Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, May 8, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    I'd say they are, even by their silence.

    Others have made it clear what problems there are with your ideas; there's no need for us to reiterate what has been said. NE is simply taking our summation of the problems further.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    374
    CFS/CRFS are by definition sets of (sets of) forces. In other words, it's just a shuffling around of force-terms, nothing more.

    Those of Newtonian mechanics.

    (Please forgive the typo in my original post: "I cannot allow the derivation" should read "It cannot allow the derivation".)
    Which is based purely on Newtonian mechanics, and nothing more (at least, you haven't demonstrated otherwise). So no new axiom or premise here!

    As far as I know, Newton didn't claim his theory was a TOE, but you do. So yes, yes you do.

    (No comment.)

    Well, yes. How about the idea of the potential? That doesn't exist as a fundamental object in Newtonian mechanics.

    That is totally true, but that was not what I was saying. They have different starting points, but yours is the same as Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, the situations are quite different.

    (No comment, since this isn't a popularity contest.)

    (Note that that post wasn't directed at me, so that's why I didn't answer it. Also, I only see one question there?)
    The difficulty is that the two theories seems to be incompatible at a fundamental level, at least in their current forms. A more generalized version of both needs to be found, and hopefully those can be unified. But without a discrepancy between observations and theory, it is difficult to figure out what direction to work towards.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,206
    Correct but not very correct.

    Not Exactly. CFS/CRFS came from IFS/IRF. In turn, IFS/IRF came from my Instantaneous Law of Inertia.


    Currently, my Instantaneous Law of Inertia is not part of Newtonian Mechanics(NM).


    Its OK.

    My Instantaneous Law of Inertia is more generalised than Newton's Law of Inertia.

    Ha ha ha. Newton did developed his concept of force. Newton did developed his concept of Law of Inertia. But Newton did not develope Instantaneous Law of Inertia, IFS/IRF, CFS/CRFS. Newton did not see the potential of his Law of Inertia that a TOE can be developed from it.

    Good. You agree with this.

    Potential Energy was already known in Newtonian Mechanics. There is nothing new in it.

    Different starting point does not make it something new.

    Correct but people support based on their understanding of the things.

    QH highlighted this point. I only asked the question in his reply. Good that you attempted to answer this question.

    Yes. It is basically one question.

    GR uses spacetime concept. But QM does not use this concept. This may be one of fundamental difference.

    I think problem of time is the main difficulty in their unification.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Hansda, I hope your fantasies give you happiness, but this should really not be in physics and math, I will ask the mods (again?) to move this to a more fitting section.

    One other quick point, you call your conjecture the Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

    This wording literally means that the law is instantaneous but not inertia, which makes even less sense than what you meant (if that is possible)

    I believe you mean the Law of Instantaneous Inertia.

    Not that any of this matters since you have no law, no theory and no hypothesis. What you have is an unevidenced conjecture based on a lack of understanding of Newtonian gravity.
     
  8. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    374
    Please explain what is not "very correct" about it.

    Which deals with forces only, and all the terms in the given definitions are forces or terms derived purely from forces. So "Not Exactly", but "very correct".

    Are you claiming your Instantaneous Law of Inertia is a new axiom or premise?

    How do you justify the generalization?

    So you are claiming that your theory is better! I was right all along!

    Please don't put words in my mouth. No comments means: "no comment".

    Please re-read my statement. Potentials are not fundamental in Newtonian mechanics, while they are in Lagrangian mechanics.

    And of course there's nothing new in it: they are equivalent!

    So? That was not the argument.

    So you are saying that nobody understands you, because nobody is replying?

    Right, but irrelevant. It's actually not QM that's the big theory, it's QFT. And QFT most definitely uses spacetime. (It's just that it is only compatible with the special theory of relativity, not the general one.)

    What is "problem of time"? And wouldn't a Theory of Everything (TOE) solve it?
     
  9. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    374
    Quite a valid point; I hadn't even realized that!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,202
    Yeah... I think at this point this can get shunted to alt theories...
     
  11. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,206
    Because CFS/CRFS is logically derived from my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".


    Here the term "force" can be redefined based on my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia". Whatever can change the state of motion of a particle at any instant of time, can be considered as a force. Here any dynamic quantity can be considered as a particle.


    Yes.


    It can be applied to any dynamic quantity. Not just a massive particle. You can read about the four unknown forces for examples of other dynamic quantities.


    My TOE is based on Newtonian Model.

    I thought, silence is acceptance.

    You yourself are refuting your claim that Potential is a starting point in Lagrangian Model but nothing new in it.

    So, Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian Model only.

    This is only your interpretation. Others interpretation may be different.


    So by your own admittance, QFT is still not compatible with GR. Anyway, here is a paper claiming unification https://www.academia.edu/32985587/U...ins_dream_realized_in_the_Single_Field_Theory .


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

    In my TOE, there is no such problem of time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017 at 4:21 PM
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,668
    Just to clarify: The problem of time is a problem of quantization of gravity. A TOE is in no way obliged to solve it - a TOE simply unifies all fields with gravity. So, the TOE could be, as well, a classical theory with similar quantization problems as GR.

    The problem of time would be, indeed, solved by (or better simply disappear in) any theory based on Newtonian concepts of space and time.

    Then, QFT is a standard quantum theory applied to fields. It adds nothing to the general principles of quantum theory. It tries everything it can to hide that it has a hidden preferred frame, the method is quite simple: Do not mention anything which somehow uses it, but use only things which do not use it. This is one of the reasons why nobody discusses QFT interpretation. One would have to mention the hidden frame far too often. As long as one discusses quantum interpretation only in the "nonrelativistic" theory, one can mention them.
     
  13. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    374
    How is this incompatible with the statement: "CFS/CRFS are by definition sets of (sets of) forces."?

    Which is exactly how Newton's laws of motion work, so that's not a redefinition at all.

    Please give some examples of "dynamic quantities" that are not seen as particles in Newtonian physics, but are by you, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Then please show how it is different from Newtonian physics, how it adds something new to it.

    I will (eventually).

    Yes, so it is as I said, and you were just being obtuse in post #179.
    No, it is not.

    And if it is, you do know that you ignored several questions along the way? Would it be fair if I interpret those as you accepting that you were wrong? Of course not!
    Please show where I have done this. You do understand that it is possible to have two different descriptions of the same thing? Two descriptions that work completely different, but turn out to be just two perspective of the same truth/model?

    Correct; Lagrangian mechanics has been mathematically proven to be identical to Newtonian mechanics.
    If by "Newtonian Model", you mean Newtonian mechanics: Incorrect. Lagrangian mechanics is its own mechanics, independent of Newtonian mechanics.
    If by "Newtonian Model", you mean a view identified with notions such as flat spacetime, velocities, particles, and such concepts: they both share them. We just happen to be calling it Newtonian nowadays. You could also call it the "classical model".

    I was only trying to parse that weird-to-me sentence; sorry for the misinterpretation.

    It indeed is not, as is quite well-known. If at any point I appeared to be indicating otherwise, I apologize for the confusion.

    Scrolling through it, there's a big mathematical mistake in the figure on page 8: you can't equate two Heisenberg uncertainties like that. If we use units where \(\bar{h}\) is \(1\), then I can have one of the Heisenberg uncertainties be 100 (it is larger than 1/2, so that's fine), and the other be 10 (it is larger than 1/2, so that's fine). However, 100 is not 10. Therefore, that figure is wrong.

    I don't see it demonstrating that this unification is compatible with (for example) Einstein's field equations, or with a QFT Lagrangian. In fact, it doesn't seems like a full unification at all. Perhaps it unifies some underlying concepts, but I'd hardly call this a unification of QFT with GR.

    It is not published in a peer-reviewed magazine, so at best, it's somebody's attempt. But any crackpot can claim unification, so you finding a non-peer-reviewed text doesn't surprise me.

    But more importantly: did you notice that this paper completely destroys your own TOE?

    OK, got it!

    Yes, obviously, because you are using Newtonian physics, which considers time to be universal and absolute, and is thus incompatible with GR and even SR in the same way QM is. Note though that QFT is compatible with SR, and thus your TOE is incompatible with QFT. So your TOE is incompatible with both GR and QFT, the two major current theories in physics. Perhaps you want to explain the effects that we call "time dilation" using your TOE then? Mercury's precession? The results from the LHC particle accelerator?
     

Share This Page