Not what I (or probably anyone else) expected. Happy hols.
new physics model
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
OK so I had a long plane ride to this about this, and I have a few points to make.
First, "experiencing time dilation" without reference to another clock has no meaning. Neddy Bate said
I feel that we are attributing time dilation to objects A and B (which are under relative motion) as an ontological property, but when we consider the frame from which their velocities are equal in speed this time dilation disappears. Note that in this frame A and B are still in relative motion, and prior to mentioning this frame that was all that mattered - that A and B were in relative motion, "therefore they are experiencing time dilation".Neddy Bate said:
Regardless, Confused2's comments about the muon experiment are inescapable. I had previously made the claim that the equation
$$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{a*d}{c^2}}}$$
implied that the absence of acceleration in inertial motion would reduce gamma to unity. This isn't right because in centripetal motion only an infinite radius would produce zero acceleration on the moving body. I've changed the wording in my paper to be
I guess I owe Neddy Bate an apology, because I claimed this is a concession that I would not make.
The model continues to support the notion that time dilation is a result of acceleration and distance, though, and in my opinion the aesthetic advantages of looking at it in this manner are obvious, including the fact that gravitational time dilation can be explained without invoking curved space-time.
On a rotation-free analogue of Earth, two clocks are simultaneously started at the bottom of a tower (A), one is immediately hauled to the top of the tower by a certain process (A→B), then (C) the second clock is hauled to the top of the tower by the exact same process (C→D) and the clocks are compared (D).
Thus in a space-time diagram, we have the analogue of a parallelogram ABCD, with the stationary existence of the clocks at the top (B→D) and bottom (A→C) being in a sense parallel to each other and the two transits of the clocks from bottom to top (A→B and C→D) being parallel to each other.
According to GR, the first clock will read the sum of the proper time of the transit A→B plus the proper time of the stationary existence B→D, while the second clock will read the sum of the proper time of the stationary existence A→C plus the proper time of the transit C→D. But since the same process is used for the two transits is postulated to be the same (without assuming if it is fast or slow, smooth or jerky) then the difference of the clocks is only the proper time of the stationary existence B→D minus the proper time of the stationary existence A→C. In the Schwarzschild exterior solution to GR which applies to spacetime exterior of isolated, spherical non-rotating planets, where the bottom of the tower has coordinate position r and the top of the tower has coordinate position r+h, this difference is $$\frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r+h}} - \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r}} }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r}}} = \sqrt{ \frac{ r }{r - r_s} \frac{ r + h - r_s }{r + h} } - 1 \approx \frac{ h r_s}{2 r^2} $$ times the elapsed proper time on the of the stationary existence A→C (with the last approximation good to a few decimal places in the Earth-like limit of $$ r_s << h << r$$ ).
Earthly experiments confirm this regularly with high precision clocks, because as it turns out the slow rotation of the Earth poses no serious problem to this view.
If space-time is not curved, why then the difference shown in a parallelogram when it would obviously be absent without gravitational phenomena?
If space-time is curved, why would you want an explanation that did not incorporate curved space-time to describe experiments with clocks and locations in space-time?
I have no computer here (plus I'm drunk) so I'll have to make the case this weekend, but this model does not make the claim that space-time is flat, in this model space-time doesn't exist at all.
Start with a rigorous definition of "local", and by rigorous I mean a mathematical definition which would scale arbitrarily...
Start with a rigorous definition of "local", and by rigorous I mean a mathematical definition which would scale arbitrarily...
RPenner, do you have any input on a definition of "local"?
Have a group perform the standard EPR paradox (measuring the polarization of entangled photons A and B), but have them do so as an observer O passes by the experiment close to and parallel with the linear path of the photons under consideration. The velocity of O can be arbitrarily high such that the measuring apparatuses are essentially in contact with the creation event of A and B, and would by any means qualify as "local". The paradox disappears completely, as do the measurement problem and the wave function propagation (i.e. the wave function has no physicality), when viewed in this manner. This isn't contrary to SR, this is literally a prediction of it.
Have a group perform the standard EPR paradox (measuring the polarization of entangled photons A and B), but have them do so as an observer O passes by the experiment close to and parallel with the linear path of the photons under consideration. The velocity of O can be arbitrarily high such that the measuring apparatuses are essentially in contact with the creation event of A and B, and would by any means qualify as "local". The paradox disappears completely, as do the measurement problem and the wave function propagation (i.e. the wave function has no physicality), when viewed in this manner. This isn't contrary to SR, this is literally a prediction of it.
Could you break this down into smaller steps?
Yes. First of all I'm working on a simpler paper which is easier to relate to with a traditional physics background. Regarding the above proposal, the simplest test would be to look for torque on a polarization instrument as it detects a photon. I frankly don't know if our technology is capable of this, but the idea is that it would prove the existence of an ontological physical state of the photon(s) before measurement which would eliminate the viability of most major QM interpretations.
Could you clarify what your concept of 'polarisation ' is? You could jump to clarifying 'left' and 'right' hand polarisation if that would shorten the path.
Put plainly, I submit that a circularly polarized photon has angular momentum. The point is that if we want to preserve conservation of angular momentum then we would expect torque to be imparted to the instruments, however minuscule. The advantage of using two entangled, widely separated photons in an EPR arrangement with two instruments (say, offset by 90 degrees) is that we would have two sets of correlated data from which we could try to sift signal from noise.
Contrast this with MWI or Copenhagen Interpretation. They would claim that no such momentum exists because the photon is not in a pure state until it is measured.
Contrast this with MWI or Copenhagen Interpretation. They would claim that no such momentum exists because the photon is not in a pure state until it is measured.
Without even looking at angular momentum...
When a photon is emitted there (must be) a kick back to to conserve momentum. Yes?
When a photon is absorbed there (must be) a kick to to conserve momentum. Yes?
If you look at the double slit experiment then the path (and direction of momentum) aren't known to the source. Unless your submission is based on the suggestion that the ultimate path of a photon is known to the source at the time of emission then you must look for 'something else'. One might look at the detection of a photon of '2.7A background radiation and suggest that the detection was 'known' 13+ billion years ago.
I agree with all of this, except that that path is "unknown" to the source. Place a laser at the aft of a starship which is pointed at a solar sail affixed to the fore. Do we expect the ship to accelerate? (I don't
)When you say something today would need to have been "known" by an emission event 13+ billion years ago you are making that claim from a prejudiced (privileged) frame. There are frames which could make the claim that the emission and absorption events are arbitrarily close to one another in both time and space, and there is a particular frame which would make the claim that they are local to each other. If you try to give a rigorous, mathematical definition to "local" you will reach no other conclusion.
In my opinion, there are a few ways to explain this: retrocausality, block time, or the model that I describe in my paper (null space framework). Physical, collapsing wave functions and "mixed states" could not account for this, which is exactly why I propose the test.
Can we dive off into an old (1849) experiment?RJB said:I agree with all of this, except that that path is "unknown" to the source. Place a laser at the aft of a starship which is pointed at a solar sail affixed to the fore. Do we expect the ship to accelerate? (I don't
From:- http://www.speed-light.info/measure/fizeau.htm
More detailed accounts of the experiment suggest Fizeau actually used the time it took for a 'slab' of light to travel out 5 miles and arrive back at a time when the light was completely blocked by a tooth on the wheel - no matter the principle is the same. Whether or not light reached a point was determined by the rate at which a man turned a wheel. My suggestion is that the light (at the instant of emission) would not know the rate of rotation of the wheel (it might vary) and could not 'know' whether it would be blocked or passed. Fizeau himself was only loosely coupled with the system - he just turned the wheel at the speed that gave him the result he wanted. The light shone before he turned the wheel and probably after too.
In my humble opinion it was a stunning experiment. He went out with a heap of 'stuff' and came back with 'the speed of light' beyond all reasonable doubt. A shame he wasn't a bit closer to the actual value - I'd guess kids started fiddling with the mirror and he had to stop before he burst a blood vessel.
It's a brilliant experiment, agreed. I wish I could recall who it was but there was a famous mathematician who tried constructing an enormous triangle (miles per side?) to see if the angles still added up to 180 degrees when the area was so large. Most people at the time would presume he was insane but he was actually testing the incredibly deep principle of flat space-time...LONG before relativity!
Anyway, regarding the Fizeau experiment...the photon can certainly "know in advance" if it's going to be absorbed by Fizeau's eyeball or the matte paint of the toothed wheel; it simply doesn't care because the absorbing material has no effect on the state of emission. This is not the case with an EPR experiment, and this detail is the crux to disproving the idea of a physical, collapsing wave function.
Put the double-slit between the laser and the solar sail mentioned earlier. Is momentum conserved after each emission/absorption event? Logically there are only a few options:
1. Photons do not carry momentum and solar sails do not work
2. Emitting a photon does not impart momentum, but absorbing one does
3. Emitted and absorbed photons impart momentum but quantum mechanics breaks conservation of momentum regardless
4. The state of emitted photons is dependent upon their path and subsequent absorption
Physicality of wave functions and "mixed states" implied by MWI or the Copenhagen Interpretation would require #1, #2 or #3 and I simply don't understand how they can be preferred in any way.
1. Photons do not carry momentum and solar sails do not work
2. Emitting a photon does not impart momentum, but absorbing one does
3. Emitted and absorbed photons impart momentum but quantum mechanics breaks conservation of momentum regardless
4. The state of emitted photons is dependent upon their path and subsequent absorption
Physicality of wave functions and "mixed states" implied by MWI or the Copenhagen Interpretation would require #1, #2 or #3 and I simply don't understand how they can be preferred in any way.
Last edited:
I vote for your 3 ..."Emitted and absorbed photons impart momentum but quantum mechanics breaks conservation of momentum regardless" ... certainly direction and possibly also magnitude. I'm not a physicist so I think we need help here.
Why do you think we need the help of a physicist? You're capable of reasoning. If you choose an interpretation of QM that violates conservation of momentum that is your prerogative but to say that I don't find it appealing is an understatement. Additionally, I've given a theoretical experiment to discern between #3 and #4.
Have you actually read my paper? The toy model discussed would exhibit both quantum and wavelike behavior, plus it is deterministic and objectively real.
RJBeery:
Maybe you were thinking of Gauss.
https://thatsmaths.com/2014/07/10/gausss-great-triangle-and-the-shape-of-space/
Maybe you were thinking of Gauss.
https://thatsmaths.com/2014/07/10/gausss-great-triangle-and-the-shape-of-space/
Yes, that's would be why I think it would be worth looking at more experimental results.RJBeery said:
Staying with the double slit experiment.
Given a source that emits a 'probability wave' with magnitude (direction) and phase seems to be (for you) conceptually difficult. Mathematically (with just two paths) it's simple to look for regions where magnitude and phase cancel to give total cancellation (dark fringes). If I understand you correctly you are thrusting the burden of 'not sending' a photon to the dark regions onto the source. The source 'somehow' knows the geometry of the experiment and responds in a way that duplicates the wave expectation without waves. Or (Bohm?) 'pilot waves'. Could you clarify your proposed mechanism of 'not sending a photon' to the regions which (I think) we agree will be dark?
Last edited:
I, for one, apprreciate the meaningful discussions presented in this thread that honestly approach the heart of many unresolved issues from current models. Intriguing stuff!