"Spooky action at a distance" What did he mean?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Quantum Quack, Apr 20, 2015.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    To recap:

    We have falsified Minkowski spacetime by means of a thought experiment in which the edges of a cube were lined with lasers. This resulted in the logical contradiction that the corners of the cube (and the lasers on its edges) curved inward from the rest frame of reference of an observer for whom the cube is approaching from the dead center of one of its faces.

    The contradiction is that light curves even though it is being observed from an inertial reference frame. Minkowski spacetime is dead. Long live his cognitively challenged student!
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2015
    Little Bang likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    What this means:

    Minkowski spacetime is invalid. The formulation of time as part of a Euclidean space the way Minkowski conceived it was invalid both physically and mathematically. The speed of light is still invariant, but Minkowski intervals are inconsistent and incompatible with the Special theory of Relativity.

    Pictures of spheres distorted by means of Minkowski spacetme on Wikipedia and elsewhere are mathematically indefensible. Lorentz contraction occurs only in the direction of motion of a relativistic projectile and does not affect physical dimensions of the other two axes.

    Time is the only dimension in the physical universe in which energy propagates and matter is energy, an excitation of one of two quantum fields.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2015
    Little Bang likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    It is based on ignorance, I have made a guess about the number of runs required to get the data they want. The LHC is being used to prove the standard model paints a picture of reality and in many many cases it does but just because the system paints a brilliant picture does not mean it is the correct picture.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I do not see why you think the light would be curved.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The LHC can produce 600 million collisions/sec that result in particle formation. That is a lot of data and a lot of particles, so it is not like it is a rare occurrence! Saying that the huge number of people working at LHC are only looking at the data that agrees with what they want is a rather hysterical conspiracy theory!
     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    The data filters on the supercomputers used at the LHC do just what I said they do. They detect million snapshots of collision events per second, out of which they record about 200. Then the processing goes to work to find collision products that are in the energy range of interest. There is too much data to sift through in order to do it any other way.
    Then you missed the setup of the thought experiment. A one meter cube of iron has 12 edges, each of which is skirted by means of laser beams produced by corner reflector apparatus. The cube is accelerated for some time until it reaches relativistic speed. An observer directly in the path of the center of one of the cube's faces in its direction of motion observes both the contours of the cube and the laser beams skirting four visible edges as it approaches. If the contours of the cube curve, then so must the laser beams which skirt them. Both frames (moving and at rest) are assumed inertial (not subject to any forces), so the bending of the beams would be a violation of the invariance of the speed of light. The beams cannot curve. The premise that space is Euclidean with time tacked on as an afterthought by Minkowski is thereby defeated. There was no mathematical or physical justification of this idea other than the creation of another invariant quantity, the interval, by Minkowski.

    Minkowski had no means to reason in this manner. To him, light simply obeyed the inverse square law and spread out in all directions, and his mathematics was in part based on his very limited understanding of the physical world.

    Reason it out for yourself. Which is more distant, a corner of the cube, or the center of one of the faces (or edges)? In Minkowski spacetime, the more distant event (a corner) occurs first, so the corner appears to be distorted and curves in the direction of motion toward the observer. But it cannot logically do this unless the laser beam curves along with it, and this is an impossibility. The contradiction must be resolved the way it always is in mathematics. The premise that it curves in this bizarre manner is rejected in favor of Special Relativity's prediction that only lengths in the direction of motion of a relativistic projectile are Lorentz contracted. They are not "rotated" nor distorted in any other manner.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2015
    Quantum Quack and Little Bang like this.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    so why do you think SRT is still being supported when there are so many examples similar that logically show it to be incorrect?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    8 billion + Euro investment.
    First reports suggest a nul result. Many scientists very disappointed and say so.
    First published wiki result declares "NUL" result and stands for over 30 days before being edited to show a tentative result.

    It would pay not to ever under estimate the political fudge factor when so much investment both in money, emotion and time is involved.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    SRT is not the issue. SRT is secure. What is NOT secure is Minkowski's idea that there are other invariants (not just the speed of light). He proposed this by combining the speed of light with a physical dimension, and calling the result an interval,

    The thought experiment could be simplified and be done with three simultaneous events and a laser connecting the three on a line perpendicular to the direction of relative motion. But the cube distortion is a more graphic example, and follows examples of distorted shapes in Minkowski's formulation that are in popular instructional use.

    If you see a flaw in my logic, just tell me. Remember, we are discussing this in pseudoscience. I will take no offense.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Sorry but just to clarify, are you suggesting that SRT can survive with out Minkowski ?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    A point well taken. But a five sigma certainty is greater than for any particle discovery since collides were invented. The LHC physicists know probability better than anything else.
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Very much so. It is largely the ideas of Minkowski that has restrained the theory from more extensive applicability. Because Minkowski's results, other than simultaneity, are wrong.

    Physical objects made of matter are not the same as perfectly rigid bodies. They are as dynamic as pure energy. What do you think e=mc^2 means?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    hee hee to know the answer you have to first define energy in a way that makes sense (see posts #246 & #247)
    and after you read those posts ask me why I feel the LHC results lack any serious credibility....
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Right. the one post of yours on this thread I failed to 'like'. I think part of the answer to your question is here:

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jul/24/what-is-the-lifetime-of-a-photon

    Pay particular attention to the last paragraph, which says in summary, the SM calculated lifetime of a photon in the rest frame is a little more than three years, but due to relativity, that figure extends to something on the order of 10^18 years, many times greater than the age of the known universe.

    The SM does some AWESOME things working only with probabilities. Relativity could not make this estimate YET. I'd like to see that situation change.

    The number of photons does not change from the time it leaves the source to the time you detect it (over a much wider area) 10 light years distant. Since we have Einstein's calculations for the photoelectric effect, your question is a particularly easy one. After a photon propagates in whatever direction it is going, by no means other than a distant mirror or reflecting surface will you ever see any of that energy again.

    What part of your question(s) about photons does this not answer?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    So, why is it you feel the LHC results lack credibility? I've reviewed the design in some detail. It isn't perfect, but it's still an awesome machine.

    Nothing approaching what it can do has ever been done before in human science. It has given us our first glimpse at what is going on with the the energy in the vacuum.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
    Little Bang likes this.
  19. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    How can an external observer to a spaceship tell the operator of the ship how fast the ship can travel? My point, if the ship had the means to approach c the operator would measure the ships velocity to be almost infinite. We sometimes sound as though we don't understand that point.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    To an observer inside a relativistic projectile (like the rntire Milky Way Galaxy), it appears they can go anywhere they wish in virtually no time, and their velocity need only approach c in order to accomplish this. To an observer at rest with respect to what has accelerated, time passes much more rapidly.

    I used to think there was no way to tell which one accelerated, but thanks in large part to an earlier question of yours, I now understand there is a fairly simple means to make that determination.
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    uhm you have not addressed any of my posts concerns at all... which part of my posts did you think you addressed?
    I never questioned the life time of a photon... so why did you post about the life time of a photon?
    Compare a light sphere with a radius of 10 ly to a light sphere of 1 ly .
    How many photons do you think you will find in either sphere?
    Note: if you consider that the same number of photons would be present, you will need to consider the distance of separation between them as the sphere expands. You will also note that no matter where you put detector a photon will be found. ( any line of sight to a source will do regardless of distance.. )

    The model is nonsense

    Define the photon in a way that makes sense and the LCH results will gain credibility..
     
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I'm definitely not following. The LHC accelerates protons, not photons. Its detectors detect photons for certain, but also their exact trajectories and hair-splitting timings of different portions of any collisions. Are you saying you doubt the veracity of their instrumentation?

    In an expanding spherical wavefront of photons, is your claim that because it can be viewed from any angle, the number of photons must increase with increasing volume and surface area? Is that it? This is likewise simply explained, if that is the only issue.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    if you don't know what a photon is then what are you measuring?
    If you can not offer a sensible definition of a photon then how can you possibly expect someone to grant credibility to your use of them?
    You can not even provide evidence that a photon exists independently of matter to begin with...
    The more refined the experiment the more critical the above details become.
     
    danshawen likes this.

Share This Page