different mix of electrical and magnetic properties (this, in fact, was the problem Einstein originally worked on - not flashlights on trains). According to SR, the same is true for time and space; while the combination will be agreed upon by all observers regardless of frame of reference (that's called the spacetime interval), different observers in different frames of reference will experience the same object as having a different mix of spatial and temporal components.
>>What, in your hypothesis, needs to be different about two observers that would cause them to observe different light speeds? Do they need to be under different acceleration?
You're so convinced by Einstein's relativity theories that you miss the point about Galilean relativity. Einstein's first postulate is correct about the laws of physics being the same in all frames of reference. Even Galileo assumed this and Einstein raised it to the status of a postulate. Unfortunately, both assumed uniform motion but, to his credit, Einstein developed GR to take care of situations where acceleration is involved.
However, unfortunately, Einstein postulated that the speed of light is the same for all observers, which I don't agree with. As I said before, I accepted the fact that Einstein's postulate which states that c is independent of the emitting body, is also correct; but, once emitted, it's subject to relativity just like everything else i.e. it isn't privileged in any way other than its independence of the emitting body.
Furthermore, Einstein's 2nd postulate never said that c is the same for all observers. His equations may have implied it because Lorentz factor forces it to be the case. So, you could say that Lorentz invented relativity and Minkowski invented spacetime. Here's Einstein's 2nd postulate in full:
"that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
Nowhere does it say that c is the same for all observers. All I'm doing, as a layman, is pointing out that there's a fallacy in the relativity theories and it's upto somebody else to make the corrections. In the meantime, the existing theories can be used until a working alternative can be found.
>>Just the same way that a cannonball’s momentum is real, but the circus acrobat riding on it doesn’t experience that momentum the same way a stationary guy getting hit with it does.
I thought the cannoball's momentum is similar to acrobat's. The acrobat and the stationary observer will only know about this momentum when the acrobat hits the observer. While the acrobat is in the air, neither he nor the observer are aware of the momentum.
Using relativity, the acrobat sees the observer approaching him and sees the distance between them get contracted because of SR. The observer doesn't see the contraction in the distance between them but sees the acrobat as a midget because the acrobat suffers contraction in the direction of motion which the acrobat doesn't see. As far as I'm concerned these are illusions.
Let's consider time dilation. The observer notes that the acrobat took n seconds to make contact; but the acrobat perceives that he has taken less than n seconds to make contact. So, when we compare their watches, we find that the acrobat's watch is slightly behind the observer's watch. So, how does time dilation fit into all this? It was one event and we have 2 times of arrival! As far as I'm concerned, it only affected the acrobat's watch because it was moving with the acrobat i.e. it has nothing to do with the passage of time, only how time pieces operate.
>>do you think magnetic fields are real? Are they the same for all observers? What about electrical fields – are they real? Are they the same for all observers?
You've answered this for me rather incorrectly. Yes magnetic and electric fields are real. But the magnetic field depends on the relative velocity of the observer. Hence, the speed of light is variable to a moving observer because light is an electromagnetic wave. Even Lorentz spotted the compression of the magnetic field but didn't develop it further, at least I couldn't find it from my research on the subject. If you moved at the same speed as a moving electrical charge, you wouldn't feel a magnetic field. But, if your speed is different from that of the charge, you will feel a magnetic field as well as an electric field. You see, the observers velocity relative to an electric charge does matter.
You’re so convinced by Einstein’s relativity theories that you miss the point about Galilean relativity.
No, I get your point. I'm asking how you would test your point. I.e. set up circumstances in which your theory and SR make different predictions about what will be observed.
If you really think that light speed can be different from different observers, then give me an example of two observers for which light speed would be observationally different.
Yes magnetic and electric fields are real. But the magnetic field depends on the relative velocity of the observer. Hence, the speed of light is variable to a moving observer
If lightspeed isn't the same for a moving observer vs a stationary one, then a person 'riding along' with an object in an inertial frame of reference would be able to tell that they were moving without any external reference. They could, in other words, identify how they were moving in relation to a universal preferred frame of reference. Right?
Observationally, this is not what happens. Your idea predicts something that observationally isn't true.
>>Your idea predicts something that observationally isn’t true.
Scientists used to believe that blackholes destroys entropy until Beckenstein knocked some sense into them. Now they're telling us that blackholes have a singularity at their centres. Because a singularity is defined as a point of zero volume and mass is quantised (hence a minimum volume), the finite volume mass cannot fit into a zero volume. We need another Beckenstein to get rid of this singularity nonsense. Remember, the singularity is predicted by GR which means that GR has a domain of validity and it's being used beyond that domain.
Also, scientists are telling us the CMB is the energy from the Big Bang. Yeah, right! Another point, NASA scientists have approved the EmDrive which violates the conservation laws just ike the Big Bang itself. Observations are a matter of interpretation and scientists have a track record of wrongly interpretting data. I'm amazed that you take what they tell you for granted.
Please note that I accept most macroscopic science like Chemistry, Biology, most Physics and of course the spin-offs like technology.
the singularity is predicted by GR which means that GR has a domain of validity and it’s being used beyond that domain.
This is true, but what is often overlooked by postmodernists, Kuhnians, creationists, and the like is that when a scientific theory is overturned, the new theory inevitably makes the same predictions in those domains where the former, wrong theory was accurate. QM replaces NM at small scales, but (as far as we can tell) makes the same predictions as NM for large collections of objects. SR and GR replaced NM on the other, large, end of the scale, but again makes the same predictions as NM where v or G is small.
So when you imagine some new theory coming along and replacing SR and GR (and I'm perfectly comfortable with the thought of that happening), don't get your hopes up that it will contradict SR and GR on time dilation, foreshortening, and the like. Because it almost certainly won't. A scientific revolution almost certainly isn't going to vindicate you. The history of scientific revolutions makes it pretty clear that any replacement for SR and GR is extremely likely to make exactly the same predictions for circumstances where
SR and GR are currently accurate - just like SR makes exactly the same predictions as NM in circumstances where NM is accurate. A new replacement theory will likely only make predictions different from SR and GR for conditions where those theories currently can't say anything or get things observationally wrong.
Observations are a matter of interpretation and scientists have a track record of wrongly interpretting data. I’m amazed that you take what they tell you for granted.
Well, if you told me some unique prediction of your idea that I could test and it turned out to be right, I might take what you tell me seriously too. But you refuse.
It's a very simple question which you've now refused to answer twice: if, as you claim, light speed can be different for different observers, then give me an example of two observers for which light speed would be observationally different.
>>It’s a very simple question which you’ve now refused to answer twice
I have answered your question by offering to withdraw from the debate because I'm not qualified to give you an alternative theory that I need to substantiate. All I was doing was pointing out that SR is based on illusions and GR is based on misinterpretations of the experimental results. Nowhere did I give an alternative theory.
But, congratulations for sucking me back into the debate which should've been closed.
I'm not really asking for a fully worked out theory. Nor am I asking you at this time to run the experiment or anything like that (though ultimately, for a competing hypothesis to be adopted by scientists, someone would have to do that). My question is much simpler. You said: "I disagree with is the allegation that light speed is the same for all observers. To me, it’s a physical impossibility. " Okay, I accept that this is your position, but I am unclear as to who might measure light speed differently. So I'm asking you to explain your assertion, by naming two observers for which light speed is different. It boggles my mind that someone would assert the claim you have, yet either refuse to say or not know what 'different observers' would qualify for their own assertion.
Consider this thought experiment:
Consider 2 photons moving in opposite directions from the same point which is half-way between 2 targets 2 light seconds apart. What would the velocity of one photon be relative to the other? How long would it take the 2 photons to reach the target? and what's the total distance convered in that time?
Galilean relativity says that one photon will be travelling at 2c relative to the other; it will take 1 second to reach both targets; and the total distance covered is 2 light seconds. What does Einsteinian relativity say?
Relativists tend to confuse actual velocity with relative velocity. It's like confusing the escape velocity with actual velocity. I once explained that the escape velocity of a blackhole can be greater than velocity of light. They disagreed.
"... and GR is based on misinterpretations of the experimental results."
No, GR is based on SR, applied to curved geometry. Experimental results came decades AFTER it. The only results they had at that time was bending of light and mercury precession. Not that those two are small feats, but even if we consider those two to be misinterpretations (what are the correct ones, mind you??? eh? ) the rest that followed in decades to come only confirmed the various predictions. Not only that, but people DIDN'T even imagine some of the things that GR shows. So, if you're gonna diss something, at least take the time to learn the history of that which you are dissing. You're not gaining any credibility by speaking falsehoods about the subject you claim to have superior knowledge of then people who actually make a living from applying that same science.
Consider 2 photons moving in opposite directions from the same point which is half-way between 2 targets 2 light seconds apart.
So how about this experiment: you've got two observers starting at a point. At an agreed-upon time, they shoot a laser northward while simultaneously one of them backpedals southward (but observes northward). If your 'Galilean relativity' idea is correct, the backpedaling observer should see the laser moving at a faster rate than the stationary observer. Is that right?