John T. Nordberg's theory...

[PhysBang]

I disagree, the mass of the physical body of water increases by the mass of the water drop, instantly, regardless of the size or mass of the original body of water. This is not abstract, it's elementary.

No, it's entirely abstract. Nothing in physics depends on what you identify as "the original body of water". When you take a drop of water and add it to the original body of water, the best, most accurate story of what happens according to physics depends on where every particle of water is at each time, with the tie coordinate and the spacial coordinates chosen arbitrarily and coordinated with other arbitrary choices according to general relativity. Even if we just stick to special relativity the "instant" is different for different choices of time coordinates.

A similar argument can be made in relation to the concept of Time, which IS an abstraction. Both are simultaneous (concurrent) results of a specific physical action, regardless of the dimensional properties..

Since "instant" has spacial properties, it cannot be something that ignores relevant dimensions.

We know that simultaneity has spacial properties because we aren't merely concerned with what is simultaneous at the same place, we are concerned with what we can take to be simultaneous at different locations. The lesson of physics seems to be that we have arbitrary choices over what we take to be simultaneous at a distance.

Until you can present a theory of gravity that does as well as general relativity in describing gravity and has an absolute definition of simultaneity, I will be forced to reject your simple, vague, and aphysical idea of simultaneity.

 

[Write4U]

First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my proposition.

No, it's entirely abstract. Nothing in physics depends on what you identify as "the original body of water". When you take a drop of water and add it to the original body of water, the best, most accurate story of what happens according to physics depends on where every particle of water is at each time, with the tie coordinate and the spacial coordinates chosen arbitrarily and coordinated with other arbitrary choices according to general relativity. Even if we just stick to special relativity the "instant" is different for different choices of time coordinates.

Ah, yes, I understand the physics as you explained it.

I see now that I should have stipulated that I was speaking purely in mathematical (abstract) terms, and the setting was independent of physical influences. This is why I tried to put this in terms of "whole body of water" as a singular entity with a certain mass and the drop of water as a singular entity with a certain mass.

Since "instant" has spacial properties, it cannot be something that ignores relevant dimensions.

In context of the physical properties of those *bodies* you are right, of course. But I was looking at this as irrelevant for theoretical purposes. What if we placed the scenario in a dimensionless vacuum?

We know that simultaneity has spacial properties because we aren't merely concerned with what is simultaneous at the same place, we are concerned with what we can take to be simultaneous at different locations. The lesson of physics seems to be that we have arbitrary choices over what we take to be simultaneous at a distance.

But that leaves the question of *entanglement* of two particles which apparently respond simultaneously to spin reversal, independent of distance, unanswered.

Until you can present a theory of gravity that does as well as general relativity in describing gravity and has an absolute definition of simultaneity, I will be forced to reject your simple, vague, and aphysical idea of simultaneity.

As I mentioned before, I placed the thought experiment in a dimensionless setting (a pure vacuum) and used only the mathematics of adding a certain amount of volume (mass) to an existing amount of volume (mass).
It seems mathematically impossible to say, "when we add two values (independent of external conditions or methods), the result is an incrementally additive function.

Let me try to illustrate: when we have a whole body of an arbitrary weight of 100 grams and I add another whole body of 10 grams, the new wholeness equals 110 grams . I cannot see how this result is arrived at incrementally (say 1 gram at a time) and would require time to complete the calculation of the equation..

If entanglement is an actual fact, then it stands to reason that this is a mathematical function which does not answer to our current understanding of physics and uses a more fundamental universal mathematical function.

That was one of Bohm's complaints against reductionist physics.

The problem is usually called the measurement problem, but it should rather be
called the problem of the meaning of the wave-function. In quantum mechanics, the
‘complete description’ of any system is supposed to be given by its wave-function.
But a wave-function is just a vector in an abstract space and it is not at all clear what
that sentence means. To explain the problem, consider first classical mechanics. In
this theory, the notion of ‘force’ (acting instantaneously throughout the universe) is
also obscure. Nevertheless, there are particles in the universe, on which the forces
act—which determines their motion. Similarly, in classical electromagnetism, the
notion of waves propagating in vacuum is obscure, but again, the waves act on
particles and guide their motion. Similar remarks hold for the curved space–time of
General Relativity. In all those theories, there is an ontology, to use the expression
of Du¨rr and Teufel, namely something that exists independently of any human
observation or even independently of the existence of mankind itself and whose
evolution is described by the laws of physics.

http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/files/ReviewBricmont.pdf

 

[danshawen]

Why do you think that?

We know that changing direction requires no interval of time because quantum spin flips of paired entangled electrons or photons occur faster than a photon can traverse the distance between them on any scale.

How is spin analogous to reflection/entanglement. What do you mean by 'reflection/entanglement', do you think they are related?

We know that flipping a quantum spin state is the rotational equivalent of a reflection for linear energy propagation because when spins are flipped angular momentum (the vector, or if you would prefer, a "tensor") is conserved, along with the sense of the direction of rotation.

If the bound energy that is matter were bound internally by means of energy traveling at c, then it would be child's play for us to cause complete particle disintegration (ALL of the particles in two particle beams changing to energy) with a machine like the LHC. But particles of bound energy are made of tougher stuff than that. They are bound together into matter or antimatter by the energy of entanglement. This is the same energy of 1 solar mass that evidences as a gravity wave when two merging black holes a billion light years away merge into a nominal 50 solar mass black hole, the instant all of that quantum entanglement energy crosses their merged event horizon. Or does someone have a better explanation as to where that energy comes from? Hint: it isn't E=mc^2, now is it?

None of this stuff is original with me, folks. A great many theoretical physicists are currently warming to the idea that the foundation of spacetime is quantum entanglement, and this conflicts with 19th century ideas about simultaneity that derive of relativity for speeds <=c.

I'm just showing you exactly where the inconsistency is, and one possible means of resolving it. Forget about me being someone who has it in for Minkowski. You all taught me better than that, for which I am grateful.

And finally, that's all I have to say.

 

[PhysBang]

In context of the physical properties of those *bodies* you are right, of course. But I was looking at this as irrelevant for theoretical purposes. What if we placed the scenario in a dimensionless vacuum?

Then it would have no applicability to our physical world. I don't know why that scenario would be valuable.

But that leaves the question of *entanglement* of two particles which apparently respond simultaneously to spin reversal, independent of distance, unanswered.

It might leave one with an unsatisfying answer, sure. As it stands, there is never a violation of special relativity: at no point is there a description of the physics that one can only describe in one system of coordinates. Cause and effect in the real world might just be unsatisfying to people used to cause and effect on a certain scale.

It seems mathematically impossible to say, "when we add two values (independent of external conditions or methods), the result is an incrementally additive function.

If you want to equivocate on the meaning of "add", then fine. But "add" has many different meanings, some of which translate less accurately to a straightforward mathematical case or that elide physical details.

For example, I can add someone to my will. This is not an instantaneous process and it involves not simply one act, but a series of acts within a social context that allows for wills and enacting wills. Adding a drop of water to a body of water involves a number of molecules approaching that body and being assimilated into that body over time.

Let me try to illustrate: when we have a whole body of an arbitrary weight of 100 grams and I add another whole body of 10 grams, the new wholeness equals 110 grams . I cannot see how this result is arrived at incrementally (say 1 gram at a time) and would require time to complete the calculation of the equation..

If the bodies in question are solid and never merge, then we can say that the moment that they come in contact is the moment that they are added together. If one absorbs the other, then we might say that it is when one is completely absorbed within the other. Regardless of what event or set of events we identify, when this set is satisfied can be assigned a time coordinate, but whether or not this time coordinate is simultaneous with other events depends on the system of coordinates chosen.

If entanglement is an actual fact, then it stands to reason that this is a mathematical function which does not answer to our current understanding of physics and uses a more fundamental universal mathematical function.

But entanglement is not a mathematical function, it is a physical property. We might represent it, in part, by a number of mathematical functions, some of which depend on time.

 

[danshawen]

That is different than what I am talking about. However even the effect of a drop of water added to a bath is not instantaneously transmitted thoughout the tub. The increase in pressure for instance is only transmitted at the speed of sound through the water.
There is no absolute simultaneity, it depends on your reference frame whether 2 events are simultaneous or not. If there are 2 people in a room and they clap their hands together they can say they clapped their hands simultaneously. This is certainly correct. However a person in another reference frame very well might say they did not clap their hands simultaneously. The wiki write up on Relativity of simultaneity is quite good IMO.

For photos propagating through a bathtub, your analysis is most certainly correct. How about a bathtub of liquid helium? A Bose-Einstein condensate? A photon that is absorbed by an electron and as a result, increases the energy of an atom of which it is a part?

A write-up of the relativity of simultanaeity is, by Einstein's own admission, incomplete without reference to quantum entanglement. What do you think that means?

 

[James R]

danshawen:

Einstein acknowledges the work of H. Minkowski on the development of his Theory of Relativity, and then goes on to say:

"Minkowski started out from the premise that the "time coordinate" enters the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity in exactly the same way as the spatial coordinates if t is replaced by the imaginary quantity: square root(-1) * ct = ict which is proportional to it. The equations of the theory of relativity thereby become equations in a four dimensional space; and only in the number of dimensions are the formal properties of this four-dimensional space distinguished from the formal properties of the space of Euclidean geometry."

The use of ict to deal with time, particularly in the definition of the spacetime interval, is a kind of mathematical fudge. It works, up to a point. A much more conceptually complete formulation dispenses with the imaginary numbers and brings in the idea of the spacetime metric, which is what Einstein used in general relativity.

Einstein's point here is that the ict formulation is effectively equivalent to tacking on an extra dimension to the usual spatial dimensions, with the i^2 providing the needed minus sign in the correct spacetime metric for special relativity.

The last time I pointed this out, you replied (post #237) in part:

"You're not making much sense. If t=ict, then t/t = 1, not ic
Can you do maths at all?"

To answer your previous question more directly, can you?

You see that if t=ict, we can divide both sides by t to get 1 = ic, don't you? And that is an incorrect equation, because 1, i and c are all constants. Probably, the problem is not that you couldn't do the maths, but that you didn't express the idea that you were trying to get across clearly enough for it to make sense.

A PROPORTIONAL relationship is not the same as equality. There may be a constant factor of proportionality involved, and that factor is not necessarily equal to 1. That proportionality constant could be a number greater than 10,000, for example, and it would really make no difference to Minkowski's formulation of the role of time in Special Relativity, nor very much to his math.

That's right. In fact, the numerical value of c is just a function of the particular system of units we use to measure times and distances.

While researching the answer for your question, I also happened across something else I missed. Evidently Minkowski once wrote that "for any two events, simultaneity does not actually exist". Now that's a gem of an idea I would tend to agree with, other than for quantum entanglement spin flips, that is. Don't know how I could possibly have missed it in that other thread.

The relativity of simultaneity is Relativity 101. And there's nothing special about quantum entanglement spin flips in that regard, by the way.

And so Minkowski's formulation of relativity involves complex math in order to assure that the direction of time's arrow cannot reverse in a manner that would permit light to propagate backwards through time.

No. Minkowski says nothing about time's arrow. His complex math is to make the metric work correctly, essentially. Or, more accurately, to try to do special relativity without using a metric explicitly.

More to the point, John T. Nordberg states (in his video) that "Time is the speed of light". If that's a crackpot, then so is Minkowski. I never called Minkowski a crackpot. Most certainly, Minkowski was not. Nordberg isn't really a crackpot either; he simply tells us something that evidently, we already knew.

Time is measured in seconds. Speed is measured in metres per second. One cannot be the same as the other. The physical quantities have different dimensions (units). Surely Nordberg can't have made such a basic mistake?

The speed of light is a velocity (space/time), and time, evidently, is fundamentally based on a kind of motion that is much faster, and one that is associated with what holds bound energy together in a state that is, for all intents and purposes, timeless.

Your "time = motion" idea is delightfully vague. Can you do any better than this?

Apologies; I really can't say any of that in a way that would not do the estimable Captain Obvious proud. Not so obvious is the idea that there exist only three physical dimensions, not four, and each and every one of them is equivalent to the dimension we call time. Give me another 10 points for that one then, James R.

Your claim that there are only three physical dimensions rather than four does not follow from anything you wrote above, but is a new idea you are introducing without any support or argument.

You seem to be posting pseudoscience, or at least an Alternative Theory, to the Physics & Math forum. Do you at least agree that your idea is not part of accepted science, but that it is speculative? Would it not be more properly placed in a different forum, then?

 

[Write4U]

But entanglement is not a mathematical function, it is a physical property. We might represent it, in part, by a number of mathematical functions, some of which depend on time.

Entanglement may be a physical expression of a mathematical function. Even if some physical mathematical functions requires time, that does not mean that time existed before the function was in process or completed. In the abstract there is only a timeless permttive condition which has the potential to accommodate an hierarchy of mathematical states and values from the undetectable subtle to expression in our physical reality.
But my understanding of Bohm's "Implicate Order" (a mathematical function) is that it always precedes physical Expression in our reality..

It might leave one with an unsatisfying answer, sure. As it stands, there is never a violation of special relativity: at no point is there a description of the physics that one can only describe in one system of coordinates. Cause and effect in the real world might just be unsatisfying to people used to cause and effect on a certain scale.

With "certain scale" you mean *observable scale* ? So then what is entanglement which is *simultaneous* even over long distances?
Apparently this function is separated from a time coordinate in the physical world. If spin reversal is instantaneous then the inescapable conclusion is that entanglement information must be transmitted at ftl, or is exempt from time altogether, but its function is always a mathematical function, expressed in the spin reversal..

 

[danshawen]

Nordberg DID make the mistake of equivocating time with the speed of light. It's quite prominent in his video, but if you didn't watch it, I don't fault you. At least, Minkowski didn't make that particular mistake. Follow exactly what Minkowsk's math says and also what it doesn't say and it is difficult not to arrive at the same conclusion I eventually did.

 

[PhysBang]

Entanglement may be a physical expression of a mathematical function.

This is not possible. Entanglement is something said of elements of a physical system. A mathematical function is something that we use in a description of a physical system. You are saying the equivalent of, "New York City might be a physical expression of the Google Maps software."

With "certain scale" you mean *observable scale* ?

I mean that human beings are used to how cause and effect happens with systems of a certain size with a certain amount of interactions. 0

So then what is entanglement which is *simultaneous* even over long distances?

You mean where entanglement is spread over long distances; saying that it is simultaneous is begging the question. These systems are still well outside the scope of everyday human experience in their limitations on interaction and on the size of the system; they may expose us to the rules of cause and effect that govern the universe but that do not appear in our everyday experience.

 

[danshawen]

So then what is entanglement which is *simultaneous* even over long distances?

Those "long distances" are not measured or reckoned as "light years" simply because they are so great that comparison to something slower, like "Usain Bolt" years would be impractical in the extreme. As reckoned by Minkowski, among others, the speed of light is eligible to be used in proportional relationships in Special Relativity because everyone understands what direct proportion means. Our ENTIRE mathematical system of reasoning used for physics is based upon proportional relationships, and this is also the reason that this system of reasoning is incomplete.

There are hints everywhere that quantum spin and entanglement doesn't work anything like versions of angular momentum whose dynamics are familiar because the rotation is slower than c. One clue is that even though we accelerate two counterrotating beams of protons in the LHC to 0.9999999c, and they smash into pieces of everything else imaginable in creation, they do not completely disintegrate into the constituent photons we know make them up because we can create all of those particles from appropriate energies of photons if we wish to. No matter how close the final velocity of the collision is to c, the energy (mass) we can pump into the colliding particles really have no limit because once accelerated to near c in one direction, more energy can be added by pushing it even harder in any one of an infinite number of other directions. Mind you, you would need to be very quick in order to do this. Quicker, even, than the speed of light, IN ACTUAL FACT. But it is possible.

So finally you must be convinced that quantum spin / entanglement actually occurs faster even than light can traverse the distance between entangled events, and that it takes no interval of time as measured by the linear propagation of light in order for entanglement to do whatever it does. A pair of photons can be entangled and literally sent to opposite ends of the universe at the speed of light. And when they arrive, if they are still entangled, whatever happens to the polarization or spin of one of them will instantly impact the spin or polarization of the other, in much less TIME than it would take for another photon traveling at the speed of light to reach either of them.

Forget about inserting entanglement in place of something (or anything) that is proportional to time in a physics equation. You can't even use entanglement time there without division by zero, because that is how much time it takes for quantum entanglement spin flips to transfer from one end of an entangled quantum wave function to the other. How much space must be traversed in order to see something spinning clockwise to flip to counterclockwise? Answer: NONE. And that is also the reason that the otherwise valid mathematical idea of three mutually orthonormal spatial coordinates of space commingled with a complex one-way arrow of time is utter physical nonsense. Every one of those isotropic spatial dimensions is no different from the rest in any manner other than a direction, and there isn't any reason other than Euclid's solids applied to analysis of geometry to pick three of them as special, any more than selecting a single spatial dimension and two other mutually orthogonal phase angles is unique or special. There is only one true geometry that works in any direction of travel or spin, and its basis is 100% time, not a complex number proportional to time tacked onto a complex 4D interval as an afterthought. Geometry, other than for relationships between solid (bound energy) matter, has no meaning. Time and energy, and events pertaining to interaction between bound and unbound energy is all that exists. Entangled energy is matter. Entanglement provides matter with the permanence that is an illusion both of matter itself, and the spaces between particles of matter. There is no geometry. There is no "space". Any amount of space in any direction can be rendered spatially dimensionless by suitable choice of reference frame. There is only time and energy. I don't care if your proportional relationships won't work like that. Physically and intellectually, it is what it is. The edifice and scaffolding of science based on the speed of the linear propagation of light as a hard limit to energy or spin transfer will be incomplete for as long as the true nature of time is ignored. Things science doesn't know or can't manipulate with the limited tools available to it aren't pseudoscience or untrue simply because science doesn't acknowledge, or is willfully ignorant of them, either.

 

[James R]

danshawen:

Our ENTIRE mathematical system of reasoning used for physics is based upon proportional relationships...

That's a very vague statement. Can you explain what you mean by it?

There are hints everywhere that quantum spin and entanglement doesn't work anything like versions of angular momentum whose dynamics are familiar because the rotation is slower than c.

Really? Not anything like it, eh? Why do we use the term "spin" to refer to something that is utterly unlike angular momentum, then? Can you explain?

One clue is that even though we accelerate two counterrotating beams of protons in the LHC to 0.9999999c, and they smash into pieces of everything else imaginable in creation, they do not completely disintegrate into the constituent photons we know make them up because we can create all of those particles from appropriate energies of photons if we wish to.

What gave you the idea that all particles are made of photons?

No matter how close the final velocity of the collision is to c, the energy (mass) we can pump into the colliding particles really have no limit because once accelerated to near c in one direction, more energy can be added by pushing it even harder in any one of an infinite number of other directions. Mind you, you would need to be very quick in order to do this. Quicker, even, than the speed of light, IN ACTUAL FACT. But it is possible.

Are you claiming it is possible to push matter to a speed faster than the speed of light? That's contrary to the theory of relativity.

So finally you must be convinced that quantum spin / entanglement actually occurs faster even than light can traverse the distance between entangled events, and that it takes no interval of time as measured by the linear propagation of light in order for entanglement to do whatever it does.

Yes, but you can't use entanglement as a way to send information from one place to another faster than light.

A pair of photons can be entangled and literally sent to opposite ends of the universe at the speed of light.

No, I don't think so. You can entangle them, sure, but if you want them at opposite ends of the universe you're going to have to entangle them here and then move one of them to there, and that movement will be slower than the speed of light.

And when they arrive, if they are still entangled, whatever happens to the polarization or spin of one of them will instantly impact the spin or polarization of the other, in much less TIME than it would take for another photon traveling at the speed of light to reach either of them.

Well, there'll be a measurable correlation, yes. But it won't allow you to send a useful message from one to the other faster than the speed of light.

Forget about inserting entanglement in place of something (or anything) that is proportional to time in a physics equation.

What does this sentence mean, exactly?

You can't even use entanglement time there without division by zero, because that is how much time it takes for quantum entanglement spin flips to transfer from one end of an entangled quantum wave function to the other. How much space must be traversed in order to see something spinning clockwise to flip to counterclockwise? Answer: NONE. And that is also the reason that the otherwise valid mathematical idea of three mutually orthonormal spatial coordinates of space commingled with a complex one-way arrow of time is utter physical nonsense.

You're not connecting one idea clearly to the next in this paragraph. It's kind of stream-of-consciousness.

It sounds like you think that somebody has suggested that time is a complex number, or something. Is that what you're saying?

Every one of those isotropic spatial dimensions is no different from the rest in any manner other than a direction, and there isn't any reason other than Euclid's solids applied to analysis of geometry to pick three of them as special, any more than selecting a single spatial dimension and two other mutually orthogonal phase angles is unique or special. There is only one true geometry that works in any direction of travel or spin, and its basis is 100% time, not a complex number proportional to time tacked onto a complex 4D interval as an afterthought.

Ah, One True Geometry. Are we doing religion, now, or science?

What theory are you referring to that talks about a complex number proportional to time, tacked onto a complex 4D interval as an afterthought? Whose theory is that?

Geometry, other than for relationships between solid (bound energy) matter, has no meaning.

You know that energy is not a substance, right? Matter isn't "bound energy" (whatever that means).

And that "other than for..." clause you have in that sentence leaves a pretty wide scope for geometry.

Time and energy, and events pertaining to interaction between bound and unbound energy is all that exists.

Are you claiming that all things are made of time and/or energy? There's that problem again that energy isn't a substance from which things can be made.

Entangled energy is matter.

No. It really isn't.

Entanglement provides matter with the permanence that is an illusion both of matter itself, and the spaces between particles of matter.

You need to unpack this sweeping claim.

There is no geometry.

Didn't you just admit that there was, above?

There is no "space". Any amount of space in any direction can be rendered spatially dimensionless by suitable choice of reference frame.

I don't think so. Can you explain?

The edifice and scaffolding of science based on the speed of the linear propagation of light as a hard limit to energy or spin transfer will be incomplete for as long as the true nature of time is ignored.

And let me guess? You know the true nature of time, and all the professional physicists in the world are blind to it. Am I right?

Things science doesn't know or can't manipulate with the limited tools available to it aren't pseudoscience or untrue simply because science doesn't acknowledge, or is willfully ignorant of them, either.

Pseudoscience is nonsense dressed in the trappings of science without actually being science. Things science doesn't know, whatever those things might be, could be pseudoscience or something else.

 

[danshawen]

That's a very vague statement. Can you explain what you mean by it?

Any equation containing an '=', or even '<>' sign, and something that evaluates to a number other than dividing by zero on either side of it, is a proportional relationship.

Why do we use the term "spin" to refer to something that is utterly unlike angular momentum, then? Can you explain?

Great question. Unfortunately, answering it other than to say this much, is well beyond the limits and scope Write4U has asked, and the answer would be volumes.

What gave you the idea that all particles are made of photons?

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

What else do you think E=mc^2 means, if it does not refer to the above? Particle physicists don't even make a distinction; particles, mass ARE energy. ALL of them.

Are you claiming it is possible to push matter to a speed faster than the speed of light? That's contrary to the theory of relativity

Not at all. That much of special relativity is both mathematically and physically correct, of course.

Yes, but you can't use entanglement as a way to send information from one place to another faster than light.

Correct. Not sure what you really mean by "one place" vs another, however. That last remark is a joke.

No, I don't think so. You can entangle them, sure, but if you want them at opposite ends of the universe you're going to have to entangle them here and then move one of them to there, and that movement will be slower than the speed of light.

Assume for the sake of argument that there is nothing at all in between, without regard to the idea that without something in between, there is absolutely NOTHING to distinguish what exactly is meant by "there" vs "here", other than the amount of TIME that will be required in order for them to arrive.

Well, there'll be a measurable correlation, yes. But it won't allow you to send a useful message from one to the other faster than the speed of light.

For the purposes of this discussion (John T. Norberg's theory), I don't really care to argue whether that might be possible or not. I suspect it might be possible within very strict limits of what distinguishes one location from another, and we both shall see if that is the case.

What does this sentence mean, exactly?

(sentence about the proportionality of time and entanglement) You can't use the time it takes for entanglement spin flips to occur in any equation that is based on a proportional relationship.

You're not connecting one idea clearly to the next in this paragraph. It's kind of stream-of-consciousness.

It sounds like you think that somebody has suggested that time is a complex number, or something. Is that what you're saying?

Minkowski suggests that time is proportional to the speed of light multiplied by a complex quantity, yes. His 4D interval is based on that idea. We've already covered this here.

Are you claiming that all things are made of time and/or energy? There's that problem again that energy isn't a substance from which things can be made.

THIS (what you just said) is pseudoscience. If you claim that all things are not made of time/and/or energy, then you also doubt E=mc^2 and reject the theory of special relativity. I understand and accept the theory that all things are made of time and/or energy. Matter is energy that is bound by means of entanglement, that is permanent, for which time dilation (except at their centers) is infinite, just like for photons propagating linear trajectories at the speed of light. Just like the theory says.

You need to unpack this sweeping claim.

And how would you suggest I go about "unpacking" it? What part specifically needs unpacking?

Didn't you just admit that there was, above?

Don't think so. Where? I said (or meant to say) the only geometry that exists is a geometry based on time, and only time, and nothing but time. This time I am talking about may be proportional to the velocity of light, but because time is fundamentally based on something spinning faster than light, the description is not served or better understood by means of sublight proportional relationships. If that sounds cryptic, it's because we still don't know anything about it. It's incomplete. I'm only saying: "Look! here's a hole; what's in there?"

I don't think so. Can you explain?

I cannot claim that the Lorentz Transformation means anything at all without a coordinate system, without geometry, or without some observer in a frame that is moving with respect to a solid stationary roadbed from which to measure how time and/or space measurements change an observer's assessment of whether that roadbed has collapsed to a two dimensional pancake or not, or whether the time dilation in the moving frame has caused the passage of time to slow down with respect to the stationary frame. Minkowski was able to tie all of this together with a geometrical construct, and it is to his credit that he was able to do so. It was a remarkable mathematical achievement, as far as it goes, but it was a synthesis that left something out of the equations simply because there seemed no way to fit it in. But I don't think he or anyone ever meant for us to stop trying.

Things science doesn't know, whatever those things might be, could be pseudoscience or something else.

Absolutely. Thanks for helping me get that out. I really do appreciated the amount of detail you effort into your detailed answers.

 

[PhysBang]

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

What else do you think E=mc^2 means, if it does not refer to the above? Particle physicists don't even make a distinction; particles, mass ARE energy. ALL of them.

Wow, so much Farsight sponsored pseudo-science in so few sentences. First, photons and other particles are not energy. Second, E=mc^2 is a proportional relationship (in a sense less trivial than the danshawen definition) , not a claim of metaphysical identity.

Minkowski suggests that time is proportional to the speed of light multiplied by a complex quantity, yes. His 4D interval is based on that idea. We've already covered this here.

No, Minkowski points out the relationship established by SR.

THIS (what you just said) is pseudoscience. If you claim that all things are not made of time/and/or energy, then you also doubt E=mc^2 and reject the theory of special relativity. I understand and accept the theory that all things are made of time and/or energy. Matter is energy that is bound by means of entanglement, that is permanent, for which time dilation is infinite. Just like the theory says.

This is a great example of how someone brings their own misunderstanding to a subject and proclaims themselves a holy expert without actually understanding the subject.

 

[Write4U]

Are you claiming that all things are made of time and/or energy? There's that problem again that energy isn't a substance from which things can be made.

Neither is time.

 

[danshawen]

Substance 'matter' is energy that has permanence with respect to time. This does not mean that substances 'matter' cannot move; only that it persists in the rest frame in a manner that a simple beam of photons cannot. Time dilation in accordance with relativity is what permits this situation to exist. At the geometric centers of bound particles of energy, time proceeds at the same rate it does for an observer of a linearly propagating photon. Photons (unpolarized or without spin) only have inertia and propagate at or below c in a single direction. Matter has inertia in every direction at the same TIME. Quantum spin and entanglement makes this possible. Lorentz transformations are only useful for understanding sublight time dilation, mainly because nothing else, other than energy exists.

The rest frame for linear propagation (unbound energy) or travel (bound energy) is defined by +/- c for all inertial reference frames. The rest frame (spin = zero) for quantum spin is the Higgs field. Geometry on anything other than energy or time is as undefined as any number divided by zero. Spaces between particles of matter 'substance' is defined by the time it takes a photon to traverse it in the rest frame. Space has no substance or reality or even math of its own that is independent of whatever local energy is doing with respect to time.

All of this is the most basic stuff. I can't make it any simpler.

Or you could go with the standard model and say that photons are the force carrier of EM (PhysBang evidently likes this) or that other particles are the force carriers of mechanical energy, which is only partially correct, after a certain school of physics.

Farsight didn't sponsor or sanction any of this. But he did help me realize, Minkowsi was a fine mathematician, and that you can't really come to an understanding of physics without both relativity and quantum effects. And Gödel deserves some credit too, of course. Without him, you might miss the holes in otherwise airtight and self-consistent mathematical logic entirely.

 

[danshawen]

Nordberg's "ball of light" model is much too simple to work. Quantum spins may be composited of other spinning or non spinning particles and / or energy may be in there as well. Standing waves propagating back and forth are probably part of the composite picture too. The particle zoo is back with a vengeance, as if it ever really left.

 

[danshawen]

post redacted. wrong thread.

 

[Write4U]

Question: what causes spin reversal and what are the consequences other than the reversal of the entangled particle?

James R said: ↑
Are you claiming that all things are made of time and/or energy? There's that problem again that energy isn't a substance from which things can be made.

Click to expand...

W4U said:
Neither is time.

On second thought, this asks a profound question.
If not Energy and If not Time, then what is causal to spin reversal? Abstract mathematics?

 

[James R]

danshawen:

Regarding $$E=mc^2$$: You'll often read that this equation tells us that "energy and mass are equivalent" or even that "mass is a form of energy". Both of those statements aren't really correct. What the equation says is that the existence of mass has an energy associated with it, which we can "get out" by converting part or all of the mass to something else. The energy isn't photons. Photons are just another type of particle, and energy isn't a particle. Energy isn't a substance. Energy is an accounting system. At bottom, energy is just a number, useful in physics because it happens to be a conserved quantity in many situations.

If you have a proton, say, it is not in any sense "made of photons", or "made of energy". There is energy associated with its constituents and their interactions, but that doesn't make it a form of energy.

Take another example: if a positron and an electron collide, the result is usually two photons. Does that mean the electron and positron are made of photons, which somehow get released when the particles collide? No. What happens is that the interaction process in which the positron collides with the electron destroys those particles and creates two new ones (the photons). In the process energy - a number - remains the same.

 

[origin]

danshawen:

Regarding $$E=mc^2$$: You'll often read that this equation tells us that "energy and mass are equivalent" or even that "mass is a form of energy". Both of those statements aren't really correct. What the equation says is that the existence of mass has an energy associated with it, which we can "get out" by converting part or all of the mass to something else. The energy isn't photons. Photons are just another type of particle, and energy isn't a particle. Energy isn't a substance. Energy is an accounting system. At bottom, energy is just a number, useful in physics because it happens to be a conserved quantity in many situations.

If you have a proton, say, it is not in any sense "made of photons", or "made of energy". There is energy associated with its constituents and their interactions, but that doesn't make it a form of energy.

Take another example: if a positron and an electron collide, the result is usually two photons. Does that mean the electron and positron are made of photons, which somehow get released when the particles collide? No. What happens is that the interaction process in which the positron collides with the electron destroys those particles and creates two new ones (the photons). In the process energy - a number - remains the same.

Excellent post. To bad danshawen will discount it.