This Guy thinks it can. It would be neat if the structure of QM could be fixed so that it replaces the Theory of Relativity, wouldn't it?
Dispite Quantum Mechanics uncontrovertible experimental successes, the theory has a very shaky philosophical foundation. My purpose in starting this thread was to explore ways to repair that shaky foundation. One huge problem with it is that we have allowed it to become so complicated that you need a PHD in physics just to comprehend it. Nature is not that complicated. It is only the methods we use to describe it that are complicated.
I am not sure the guy knows what he is talking about. he seems to be claiming some absolute frame of reference, unless I misunderstand.
Interesting response. His claim is that the concept predicts relativity yet since you think it is based on an absolute view it must be invalid. Suppose he has shown that relativity is based in an absolute frame? Maybe you shouldn't judge information based on the priori assumption that relativity and only relativity can be considered.
The point is that Quantum Mechanics can predict relativity phenomena, but only in classic space-time. The only requirement is that the most elemental constituent of mass must move at the invarient speed of light. Once you have that, relativity phenomena is demanded, and if you will think for a second or two you will see that all observed relativity phenomena is demanded by that postulate.
I have skimmed one of the papers and like what I see although I haven't had time to digest and/or evaluate in any depth. The reason I like them is that they parallel my own prior comments that: 1 - Light is a quantum (quantity of energy) function and they talk about "saturation". I think that would mean from the observer view the saturation energy is reached sooner in cases of c+v and later in cases of c-v. That explains the measured invariance just as I have proposed. 2 - They state that mass is nothing more than photonic energy moving in tight relavistic swirls or orbs (my choice of paraphrased words); which is what I have also claimed for the energy being "unbound - flowing" or "bound in relavistic orbs". When I posted those claims before certain uppity ups here said "relavistic orbs" was nonsense and meaningless. Being realvistic when speaking of motion or velocity surely can't be contested as to meaning and the term orb by Webster is :"Anything circular in form", "To move in an orbit".
I read your work, MacM, and if you will recall agreed with much of it. As I understood your concept, it also demanded relativity phenomena in classic space-time. This because your composition of mass involved a constituent that moved at the invarient speed of light. However, you didn't make a point of that in your Unicef(spell) paper. I wondered if you realized, or had thought of that.
UniKEF; I should have remembered. The question I still have that came to me when reading your theory is this: Do you realize that your theory demands relativity phenomena in classic space-time? The reason it does is that it has a most elemental constituent that moves at the invarient speed of light. I think I asked that question of you a year or so ago but never got a response. Keep on chuggin !! [edit] This is relavant because Quantum Theory also has a most elemental constituent that moves at the invariant speed of light. The photon that glues molecules together. This in classic space-time, would demand relativity phenomena. We would need to modify the theory a little bit to make the phenomena be exactly as observed, but the modification wouldn't violate any of the laws of physics. Vern
In a general sense I guess so but is not the same. I just don't accept AE's view; mostly having to do with relative velocity being a cause and introducing reciprocity.
Albert was wrong, of course. He ascribed the observed relativity phenomena to variations in space and time. What is naturally real is that the observed relativity phenomena is a result of variations in mass caused by its movement. It is distorted by movement because its most elemental constituent moves at the invariant speed of light. Here's another guy who has discovered it.
