What if relativistic symmetry is only an approximation?

This is my first own thread here, and I start with a question which is central to my own research.

About myself: I have developed two ether theories, one for gravity, the other for the standard model of particle physics, and have also made some research in the foundations of quantum theory, where I support realistic interpretations like de Broglie-Bohm theory and Nelsonian mechanics. While many will classify this as fringe or worse, my ether theories are published in peer-reviewed mainstream journals, and, in this sense, part of the scientific mainstream, and quite different from the typical ether theory, which has no chance for publication.

What, in particular, distinguishes my ether theories from those "ether theories" one usually finds presented in science forums is that they are closely connected with modern physics. So, my ether theory of gravity has not only the Einstein equations of GR as a natural limit, but the Einstein Equivalence Priniciple holds even exactly. Similarly, my ether model for particle physics does not follow age-old ideas about an ether for the EM field, but creates an ether model for all fields of the standard model of particle physics - not only the EM field, but also strong and weak fields, and also all the fermion fields, be it electrons, quarks or neutrinos. This is something the ether theorists of the past could not even start to try, because they have not known the standard model of particle physics.

So, now about the question in the title: What if relativistic symmetry is only an approximation?

This question is central to my research, and already contains an important difference between me and the "typical ether theorist", which usually claims that there is something wrong with relativistic symmetry. The very question implies that I accept that there is relativistic symmetry - the point is that I think this symmetry is only an approximate one.

And I also have used the form of a question, also not without reason: I do not claim that it would be wrong, unscientific or so, to think that relativistic symmetry is a deep fundamental insight. This is certainly a reasonable research program. All what I claim is, first, that we cannot be sure about this. Whatever we observe is only approximate. So, it is impossible to find out, by observation, if relativistic symmetry is really a fundamental, exact symmetry, or if it is only a non-exact, approximate symmetry, which becomes invalid at some fundamental level.

Given this unavoidable impossibility to prove that relativistic symmetry is fundamental, the question which I have posed is a legitimate, scientific one, and deserves to be studied. Actually, it is de facto not studied. Essentially the whole research in fundamental science is focussed on directions which assume the relativistic symmetry is fundamental. The minor exceptions are small groups of researchers in the quantum foundations, which continue to study realistic, causal interpretations, in particular de Broglie-Bohm theory, and, recently, the new direction of "entropic dynamics" by Caticha. But even these groups don't usually openly advocate that relativistic symmetry is only approximate - no, they simply study, for whatever reason, non-relativistic quantum theory. So that one may think that relativistic quantum theory will be studied later. (Of course, they know that the violation of Bell's inequality requires that every realistic interpretation needs a preferred frame, but they prefer not to talk too much about this.)

So, we have a quite interesting situation: The question in the title is in some sense a purely metaphysical one - no experiment is imaginable to decide that relativistic symmetry is fundamental and exact. All what observation is able to establish is that it holds to a high degree of accuracy. But this is not questioned.

Nonetheless, despite this metaphysical character of the idea that relativistic symmetry is exact and fundamental, it is accepted by the actual mainstream of fundamental physics on the 99.99% level (at least officially - those who pay only lip service to relativistic symmetry are quite a lot, but it is hard to find out how many). With the writer of this text as a lonely exception.

Now about the answers to this question. Quite strong arguments can be found that in this case, there will be a preferred notion of contemporanity or simultaneity. The methods which allow to measure them directly clearly have to rely on effects which violate relativistic symmetry, thus, on very tiny effects which are yet unknown. But this is in fact not a problem, because a simple indirect method exists, and is highly accurate - the measurement of the velocity relative to the CMBR frame, which, with very high probability, would be the preferred frame of every theory beyond relativity.

There is an independent strong argument that quantum theory requires also an absolute space as a background. It is based on a simple experiment which gives different results if a test particle is in two superposed gravitational fields at "the same place" or not. The point is that the existence of such a notion - being "at the same place" in different physical configurations - is what defines the meaning of absolute space. It does not exist in GR, where it would be meaningless to talk about particles located on different solutions being "at the same place". But in the experiment the result depends on this being "at the same place", so, it particles are "at the same place" becomes an observable.

Once it is clear that absolute time (at least in form of absolute contemporaneity) and absolute space would be part of a more fundamental theory, the next question would be how existing theories would have to be modified. For special-relativistic theories there is no problem at all - all they would have to do is to accept on of the inertial frames as preferred and go back to the Lorentzian ether interpretation.

With GR, the situation is more complicate, but nonetheless appears also surprisingly easy: There is, essentially, only one candidate for preferred coordinates, and this candidate is well-known over a long time and widely used anyway: harmonic coordinates.

The necessary modification of GR would exclude nontrivial topologies, and, sometimes, parts of solutions if on these parts the preferred coordinates take all possible values from minus infinity to infinity. And one would have to require, additionally, that the preferred time coordinate is time-like. This would include some more solutions, in particular all those with closed causal loops, like the Goedel universe.

But this is, essentially, already all. Sci-fi writers would be unhappy for the removal of nontrivial topologies and closed causal loops, but in fact their stories about such things do not depend on their possibility in GR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolute (origin) of time, in terms of a quantum field at rest where paired virtual particles/energy are generated, yes. Absolute space, no. Spatial relationships are always, always relative to states of motion for anything traveling at velocities less than c, and nonexistent for energy which can travel no slower than c in a vacuum. Always. Euclid and all of ancient Greece notwithstanding, it isn't Euclid's version of geometry that G-d loves, evidently.

Keep working on it. At least, you have an open mind.

I made a good living most of my life off of science fiction writers like Arthur C. Clarke's geostationary Intelsat satellites, for which I performed R&D which included the first error correction code circuits for satellite telecommunications at the former Comsat Labs. But wormholes and Kip Thorne's whole career is just fantasy, and he doesn't even claim to be peddling science fiction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But we can define absolute velocity without a problem, and using light - the background radiation. And in the ether theory the space has the same metric (which is not the one we measure with our rulers, but the one which influences the equations of the gravitational field, and, via the gravitational field, everything else) as the classical Euclidean space.

The Minkowski symmetry is only the symmetry of a wave equation, so there is nothing strange or unnatural with this symmetry. Whenever you have a wave equation, everything which is described by this wave equation (and nothing else) has the corresponding symmetry of this wave equation, which is Lorentz symmetry with this particular wave speed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The kind of preferred frame you're talking about using the CMBR is a frame we prefer for doing some science. The frame you want doesn't exist. The coordinates that would be preferred over all other coordinates. You're not a typical crank who is ignorant of physics by choice. As long as you continue to ignore experimental evidence which falsify your model you'll be looked at as a fringe participant in the science. Your ether theory of gravity is well written so it made the list of interesting possibilities but since 2001 the possibility of your gravistar has been falsified. Your ether theory of gravity is mathematically consistent [I'll take your word for it] but it's been falsified.

 

I don't like vectors in Minkowski space. Real space is not Euclidean, period. If you wish to mix the dimension of time with c, and get Minkowski intervals, this only obfuscates the fact that the speed of light (not intervals) is the principle invariant. You can neither rotate time into a spatial dimension or vice versa because it makes no real physical sense. Lorentz contraction and time dilation both work, but there is precisely no relationship between the two, hyperbolic rotational or otherwise.

When you add two vectors at the speed of light, c + c = c. This results in the same mathematical conundrum you get by adding infinities, because infinity + infinity = infinity also. My advice is, don't work the problem like that. It's mathematically classical; ancient Greek in origin in actual fact. Use relativity as it was meant to be used, and I not Minkowski's way.

Yes, relativistic symmetry is only an approximation. The approximation is a result of the fact that the origin of absolute time exists. It derives of a quantum field which allows only one direction of time, and is the origin of time itself. That origin is absolute, not a time interval (and I don't mean in the Minkowski sense). This universe has only a present and a future. There is no past that persists, no multiverses, no wormholes. Time dilation is simply a Doppler shift for the energy that is contained in matter; a simple means of storing additional translational energy. The space between particles, or within atoms, is an illusion based only on time and the propagation of energy. Relativistic speeds compress such empty space distances into nothing.

The relativistic dynamics of energy vs. matter are very different, and require two different quantum field generalizations. If you do not adopt this convention, then there really isn't anything for the "speed of light" energy to propagate WITH RESPECT TO, and that by itself is problematic. That quantum field at rest is the origin of paired virtual particle and energy creation, and also the absolute origin of time.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/symmetry.php


or.......................
http://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024311

ABSTRACT
Following a recent letter [J.-Y. Guo, S.-W. Chen, Z.-M. Niu, D.-P. Li, and Q. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 062502 (2014)], we present more details for the relativistic symmetry research by using the similarity renormalization group. With the theoretical formalism expressed in detail, we explore the origin and breaking mechanism of relativistic symmetries for an axially deformed nucleus. By comparing the energy splitting between the (pseudo-) spin doublets, it is shown that the spin energy splitting arises almost completely from the spin-orbit coupling, while the pseudospin energy splitting arises from a combination of the nonrelativistic, dynamical, and spin-orbit terms. Furthermore, these splittings are correlated with nuclear deformation as well as with the quantum numbers of the doublets. The origin of relativistic symmetries is disclosed and the breaking mechanism of spin and pseudospin symmetries is clarified.

and....................................

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3485

Exploration of relativistic symmetry by the similarity renormalization group
Jian-You Guo
(Submitted on 16 Feb 2012)
The similarity renormalization group is used to transform Dirac Hamiltonian into a diagonal form, which the upper (lower) diagonal element becomes an operator describing Dirac (anti-)particle. The eigenvalues of the operator are verfied to be in good agreement with that of the original Hamiltonian. Furthermore, the pseudospin symmetry is investigated. It is shown that the pseudospin splittings appearing in the nonrelativistic limit are reduced by the contributions from these terms relating the spin-orbit interactions, added by those relating the dynamical terms, and the quality of pseudospin symmetry origins mainly from the competition of the dynamical effects and the spin-orbit interactions. The spin symmetry of antiparticle spectrum is well reproduced in the present calculations.

 

I don't believe you can logically claim one is absolute [time] and the other is not [space].
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/whats-the-connection-between-space-and-time/

 

First, it is a bad style to quote the whole text, instead of quoting only those parts one answers.

Then, why do you think that the frame I think is preferable does not exist? Note that preferred coordinates in Newtonian theory do not forbid to use other coordinates, their advantage is that the equations are simpler in the preferred coordinates. This property holds for harmonic coordinates too - they essentially simplify the equations.

Then, I do not ignore any experimental evidence. I have shown you, quoting mainstream research, that the part of the radiation which is able to reach infinity is only a small part, which goes down to zero if the surface reaches the horizon. It is you who ignores the evidence I have presented here in the discussion.

What indeed has been falsified, and what I have no problem to accept, is a certain range of large enough values Y>0. Which is not interesting anyway, because Y>0 anyway would have to be extremely small, else, the big bounce predicted by my theory would appear at a wrong time, so that we would be unable to see a CMBR. It would also be unproblematic for my theory as a whole if all values Y>0 would be excluded - the whole domain Y<0 would remain viable. But there is no reason for this.

 

It's bad form being a crank in my estimation. Your theory predicts no event horizon forms. There's lots of evidence for black holes and the dying pulse train observation is the death of your gravistar. That's why your debating this with a bunch of amateurs in a public science forum. Good fortune with your future work.

 

Now that has hit the nail on the head in my very humble opinion, and what I have said many many times.
If anyone with any alternative hypothesis was trying to gain any ascendency over any incumbent model, they would most definitely not be arguing their point on a public science forum.
Theoretical papers are published everyday and as long as they are put together well, and do rely on standard physics, they will be published. But in most cases that's where it ends, and they remain totally theoretical in the extreme sense.

And again with the point I have made now a few times....even if an alternative theory was to match and predict the same as the incumbent theory, in every way, the incumbent model remains by default, the accepted theory.
The alternative to gain acceptance, needs to go above and beyond.
In the current discussions over a few threads, I don't believe this has happened in either case.

 

Two papers about renormalization techniques which have nothing to do with the question of relativistic symmetry discussed. The renormalization group is a purely theoretical entity, it acts on the space of theories. Theories are mathematical objects too, so that one can apply mathematical techniques to them. So, in renormalization theory one considers theories which one obtains if one regularizes a divergent field theory by cutting large impulses or very small distances. The result depends on the particular place of the cut - on the critical distance below which the theory becomes invalid. But one can connect and compare different theories with different cuts. One can be obtained as a deformation of the other. And there appear also some group properties if one considers these deformations of different theories. This very construction shows that this has nothing to do with a symmetry of reality.

Sorry, but this looks like you are posting texts where you have completely no understanding what they mean.

 

An interesting pattern of repetition of the same claims without even mentioning the counterevidence which I have given.

I'm interested in discussion with everybody who is interested. So I do not refuse to discuss these questions with amateurs too. If somebody is professional or amateur one can, of course, identify during the discussion - the way in which you ignore my arguments but repeat your claim is, of course, an indication that you are not a professional, because this is unprofessional behaviour - but it is nothing I care about. Discussions with professionals are, of course, more interesting.

 

I definitely would. Distribution of knowledge among the public is definitely something worth to be done.

This is a human weakness. Understandable, but not ideal.

It goes beyond, namely it can be easily quantized, while the contradictions between GR and quantum theory are too strong to allow a quantum GR.

 

This coming from someone who claims to be a Professional, but who has fabricated excuse after excuse, against mainstream science, the scientific method and accepted scientific facts such as the non absolute nature of space and time. Pot, kettle, black!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pull the other one, it whistles.

Understandable, logical and ideal!

It's totally theoretical....there is no evidence for an ether.....and you have no other observational or experimental evidence supporting your baby.
GR on the other hand is rock solid.
And again, if you had anything of real substance, you would be out selling your product.

 

Say you could stop time. This would be analogous to a huge photo snap shot of the universe. In this still photo, everything is accounted for, in relationships to all other things. It does not matter, if there are different reference clocks or the magnitude of time dilation. Time has stopped. Stopping time coordinates everything.

Time slows to zero, stops at the speed of light.

 

If you could stop time, what would happen with things like inertia and momentum?

If time was discrete and not continuous, what allows inertial forces to keep remembering their direction and intensity from one Planck-time to the next?

 

Ok, let's remove defamations, cheap polemics, repetitions of claims which have already been rejected, without any argument supporting them. See what remains:

Hm, this is at least a nontrivial philosophical idea: The old and unavoidable human preference for established ideas, even if they have no advantage, is not only understandable, but logical and ideal.

Hm, what is your hidden agenda? You probably want to go back to inquisition - an old and established idea - not? Last but not least, it is much older than modern science. So, it would be ideal if the world would remain in this state, not?

 

These can be accounted for with motion blur, where the shutter speed is slower than the action speed. The shutter speed occurs in inertial or relative reference, while the action speed is referenced to C. The difference in speed, with time stopped, appears as uncertainty in position. Speed is d/t and with time stop, delta speed appears as fuzzy position that gives the impression go motion even with time stopped.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The snap shot of time, capture energy at C. It does not capture matter.

 

Regarding the question if it is possible to have absolute time but not absolute space, this is certainly possible.

Here one has to clarify the meaning of "no absolute space". It would mean a theory which is, like GR, diffeomorphism-invariant, but this invariance would be restricted to spatial diffeomorphisms only. As an example of such a theory, one could use GR with the equation for an absolute time T(x,t) added. The natural equation for absolute time would be the harmonic equation. The physical meaning of this absolute time would be that it defines, which of the two experiments in Bell-type experiments influences which.

Because of this, the Bell argumentation provides evidence for absolute time, but not for absolute space. Here one needs a separate argument. It is the one I give in http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408

 

Time needs a dynamic instrument to measure it; clock or hourglass. Space or position can be measured with a static tool, like a meter stick. This tells us that time contains potential, that is not part of distance. The motion blur, above, converts time potential to distance, to create distance potential; uncertainty in position. Time is stopped but conserved.

We can't do this the other way. We can't stop position; absolute position, to add uncertainty to time, because absolute position is static. Distance only gains potential due to time potential; uncertainty. But once it gains this potential, it is no longer fixed, but relative.