FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

Albert Einstein’s opposition to Quantum Mechanics is well known, as is his attempts to generalise his geometric theory of Gravity and incorporate electromagnetism. Whilst not about Einstein per se, this paper will show that Quantum Mechanics could have been avoided if Einstein had used the energy of a photon to derive a final geometric theory of Relativity.

Author Bio

Born Vienna, Austria 24th May 1968

Download Essay PDF File

report post as inappropriate

Dear Robert,

That is one of the most beautiful essays I've ever seen.

But I have one question. Where is electric charge? It seems that in doing away with mass you've also done away with charge, making it difficult, in my opinion, to 'derive' photons.

My theory is based upon mass as the fundamental entity, from which everything else is derived, but, in the spirit of your 'appearance of mass' I think that I can possibly replace mass by curvature. In fact, it is when the Maxwell-Einstein gravitomagnetic field reaches its limit of curvature ('event horizon'?) that discrete 'mass' comes into existence, (as the neutrino) and interaction of this particle with the gravito-magnetic field leads to electric charge coming into existence, which then allows photons to come into existence.

Of course the use of 'mass' is extremely convenient, but I could probably, in the spirit of your approach, simply work with 'local curvature' and not mention mass. (By this I mean conceptually. To work with General Relativistic field equations at this level of particle physics would be out of the question.)

I have, as a result of conversations with Peter Jackson and Willard Mittleman, been applying my theory of the C-field (my name for the gravitomagnetic field)to the photon, and have derived some fascinating results. One of these is a coupling of the photon wavelength to the gravitomagnetic field. I believe that this is 'new physics', that is, I believe the relation has never been seen before. I am in process of writing it up.

Anyway, I love your essay, and would like to hear your ideas on electric charge. I don't think that sweeping them into 'matter' and 'anti-matter' will do. I think that you need a further relation than the Bekenstein-Hawking formula-- one that also incorporates charge and the fine structure constant. I have such a formula in my theory.

This should definitely be a winner!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 21:45 GMT

Hello Dr. Klingman,

You are much too kind, and I am both flattered and embarrassed by your praise.

Regarding the paper what has been derived are ‘foundations’ (the Light and Equivalence Identity). Much remains to be said.

As to your question ‘Where is electric charge?’ I would ask ‘Where is electric charge in Eqs. (2) and (3)?’ It seems to me that the confusion lies in the fact that the Light-relations do not - at this initial stage - account for the property of spin, which would allow matter to be distinguished from radiation.

Clearly you have given a lot of thought to the ideas presented in your essay, and so I will offer you some more ‘food for thought’ from the perspective of my essay. The ‘rest mass’ in Eqs. (2) and (3), is, thanks to the generalised Compton wavelength, ‘angular frequency’ in the Light-relations. If we think in terms of world-lines, then instead of a continuous (classical) world-line, we have a discontinuous (non-classical) world-line. If your theory is ‘based upon mass as the fundamental entity,’ then I wonder what your theory would look like if ‘frequency is fundamental?’

Thanks again,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Robert

Thank you for a wonderful clear, succinct and honest essay. One really wonders how long these other human beings believe they can live with their heads buried so deeply in the sand. (I've estimated perhaps 2020).

I have to assume your maths are logical as I went a different route to find a clear view of a different side of a very similar reality. I believe I may offer you some support from a more 'physical reality' based approach, to link your abstractions back to a mechanism, linking Reality and Locality. I do also hope you might offer some mathematical support for my own hypotheses, which are quite buried under all the solid empirical evidence and logic available, but few numbers.

But you may not speak any more of my language than I now do of maths. I would however welcome and value your views on my essay if you can find time to read it.

I shall certainly save a high score for yours.

Best wishes.

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 00:48 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks for reading my essay, but it is impossible (at this stage) to comment on the ‘solid empirical evidence’ used in your argument for the following reason: If ‘the Light’ as defined in my essay is correct, then we go beyond SR, GR and QM. It is therefore necessary to consider that empirical evidence from a ‘paradigm of physics’ whose details have yet to be fully worked out.

However, my essay agrees with you when you say that we must: “step back and detach ourselves to not confuse personal view and experience (arbitrary formalisms of QM?) with a concrete reality that only maths can describe (the Light?), but perhaps not ask maths (String Theory?) to replace our conceptual thinking.”

Sorry I am not of any help to you,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Robert,

The C-field (or gravito-magnetic field of the weak field limit of general relativity) has dimension frequency, (1/t), and because the C-field is the rotational or circulational aspect of gravity, one would of course consider this to be 'angular frequency',(and I have done so in some of the references listed in my essay.) In my theory the degree of curvature relates to 'mass' as the convenient ('scalar') summary denoting the stress energy of the highly curved field. In this sense, your instincts are 'right on'---

I am convinced that, to go much further, you will have to consider the C-field, as a Yang-Mills type of self interaction that is, I believe, necessary for a theory capable of describing the universe as we know it to be. But I am fascinated by your approach, and, as I relate in my essay, it is compatible with the Calabi conjecture that 'justifies' my Master equation, based on curvature. Unfortunately, although Yau proved the conjecture (via Calabi-Yau manifolds), after almost three decades Yau has still not found the appropriate metric. [Part of this is due to the mistaken belief that 10 or 11 dimensions are required.]

So asking what my theory would look like if frequency supplanted mass as fundamental is a good question. Based on the above I suspect the computations would be next to impossible, but, conceptually, I have not yet found a problem with it, since 'mass' in my theory is essentially a summary term for the torus that results from a self-interacting C-field vortex (boson). Hit with enough energy, the torus resumes the vortex form and new particle 'masses' may result.

Substituting a scalar, 'mass', for a complex 'metric' or 'manifold' is computationally convenient (probably absolutely necessary!) but your insistence that the substitution is convenient, not fundamental, is insightful and fascinating. You have definitely given me food for thought, and I hope (and plan) to return the favor.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Robert / Edwin

It was some help, thanks. But I believe if maths is consistent with reality the combination has an exponential power neither can have alone.

Edwin, I recall the bit that worried me most in your essay was 'mass' being fundamental, I applaud you and Robert for not letting this past as I did. ..I agree, but even further, that it is many superposed motions in a condensate energy potential medium below mass, that we will never see but can describe by it's qualities ('c'). It is the rest frame of the CMB (which defies the SR assumption I have found we can remove).

In a blog this morning I put the matter of SR/GR v simple refraction n in this way;

Mathematical physics has got so complex many have forgotten that the question was only;. What does 2 plus 2 make?

Can I put it like this; We have 2 problems;

1. We have this strange force we can't understand that slows light (so 'time'?!) and also seems to bend it (or bend 'space'?!), but there is no 'space' to bend, just a void. How on earth could it work.?? And the answer needs to be a 'real' quantum process for the holy grail of unifying physics!! No wonder we're a bit lost!

2. We have this known fact that refraction slows down light, (so travel time) and curves it's path in a gas or plasma, (which we know there is of lot of in space) to a degree subject to density (mass), by a known quantum mechanism. Why on earth can't we find it's effects anywhere?? All we can find is this theoretical time dilation and curved space stuff everywhere!

So can anyone see an answer to 2 plus 2?

The other problem is how on earth can an objects gravitational pull increase just because it's going 'faster' through a vacuum!? (Equivalence with inertial mass). Perhaps we could find out if only we could clear away that darned cloud of parasitic photolectrons with all that inertial mass that build up round the object progressively with speed!! (also oscillating progressively faster)

So I now pose the other key equation. What does 1 plus 1 make ....?

Peter

PS. Edwin, I'm just putting a paper in for consideration including and explaining toroid black holes, would you believe also with photographic evidence! I'd be interested in your views.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 01:38 GMT

Dear Peter,

Forgive me and please allow me to elaborate on what I said to you previously.

My approach to physics is to begin with foundations. Undermine the foundations and no harm done. If this cannot be done, then it seems more rational to begin with those foundations and work our way up to a theory. Thus, for me to comment (with any certainty) on a particular theory requires I intimately familiarise myself with that theory, and then work my way backwards to those foundations. However, it unrealistic for me to become intimately familiar with every theory, in order to see if they are consistent with these foundations. And that is the reason I hesitate to comment on any theory!

I admire both you and Dr. Klingman, and at the risk of contradicting what I said above, I will make a general comparison between his approach and mine.

Dr. Klingman assumes a ‘primordial field,’ and then seeks to derive all the laws of physics from the ‘primordial field’ itself. If successful it would be the realisation of Einstein’s ‘vision’ of a Unified Field Theory. And if not then the assumption remains just that.

On the other hand my approach is different in that both ‘the Light’ and the ‘Equivalence Identity’ are synthetic a priori! (Kant is no doubt smiling.) Thus, it is from these synthetic a priori propositions that the ‘propositions correlating with our sense experiences have yet to be derived.’

I hope that has cleared up my position for you, and leave you with these words from Einstein:

"[S]omething general will have to be said... about the points of view from which physical theories may be analyzed critically... The first point of view is obvious: the theory must not contradict empirical facts... The second point of view is not concerned with the relationship to the observations but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the `naturalness' or `logical simplicity' of the premises (the basic concepts and the relations between these)... We prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it does not involve an arbitrary choice among theories that are equivalent and possess analogous structures... I must confess herewith that I cannot at this point, and perhaps not at all, replace these hints by more precise definitions. I believe, however, that a sharper formulation would be possible."

—Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes", originally published in Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, 1949, and reprinted as a separate book in 1979.

Keep well,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 15:28 GMT

Hello,

A real pleasure to read your posts dear Robert and the words of Einstein,in fact he wrote in a very beautiful simplicity about truths.

....I love"....the theory must not contradict empirical facts...."SO ESSENTIAL!!!!

Like what the realism and its pure objectivity can dance with subjectives extrapolations....if and only if these subjectives analyzes are consistent and rational in their pure conclusions.

Best

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 23:23 GMT

Hello Steve,

I am happy you enjoy my writing. Perhaps it’s fortunate that I am an ‘outsider’ and also not particularly smart, that is, I am a slow learner and it would take me a lot of time to master the mathematics needed to intelligently comment on the other essays.

Speaking of mathematics, consider that it is not even certain what mathematics will be needed to correctly express ‘the Light’ in a fully detailed theory. For example, Newton’s definition of momentum can be differentiated to give Newton’s Second Law, and similarly the classical relativistic momentum (using mass) can also be differentiated to give a ‘relativistic Second Law’. However, the same cannot be said of the non-classical (discontinuous) relativistic momentum (with Planck’s constant). Later we find that Newton’s Second Law ‘disappears’. Thus, from the viewpoint of this new ‘paradigm’ the concept of force is meaningless as is the concept of mass. Therefore, if my ‘theory’ is correct, then it mutually excludes every theory that does use the concept of force and/or mass. I am therefore at a loss to comment on any theory that makes use of those (defunct) concepts, or assumes classical calculus must be used to express the universe mathematically!

It is also hard, if not impossible, for me to convey what ‘the Light’ is verbally – unlike say Newton’s ‘laws’ of motion – and so either the reader ‘sees the Light’ or they don’t. I assume that is the reason for Dr. Klingman’s reaction, and kind comments.

The history of physics would have been very different if Einstein had discovered both ‘the Light’ and the ‘Equivalence Identity,’ for everything he needed was in place for him to do so.

Cheers,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (7 not shown)

Hello dear Robert Spoljaric,

Congratulations for this rationalism and pragmatism.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 01:43 GMT

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the compliment.

Cheers,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Peter,

That 2 + 2=? question you asked has something to do with a conservation law that nobody has ever talked about, conservation of cycles and degrees. I think I can get relativity to fall out of Doppler frequency shift. The idea is still percolating, so if it doesn't make sense right now, it's ok. But if it does make sense, then you three braniacs (Robert, Edwin and you) might beat me to the punch. Somehow, the photon energy E=hf should fall right into our laps because space-time is all about phase angles and frequency. Photons are about cycles per second. I can't make out the concept... yet.

Robert,

Your momentum and energy equations p=hfc^2/(c^2-v^2), the ones that you derived from the DeBroglie wavelength, those will plug right into time dilation. I have to go to work so I won't be able to work on it today.

Edwin didn't seem to like my humorous comment that God created the Big Bang by borrowing the energy from the quantum vacuum, E_BB + (-E_BB), and converting the anti energy -E_BB into U_GR, the negative energy of gravity, U_GR. I told him that (W^1)(W)=1 are two operators. I said that God used W^-1 to operate on -E_BB to get U_GR, which is space-time itself. God would have kept W which would be his back door into our universe.

But that may or may not be necessary, I'm not sure. But the energy of the Big Bang should still cancel the energy of gravity.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hello Jason,

I think you mean the ‘generalised Compton wavelength’ rather than ‘de Broglie wavelength.’ Also it is unnecessary to assume time-dilation if you think of the ‘frequency of matter’ as a clock. For now, relative to an observer as v approaches c, E approaches infinity, and frequency approaches 0. I do not like to speculate, and would rather let the physics be derived, but since you are thinking in terms of frequency you may like to consider extending the idea to hypothetical black hole ‘singularities.’ In this case the singularity is a point where E is infinite, and frequency is 0 – ‘matter’ is destroyed, and only ‘un-manifested’ infinite energy remains. Further, since ‘the Light’ shows symmetry between matter and antimatter, presumably the same should hold true for antimatter - a ‘Penrose diagram?’

Regarding questions about the Big Bang, here is one: Assuming the Big Bang occurred, is the energy responsible for the Big Bang, the same energy responsible for the frequency of ‘matter’ now?

I like Edwin (Dr. Klingman), and I am pretty certain he has a sense of humour, and so for the fun of it, I quote (if I remember correctly) the following Biblical reference: In the beginning (before the Big Bang?) God said ‘Let there be Light!’

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 03:17 GMT

Hello Jason,

Just to qualify some of what I said above.

If we consider the frequency of 'matter' as a clock, then time-dilation is superfluos.

The speculation about the singularity may not be sound, for I took it to be the limit of matter approaching c.

In the Big-Bang question, 'now' could be taken to mean 'Block-time' - past, present, and future existing now. In this case, if the answer is 'yes' then sould that not mean that the 'beginning' of the universe is now? That is, the question of 'when' the universe began may be meaningless.

Excuse my haste in these replies,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Robert,

To be honest, I totally forgot about Compton or DeBroglie wavelength. The idea that particles are just wave-functions with photons trapped inside is probably the kind of creativity that Steve was referring to. By using a funny little neumonic trick, I can manipulate difficult concepts more easily.

I looked at the Compton wavelength and noticed the derivaiton that's been clattering around my head for a while.

$E=hf=\frac{hc}{\lambda}=mc^2$

Only, what I did was I rearranged it to get,

$m = \frac{hf}{c^2}$

Then, I borrowed Newtons force equation, which might be illegal because I'm mixing Classical with quantum mechancis.

I made the impassioned argument that photon velocity does not change in a gravity field, but that frequency does change. So I popped off the

$\frac{d}{dt}$

and basically derived what I call the Shift Photon Equation,

$F=\frac{hdf}{cdt}$

It looks like an analogue to the Newtonian force equation, but it's for photon frequency.

The reason that time dilation is actually important is because gravity produces time dilation. So I argued that there will a time dilation experienced by a photon that travels from A to B. Assuming A and B are time dilation, then the frequency change obeys,

$T_B = \frac{T_A f_A}{T_B}$

To make a long story short, these two seemingly unrelated derivations suggested to me that it might be possible to build a gravity beam or a tractor beam.

In your completely honest opinion, does my argument suggest that maybe someone should run the experiment to see if it really is a tractor beam?

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 09:25 GMT

Hello Jason,

Many years ago I saw a story about a ‘tractor beam’ that was inadvertently discovered by a researcher trying to use light to power nano-technology. The story was on a science show called “Quantum” on ABC in Australia.

The details are hazy, but I seem to remember something about the light not only rotating the nano-cog (or whatever it was) but also ‘attracting’ it. Whether or not other researchers have been able to reproduce those results, I don’t know. I wish I could be more specific, but I think the researcher was (at the time) at the University of Queensland in Australia.

I do not like to criticise your creativity and ingenuity, and I am definitely not qualified to answer your question. As such, I can only comment from the perspective of my essay. What I said above should encourage you to pursue your idea, but my essay shows you should (at least) reconsider your use of Newton’s Second Law.

Remember, Einstein dreamed of the day quantum mechanics would give way to a deterministic theory (God does not play dice). In terms of foundations that day has come, as far as I am concerned. Follow your dream, and do not let anyone tell you ‘impossible,’ until they can explicitly tell you why!

“I have a dream!”

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 19:42 GMT

Dear Robert,

I do appreciate your encouragement as well as your honesty.

R: "... you should (at least) reconsider your use of Newton’s Second Law"

R: "...quantum mechanics would give way to a deterministic theory (God does not play dice). In terms of foundations that day has come,..."

If you were God, and you created the universe, wouldn't you leave yourself a cleverly disguised back door so that you could get back in if you wanted to? The Uncertainty Principle and appearance of dice might be a disguised back door. If so, then the physics community will not be able to produce a fully deterministic theory, not without bumping into God first.

As for Newton's equation, what do you call it when somebody comes along and writes down the frequency analogue to F = ma, and argues it both algebraically, and also on the grounds of (1) time dilation and (2) Doppler redshift?

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 23:16 GMT

Hello Jason,

Once again I have been hasty in my reply.

I hope not to alienate you with my comments, so please forgive me for my bluntness.

The foundations in my 'theory' are deterministic, but I have no doubt that probabilites and statistics will be used. For example, Bose derived Planck's Law by thinking of the radiation within the cavity as a photon gas. In terms of my essay , therefore, his was the first 'legitimate' derivation of Planck's Law.

My 'paradigm' of physics is different, and so I am not qualified to comment on your Shift Photon Equation, for you use concepts that do not apply. For example, Newton's Second Law is defunct in a 'massless' universe. Therefore, the 'F' in your Shift Photon Equation is meaningless. Instead, acceleration is accounted for by the 'equivalence identity' (a=g), which relates it to gravity. Finally, 'the Light' applies to matter and radiation, and cannot be mathematically differentiated, which necissitates using a=g to account for relative acceleration.

You should not give up on your idea, you may just need to think in terms of a different paradigm.

Please let me know what you think.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Robert,

You're a good guy and your bluntness helps me to see what's really happening. I just finished responding to someone's argument against my point of view.

If you can find what they wrote,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28724&st=
135&#entry476630

Where they said,

"F ~ (G M h f)/(c²R² − 2 G M R) ≈ (G M / R² )(h f /c²) = g (h f / c²)

which Pound and Rebka described the frequency change mechanism giving this value as the "appearant weight of the photon" in 1960."

My rebuttal is at,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28869&st=0&#
entry477913

Which is all to complicating to find. In a nutshell, Repenner is arguing that a bunch of physicists decided that,

$m=\frac{hf}{c^2}$

means that the mass is different for different observers, and that's too hard. So they wrote,

$m = \sqrt{\frac{E^2}{c^4}-{\frac{p^2}{c^2}}}$

and figured they would all be dead before anyone noticed or had the audacity to question it.

When you're solving for mass, your solving for all the mass. You're not hiding some mass in the momentum term so its nice and constant for all observers.

No wonder Relativity doesn't make sense. :-D

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 13:08 GMT

Hello Jason,

I am happy you wrote back, as I seem to be making a lot of 'enemies' with my posts. Honestly, I would have preferred to keep my opnions to myself, and let the paper speak for itself. Alas, the temptation to get a reaction from the 'experts' is sometimes too great. But I am trying to be stronger!

You are correct, mass is replaced by angular frequency in the relativistic Light. In fact, you can use the generalised Compton wavelength as a 'bridge' to go from the classical to the non-classical expressions. Ultimately, that must be done, for taking the derivation to its logical conclusion (a=g)leaves no mass at all!

Of course, you know I cannot agree with that second expression using mass.

Why waste time arguing with others. You are an imaginative person, who likes technology, and so here is something to distract you. How do particle ACELERATORS work if a=g? Does that not suggest that charged particles are being ACCELERATED due to electomagnetism warping space-time, that is, electro-gravity?

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 19:59 GMT

Hi Robert,

I'm curious, how do you know you're making enemies? You seem very amiable. Although physics right now is a mathematical thicket of mathematical monstrosities. I've taken a weed whacker to the Invariant Mass over at PhysForum.com. Trust me, the weeds don't like me very much over there.

I discovered another problem with what their teaching physicists these days. When a skydiver falls, she loses potential energy and falls faster (gains kinetic energy). When a photon falls (into a black hole) it blue shifts. But there is no spectral potential energy term that relates photon energy to gravity. Yet gravity DOES act on light; that's why black holes are black.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT

Hello Jaosn,

How do I know I'm making enemies? Either my essay is not being read, or it is misunderstood and I'm written off as a crackpot, or it is being read happens to be understood and cannot be faulted. For example, imagine the seeming audacity of a nobody claiming to refulte Quantum Mechanics with a logical counterexample, and further claiming General Relativity is premature? It MUST be a joke, right?

What is lacking in my essay are details. But I consider that positive, for if the derived foundations (the Light and Equivalence Identity) leave no room for doubt, then physicists have a firm foundation upon which to build. My job is done.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Hi Robert,

I just debated two opponents, one into a retreat and the other into capitulation. I've streamlined my argument down to this.

1. What does frequency shift require? A time dilation between two reference frames A and B.

2. How does one get two inertial reference frames to have a time dilation between them. By assuring a gravitational potential energy difference between A and B.

Shift photons are expected to carry a gravitational potential energy

$U = -h\Delta f$

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 09:36 GMT

Hello Jason,

Brilliant! Always go to the heart of the matter! Suitably interpreted your expression has merit. No need to waffle if its black and white.

I would strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with the issues concerning 'tidal gravity' and Einstein's equivalence principle. The solution I present (if correct) in my essay is radical, but you may find it helpful in your own research. However, don't expect to have too many people to debate regarding my solution.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 08:50 GMT

Hi Robert,

I know that the Equivalence Principle makes the g-force caused by gravity equivalent to g-force caused by vehicular acceleration (which is different from coordinate acceleration). Also, inertial mass and gravitational mass are considered identical. Was there another interpretation that you thought of?

By tidal gravity, I think you mean the gradual change in the gravity field versus change in the radial distance (normally associated with black holes). I know that their looking for moving gravity waves. I don't know if they've detected any.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 22:03 GMT

Hello Jason,

I know you are busy ‘waging battles on all fronts’ so just to clarify: Inertial mass and gravitational mass must be identical to satisfy the Equivalence Principle, and so they are ASSUMED to be identical in General Relativity.

Before I continue, I should perhaps mention that where SR and GR have been compared and empirically tested, GR has always shown to be correct. The big question in GR with respect to ‘foundations’ is described below.

The Equivalence Principle basically asserts that small, freely falling frames in the presence of gravity are equivalent to inertial frames in the absence of gravity. So as you fall freely, towards say a black hole, you are weightless, and it seems as if there is no gravity in your vicinity. But the Equivalence Principle ignores tidal gravity, which also stretches you from head to foot and squeezes you from the sides (spaghetification). However, if you were the size of an ant you would experience less tidal gravity, than if you were the size of a whale. The question is, then, just how small must a freely falling frame of reference have to be, to justify ignoring tidal gravity completely? Or is the existence of inertial (gravity-free) frames never justified?

I hope that answers your question.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (7 not shown)

Hello Jason,

To clarify what my essay says. The difference between ‘global’ and ‘local’ is due to the Equivalence Principle. What no one has clarified is where do we draw the line between ‘local’ and ‘non-local’? The point is mute, for the Equivalence Principle is unrealistic, as it doesn’t take tidal gravity into account.

The definition of ‘the Light’ in my essay has c, and implies hyper-dimensional space-time. For simplicity disregard the hyper-dimensional. The derivation of the Equivalence Identity implies that space-time is ‘curved,’ and inertial frames are fictitious. Therefore, we can MEASURE the speed of radiation as c only when the Equivalence Identity is negligible, rather than non-existent! Hence the distinction between 'local' and 'global' is an idealisation not respected by nature.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 21:56 GMT

Hello Jaosn,

Just to try and clarify. What I am trying to stress is that there is a continuum, tidal gravity is negligible is you are small enough, or far away from a large body, and you can measure the speed of radiation as c if the g-forces 'locally' are negligible. We cannot avoid gravity, only ignore it as negligible.

Cheers,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi all,Jason, Robert,

Dear Robert,

I have two important points to say you.

1 the mass is not an illusion but a reality, denombrable and rational, with a finite serie and specific motions, here spinning spheres.The mass is real Robert.

2 Lao Tzu is very relevant but don't forget those simple words" a teacher speaks and he knows, that's why the education is so important"Thus of course we can knowing and in the same time sharing these knowledges, thus he who knows ,speaks and shares...in an evolutive point of vue"

In all case , very interesting your spirituality.Think about the rotating spheres , proportional with mass......you shall see the real meaning of mass.The cause is intrinsic(codes of mass of evolution)that's why the mass polarises light in a specific time space evolution and codes of becomming.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 21:35 GMT

Hello Steve,

Good to hear from you old friend. I have not read your theory, nevertheless returning to the question of mass.

In my essay look at the relataions where the classical and non-classical are seen together, with the generalised Commpton wavelength in between. If you use the rest mass and velocity from the classical expressions in the generalised Compton wavelength, and then use the generalised Compton wavelength and the same velocity in the non-classical expressions, you will find that quantitavely nothing changes. However, instead of rest mass you now have angular frequency! The greater the rest mass in the classical expressions, the greater the angular frequency in the non-classical expressions. This does not show that mass is an illusion, for that you need to follow the derivation through to its conclusion (Equivalence Identity), where you will see that mass as a newtonian concept was meaningless, given 'the Light.'

If that is not clear please let me know, and I will try harder to be clearer,

All the best to you Steve,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 10:08 GMT

Hello dear Robert,

Thanks for this cleare answer.

For my theory,I discuss, I improve, I optimize, I complete simply.....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Yes Steve, it is good that someone is, "...improving, optimizing, teaching, and being spiritual."

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT

Hello Jason,

The bible tells us: Know thy self.

This is a matter of personal experience, and if mystics are correct it is knowledge that cannot be spoken of. I guess it would be like going to a planet of intelligent being without sight, and trying to desribe the beauty of a rainbow to them.

Regarding physics, I think what is lacking are firm foundations. All the questions with which physicists, both professional and amateur, are trying to answer today show the need for a TOE. Hopefully rather than speculating and personal oponions we would then have understanding. My essay does not lend itself to speculation (I think), and it shows the logical way to proceed. For example, I said that 'the Light' implies hyperdimensional space-time, which may first require deriving the transformation laws for 'the Light' rather than using Lorentz transformation. Further, unlike SR where Minkowski's space-time continuum is a convenient 'simplification' of SR, with respect to 'the Light' that 'simplificatioon' may in fact be necessary in order to correctly describe spin. Thus there is a certain inevitability associated with 'the Light,' and how we should proceed.

I may be condemned for not pursuing the details, but then I have tried to make the foundations as clear as I can for others to do so.

The title of the paper is a provocative question, for I invite the readers to answer the question for themselves. If the derived foundations, and what they imply can be refuted then so be it. If not then it would be nonsensical to not begin the journey to a TOE with these foundations. What mathematics will be required to do so can be answered along the way. What technology will result from a TOE, your guess is a good as mine, but we can be certain that it will be unlike the Netwonian Mechanics based tehcnology used today. With your interest in UFO's, you may like to consider how they seem to exhibit behaviour defying Newton's idea of 'inertia,' and that is the reason most scientists dismiss them out of hand.

I hope you can understand my point of view, and if not then I opologise for not being more helpful to you,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT

Hi Robert,

Actually, explaining UFO's is exactly what I'm trying to do. Conservation of Energy has become an obstruction. The problem with Conservation of Energy is this: Where did the energy from the Big Bang come from? How was it created? If energy cannot be created, then where did the energy come from? There are only two choices:

A. Either energy + (negative) energy of gravity add to zero; or,

B. The Christian God of the Holy Bible said, "Let there be light". That sentence alone comes very close to proving the authenticity of the Bible. It also implies that God created the energy of the Big Bang.

This line of questioning will be avoided for a few days. Just watch.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 02:16 GMT

Hello Jason,

There are many questions we are not even asking, let alone answering. Some may well be impossible to answer. There are those who beleive that a final theory must be able to account for the values of the universal constants. Such is not the case with 'the Light' where the values need to be determined empirically (at least at this stage). That begs the question: Does 'the Light' hold true for other values of c and h-bar? If so, does that mean other 'similar' universes exist? Could the muon and tau be evidence of that?

Perhaps I am wrong, but we can neither 'prove' the Big Bang nor God. Both are a matter of faith, which we try to strenghen through our ability to reason - cosmology and theology.

The theologians may well take 'the Light' defined in my paper as a scientific reason to believe in God.

So you see, there is much that we can speculate about, but whether or not that speculation is even worthwhile is the question. It may be as relevant as arguing the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, or counting the angels on the head of a pin.

Remember in fiction imagination rules, but as Feymann said, in science it is "imagination in a straightjacket." I know you are 'restraining yourself' with present day physics, and that is where your problem may well be. Do not give up on your ideas just because present day physics says, no way! You may just be a little ahead of your time with your ideas. All I can say is be patient.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (29 not shown)

Robert: Thank you for a most interesting essay. I've always been intrigued by the unique nature of light and photons. While originally reading James Hartle's GR textbook "Gravity," I came across a passage that fascinated me: "The paths of light rays are straight lines in spacetime corresponding to the speed of light, that is, along null world lines ... The distance between two points along a light ray is zero!" It is frequently said that c can be considered not as a speed per se but as an equivalence, like the inches and centimeters on opposite sides of a ruler: one second of time is equivalent to 299,792 kilometers of length. John Wheeler wrote, "The numerical value of the ratio between the second and the centimeter totally lacks teaching power. It is a historical accident. Its occurrence in equation obscured for decades one of natures great simplicities."

As a subscriber of Wheeler's information-theoretic universe, I see the photon as merely the minimum unit of information ("it from bit") connecting two events. We are thrown way off course if we imagine photons as little bullets traveling through space, carrying information about the early universe for billions of years of travel. This is an entirely inaccurate conception of an object that doesn't experience proper time and does not have a reference frame.

Working from that idea, in my essay I propose a decoherence-based thought experiment to explain how we could observe classical features of the early universe "here" and "now," even if such classicality did not exist in that form "then" and "there." I think this position is somewhat audacious, but as far as I can tell it is not inconsistent with relativity or decoherence.

At any rate, I hope you get a chance to check out my essay sometime. Best of luck.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 09:32 GMT

Hello Karl,

I have read your essay, and also seen “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.” Of course you probably live in the wrong decade to write anything like that. Bring back the 60’s!

It would be preferable that my (audacious?) paper speak for itself. In your case it would ask: What is decoherence in the absence of Quantum Mechanics?

Keep on rocking,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 10:34 GMT

Hello Karl,

I was trying to bring some humour into this discussion. Please do not misconstrue that for cynicism. You raise some valid points. My essay does not deny phenomena, only the theories purported to explain them.

Keep on rocking and thinking!

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Reader,

A brief summary of my essay.

At the end of the 19th century we find four theories constituting Classical Physics: Newtonian Mechanics, Maxwell’s Equations, Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics. Whilst the 20th century left us with Einstein’s Relativity theories (Special and General) and Quantum Mechanics.

The derivation of ‘the Light’ given in my essay demonstrates the following:

1) What remains of Maxwell’s (wave) Equations is the constant c.

2) Special Relativity did not go far enough.

3) The advent of General Relativity was premature.

4) Quantum Mechanics could have been avoided.

Einstein’s Relativity theories undermine the foundations of Newtonian Mechanics. When ‘the Light’ is used to derive the ‘Equivalence Identity’ all that remains of Newtonian Mechanics is the constant G. The two foundations imply a theory of ‘General’ Relativity without the loose ends. Further, the absence of mass implies the Higgs field is superfluous, and thus ‘the Light’ has implications for the standard model of physics.

For those who appeal to the empirical evidence, I should stress that I do not deny phenomena only the theories purported to explain them.

Thus there is only Relativity, and the two remaining Classical theories of Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics. If we assume the Bekenstein-Hawking formula is consistent with Relativity, then we can subsume those two remaining Classical theories to leave Relativity alone.

A theory collapses if its foundations are undermined. What is lacking in my ‘theory’ are details, and thus it is easier to undermine ‘the Light’ and ‘Equivalence Identity’, and if that is not possible then to build upon these foundations.

Therefore I appeal to you to answer the question: Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics?

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 19:51 GMT

Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics?

Hihihih no of course dear Robert, here is the Real Holy Grail,The Theory of Spherization,a GUT TOE of Rotating Spheres.

It was time no? lol

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 22:28 GMT

Hello Steve,

What am I going to do with you old friend?

I do not want to discourage you from thinking, but Strings do not satisfy Ockham's razor. Do Rotating Spheres?

As you are a thinker you may like to read a comment I left on Dr. Hector Zenil's thread.

Cheers,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 11:43 GMT

Me I know what I am going to say let's go ahahahah yes of course they doesn't exist ahaha and light is sqare it's that .And after what beautiful words full of spirituality, it is not sufficient, sorry but your model is interesting pilosophycally speaking, that's all, I don't see physics, or maths.

But it's well you are a good guy , don't stop and don't be discouraged.Just you need to study a little all sciences and not only spiritual books.It is only simply that this.You can read the bibble, the talmud, the coran...at the age of 15 for me ....but after I needed more ...and that's why I class all since 20 years my friend, my brother as you say.Me also I like all , I pray all days and what I am better than you, no , are you better than me no .....thus of course that is not the question.

To you don't be offensed , we speak only and still with my bad enghlish, pay attention the others shall be translated and in poems.and very very spiritual.You know the universal love and the respect of all things.

Let's go my old friend as you say

Steve

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (11 not shown)

Robert

I'm no mathematician but I entirely understand and agree with your most important equation;

a = g

My own arrival at the same place was by another, more empirical, route, providing the mass from acceleration (a) that creates the gravity (g). (All 'inertial' of course).

I was astonished to find you languishing low down in the community rankings and have entered the top score you deserve, and not just as your theory seems to be the philosophical and mathematical equivalent of mine. (p.s. I'm also needing a boost if you think it's worth it!)

I believe a = g will be proven in every way, if those who are supposed to be learned can re-learn how to think!

I'll reply to your question in my string. I think I now better understand the question, but the answer will be straight 'off the cuff' - with jetlag!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 00:07 GMT

Hello Peter,

I am happy you took the time to try and grasp the ideas, despite the maths. The most important idea is 'the Light,' which allows us to derive a priori a = g. Further, the derivation leaves nothing of Newton's 'laws' of motion, and as such includes inertial frames, and Newton's law of gravity. The absence of inertial frames solves the 'tidal gravity' problem, and means the velocity of light varies with the intesity of a gravitational field, according to GR.

In your paper I saw you were trying to emprically grasp 'inertial mass = gravitational mass,' but the theory showing why that is the case eludes physicists to this day!

If any of that helps you, then by all means use it.

Thank you for the score, and as you 'boldly theoretically went where you never went before' I will return the favor.

Best wishes,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Robert

Thanks, I've since caught the elusive little blighter of a theory! Do you fancy collaborating with some maths? There's an interesting new paper in todays Nature (misinterpreting but) confirming plasma dark matter of around 300 billion solar masses surrounding 'active starburst galaxies.' There the inertial mass really physically is, recognisably and identifiably, the gravitational mass, simply doing the thing we know it does.

I've just posted it on.. er.. either Eckards or my threads, Eckards I think, in a short string about 2/3rds down. Plus some Ref's in a new one at the bottom.

Or you should find most of it in the '2hr paper' here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 where it's now an official extension of the Discrete Field Model (DFM).

If you can help Eckard grasp the basic concept please have a go.

Do you like Roast Duck a L'Orange?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT

Hello Peter,

The observed perihelion of Mercury was a problem for Newtonian Mechanics. No doubt there were efforts to remedy that. However, Einstein's GR 'naturally' accounted for the perihelion of Mercury. But even Einstein knew GR was not the 'final theory.' Now we have empirical evidence to that effect, and much effort to remedy this. Is it therefore inconcievable that a 'final theory' will 'naturally' account for the large scale observations made today?

Einstein said:

"[S]omething general will have to be said... about the points of view from which physical theories may be analyzed critically... The first point of view is obvious: the theory must not contradict empirical facts... The second point of view is not concerned with the relationship to the observations but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the `naturalness' or `logical simplicity' of the premises (the basic concepts and the relations between these)... We prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it does not involve an arbitrary choice among theories that are equivalent and possess analogous structures... I must confess herewith that I cannot at this point, and perhaps not at all, replace these hints by more precise definitions. I believe, however, that a sharper formulation would be possible."

—Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes", originally published in Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, 1949, and reprinted as a separate book in 1979.

My essay is concerned with that 'second point of view.' As I have said before I do not argue with phenomena, only with the theories purporting to explain them. Therefore, the question of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' would be of interest to me if, and only if, we already had a 'final theory' and found it wanting.

Best Wishes,

Robert

P.S - I am not fond of Duck, but if you're buying I might reconsider.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Robert,

Being somewhat mathematically challenged, I wonder if the Bekenstein-Hawking formula assumes that the gobbled mass's information is lost in the black hole. I know other theories say that it isn't, one dealing with holograms.

Does either make a difference in your theory?

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 01:52 GMT

Hello James,

Thank you for your question. The fact that there are only opinions shows the need for a ‘final theory,’ which would be able (I presume) to give us a definitive answer.

In my paper I present the ‘foundations’ for a theory. Regarding your question I have no opinion either way. Whether or not the potential theory to emerge from these ‘foundations’ will be sufficient enough to answer your question, I cannot say.

If you are mathematically challenged, however, then you are missing something very important. The first 'foundation' in my essay is ‘the *hyperdimensional* Light,’ which implies a 'mirror' Universe of antimatter. Additionally, if there happens to be 'entanglement' between matter and antimatter, then our Universe is an open system. Further, ‘the Light’ shows that the mass of a particle is in fact the frequency of a particle – there is just energy. Therefore, the matter in our Universe is ultimately the frequency of energy blinking on/off (like a strobe light), and we only perceive it when it’s ‘on.’ This is just what the first ‘foundation’ is telling us!

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 11:22 GMT

Hello James,

My apologies if my response was blunt. And I am grateful you took the time to read my essay, despite the maths. Your question is pertinent because it shows that present day physics is full of opinions. What is lacking are definite answers!

Newton said "I frame no hypothesis,' and if the 'foundations' for a 'final theory' are the ones I present in my paper, then there is no reason to do so. That is, let us wait and see if there is a definitive answer to your question - keeping in mind the nature of the question may change.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Robert

Thanks for your note. Your heading tells me I did so on 23rd! Is there any way of finding the actual ratings and totals that you know of? - Can we really find 'definite' answers? and will they ever be believed when we do and they are not precise fit to old foundations?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 22:29 GMT

Hello Peter,

Our good friend Steve Duforny gave me score of 8 on the 24th of Jan, and 'reprimanded' me for giving Edwin a score. He is our resident score policeman! Anyway even if you did give me a score, I am too low in the ratings for it to matter.

The irony of 'the Light' is that it is the only 'quantum' theory that necessarily follows on fromm classical physics (Relativistic Mechanics). Relatistic energy and momentum are the basis of Relativistic Dynamics, and the 'quantum' versions differ from the classical version qualitatively. That is, 'the Light' does fit the old foundations! Elementary particle phyiscs is not contradicted, only reinterpreted.

Brian Greene says in a Scientific American article: "(M)odern physics generally, seems to be approaching a single logical structure that HAD to be th way it is; the theory is the way it is because there is no other way it could be." This applies to both 'the Light' and 'Equivalence Identity.' If we trust logic, then the same must hold true for the derivations that follow from these 'foundations'! The assumption here is that the universe is rational, and only empirical evidence can falsify that assumption!

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Hi Robert

You deserve a much better position, and I'll give you some more plugs if I get the chance.

I'm pretty sure our theories are closely equivalent. Mine is very emipirically and logically based, but it seems people are trying to take it in by scanning over it, and that is impossible as it requires the brain to be fully utilised. It's a bit like Harrison Ford's puzzles in 'Riders in the last Park', which you have to get right in sequence to find the Holy Grail.

I'd greatly appreciate any views on how I might better clarify and put over the fundamental concept so the unbelievably simple solution can be more easily seen.

And Steve - a word please - in my office. ..where are you hiding!? I hope Ray was wrong about the happy baccy!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 02:17 GMT

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your support.

You do face a dilemma. The predictions of physics are quantitative, and that is difficult - if not impossible - without maths. Unfortunately, there are things which only maths can describe, ‘the Light’ for example, and no doubt that will continue. But since maths is not a strong point, you may consider using diagrams to illustrate what you are trying to say - Faraday rather than Maxwell.

It would, however, be wise of you to think more deeply about the implications of a = g. Remember, in your approach you try and show the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass via large scale observations of the universe. On the other hand, in my approach the equivalence follows from logic, and is an integral part of my theory. This has a high ‘conceptual’ price though, and it is this that I was trying to point out to you with respect to your own theory. Indeed, the same holds true for EVERY existing theory of physics!

I hope you find some of that helpful.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

[url=http://rewall.if.ua]cosmopolitan shopping

[/url]

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Robert,

I've only just discovered your essay but I'm glad that I have even though the deadline for comments and discussion is almost upon us. This line took my attention "In short, we will discover that behind the 'appearance' of mass lay the necessary foundations for a single geometrical theory of Relativity". The rest becomes too mathematical for me, which is why I probably missed it's significance in the first place.

I have a similar quote: "Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum imo". It's probably too late, but my ideas would be beneficial to you I'm sure and my essay is an easy read.

Belated best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT

Dear Alan,

Sorry for the maths. What my paper basically says is that the Universe is fundamentally composed of Light, and in order to reach that conclusion 'mass' had to be used for a final time. The Light is a trinity of matter, radiation, and antimatter. Further matter is by definition discontinuous, which is the opposite of 'classical' matter using mass. To that extent you are correct, and those who use the classical expression of matter (with mass) automatically presupose space-time is continuous - it may be the case but we cannot *presuppose* that it is. In addition to discontinuity, 'the Light' is hyperdimensional, and so space-time has to be generalised to take that into account.

I will read your essay when I get a chance, but will leave it to the experts to comment. (My comments usually are not understood for they are made from the perspective of my paper.)

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 12:02 GMT

Thanks for the reply Robert..

Alan

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Mister Spoljaric- On February 12, 2011 you wrote in part: "(4) Quantum Mechanics could have been avoided." Although I realize full well this seems a wise and prudent statement to people with your interests and background. I should like to point out that my 'style' my explanation, of quantum mechanics leads to a perfectly rational model of the process of living cell duplication rates. Especially the fact that tumor cells duplicate at a faster rate than healthy cells. Good Luck In The Contest, Joel Mayer, MD, author: 'Is Reality Digital or Analog?'

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 23:51 GMT

Dear Dr. Mayer,

Thanks for reading my paper. Your application of QM to biology sounds interesting. The reason I wrote the above about QM is simply that the definition of 'the Light' is objective, deterministic, and relativistic as opposed to QM. In fact 'the Light' could have been discovered before QM!

If the difference between normal cells and tumor cells could be understood in terms of frequency, then that suggests a connection with 'the Light'. Certainly the faster rate of tumor cell duplication sounds like they operate at a higher frequency.

My congratulations for taking such an innovative step, and I will read your cutting edge paper with interest.

All the best in the contest,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Robert

I have a project you may be interested in, please Email me (address on my paper).

But I have one major concern re consistency. You say "..therefore inertial frames are ficticious". I'd like you to think about the different understanding we briefly discussed. It too uses the differential between real and apparent to derive both SR and GR, but from one 'Mechnisism' and a Quantum Mechanism at that!

The fact that 'c' varies with gravity is inherent, (and it has analagies in QED and Quantum Computing via the Qbit.)

The mechanism precisely DEFINES 'Inertila Frames' But I believe adds to not detracts from your present understanding; Here it is.

When the'continuum' is compressed (say by 'matter in motion') an ion condenses. Many (ions form plasma). This is a pure wave based energetic oscillator. It scatters light in the same way as all 'particles' so has the same polarisation mode dispersal (PMD) delay. The delay gives the refraction co-efficient 'n' and slows light down (or speeds it up) to the local 'c' of the ion. This = SR. The fine structure of all lenses is ionised particles, changing approach 'c' to local observer 'c'.

The ions therefore propagate subject to relative speed, and they are also what we term 'matter'. They therefore also contribute to the gravitational effect of

the original 'matter in motion'. Therefore the inertial mass is increased equally with the gravitational mass (= Equivalence).

However. This 'defines' not removes inertial frames, as the plasma represents the boundary between Einstein's 'regions of space in relative motion'.

Ergo the Halo (Dark Matter), Bow shocks (Plasmasphere) and Pe clouds in accelerators, define the Galaxy as an inertial frame, the Earth as an inertial frame, and every train, bus, or other shaped bunch of protons in motion.

This agrees and empirically explains your foundations, but DOES use REAL inertial frames. I suspect your 'ficticious' is semantic and, like the ether, they can be simply redefined instead of banned.

Please also look at this earlier paper and comment; http://wbabin.net/weuro/jackson.pdf

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 08:29 GMT

Dear Peter,

I hope you are well. Before I address the problem with inertial frames, let me state: Frames of reference in which Newton’s first law (law of inertia) holds are inertial frames. You may mean something else by inertial frames, which would explain my 'confusion'!

The purpose of my ‘thought experiments’ was to bring a certain problem within GR to your attention, as your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT

Dear Basudeba,

Thankyou for the comprehensive information. Clearly you kept your eye on the ball. As you have probably read my essay, you will no doubt see that it deals with nothing but foundations, and doesn't leave room for speculation (I think).

Einstein read the papers that were sent to him in the hope that some 'outsider' might give him the clues he needed to complete his revolution (or the evolution) of physics. It was my hope that there would at least be a few curious members of FQXi willing to do the same, despite 'the finalists'. Certainly if the papers are dealing with foundations (irrespective of the question being asked) it would be in FQXi's interest to take a closer look! I live in hope that reason will prevail.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Robert Spoljaric,

Please accept my apology for not taking part in the discussion of your essay mainly because of my lacking competence. From quite different considerations I arrived at doubts in Poincaré's SR. Tom Van Flandern offered a more logical to me while possibly not yet fully convincing alternative. May I ask you to check the arguments as unbiasdly as possible?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 04:58 GMT

Dear Eckard,

Having read your interesting essay, I see no lack of competence there!

I have searched through your paper for more information as I am not familiar enough with the issues to answer your question. That ‘ignorance’ is essentially due to the fact that in my paper I have shown that ‘the Light’ takes the place of SR. Therefore, whatever doubts anyone has/had regarding SR...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 07:18 GMT

Dear Eckard,

Just to qualify 'the Light' takes the place of SR in the subatomic realm where gravity is negligible. Further the transformation laws for 'the Light' have yet to be derived. But on the large scale where gravity cannot be ignored SR does not apply - see the March 18 post to Peter for the reason. Hence the 'paradoxes' of SR are unrealistic!

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your attempt to find acceptable arguments in my essay. I meant the arguments by Van Flandern when I wrote:

"Tom Van Flandern offered a more logical to me while possibly not yet fully convincing alternative. May I ask you to check the arguments as unbiasdly as possible?"

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 22:58 GMT

Dear Eckard,

Sorry for misunderstanding.

Firstly, there is a lot in maths that even the mathematicians can't agree upon eg Cantors theory of infinite sets. How can it be that Maths is a matter of opinion?

Secondly, where SR and GR have been compared and tested, it is GR that always wins. This should not be surprising, as I try and explain in my paper. In hindsight SR was only necessary to derive Relatistic Mechanics (RM), and RM was necessary to generalise the energy of a photon ('the Light'). But once we have 'the Light' there is no RM, and therefore SR has served its purpose, for 'the Light' stands as a 'thing-in-itself'. I hope that explains why questions about SR are now of historical interest as far as I am concerned.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT

Dear Robert,

What about G. Cantor's transuncountable alephs, read my Appendix B.

I understand your refusal to deal with Van Flandern's arguments as follows: You do not need arguments against SR.

Why do you take relativistic mass and relativistic momentum for granted and quantitatively confirmed?

Van Flandern wrote: "The GPS uses the universal time synchronization convention for pragmatic reasons" and "All atomic clocks aboard satelites ... remain synchronized, despite being in many different inertial frames."

Was he wrong? I am not competent in this matter.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 05:04 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I merely mentioned Cantor’s theory to show that maths has results that are a matter of opinion. Hilbert saw Cantors theory as a paradise, and Poincare saw the same theory as a disease.

To be fair to Dr/Mr Van Flandern it is only appropriate to discuss his theory on his thread. But I am not concerned with his theory, and here is the reason why.

From the viewpoint of ‘the Light’, SR has served its purpose meaning the conversation shifts from SR to ‘the Light’. Can ‘the Light’ be empirically argued against? See below.

The derivation of ‘the Light’ uses the expression for relativistic mass, but ultimately leaves only relativistic energy and momentum. These expressions - as the *basis* of Relativistic Dynamics - are being confirmed daily in elementary particle physics. Hence any empirical argument against ‘the Light’ is an argument against elementary particle physics!

As I show in my paper ‘the Light’ implies a = g (Equivalence Identity), and to understand the subtle significance of that you must read the March 18 post to Peter. Effectively, if elementary particle physics is true then logic dictates that an observer in a freely falling elevator *must* detect tidal bulges in a liquid drop!

In the process of deriving these foundations we have had to discard the following classical ideas: force, mass, inertial frames, and Maxwell’s (wave) Equations. Hence we also mutually exclude any theory that employs any one of those ideas. (What theory today does not use or depend upon at least one of those ideas?) In that sense both ‘the Light’ and a = g are the foundations for a new paradigm of physics.

Unless other authors read and understand my paper it is most likely (speaking from experience) that my comments to them with respect to their own work will be misunderstood.

Is my theory correct? I have engaged Dr. Durham and Dr. Corda on that very question.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

Dear Robert,

I consider all mysteries self-made. I know the book on understanding the infinite by Lavine. However, be ready to judge yourself: Is there any reason except for indoctrination to understand "infinite" not simply like "never ending?"

On the first page of his 1923 book on set theory, Adolf Fraenkel praised Cantor for having "proved" an utterance by Gauss wrong. In his letter to Schumacher, Gauss protested against using an infinite quantity like a complete one. While I enjoyed using infinity for almost fifty years, I never needed Cantor's alephs. Having spent a lot of effort to eventually fully understand the naive thoughts by Cantor, I feel that Ebbinghaus had no alternative as to admit Cantor's error, while it seems even to him almost impossible to swim against the mainstream of those who like the paradise for diverse reasons. I will read again the essay by Benavides and comment there.

I also consider it reasonable to not include as confirming arguments mere thoughts that are based on elder hypotheses in a search for possible flaws related to these hypotheses. I hope we can agree on that and restrict to the very basics. Block time is at best a hypothesis.

I see several possible reasons why Einstein has won against Ritz after 1909 (Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 323-324): Ritz was seriously ill and died soon. After he was unemployed and then in a poor job, Einstein found strong support by Max Planck, Paul Minkowski and others. Einstein managed to get attention and admiration by incorporating ideas of Riemann and of Boltzmann.

Admittedly, I never dealt with statistical mechanics, and I have no idea why Boltzmann was attacked at the end of his life. You as an Austrian physicist might have a better knowledge on that. My only question relates to the distribution of past and future influences and the fact that closed systems are unrealistic. Look into the book "An interactive introduction to signal processing" by Ulrich Karrenberg. While I do not share the author's interpretations, his simulations illustrate the problem very clearly. You might also look into ISBN 1-4244-0455-x, p. 173-176. R. Fritzius who provided an amended version will also guide you to the Einstein-Ritz agreement to disagree.

Do not take me wrong. While I do not make any comment on the emission theory by Ritz, I am sure that Einstein was not just unable to provide arguments that are convincing to me, but he was most likely wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I agree that the mysteries have to do with our conceptualising reality. I also agree that Cantor’s alephs are ‘pure’ mathematics. However, physicists have found the Reimann sphere useful, where the ‘infinite’ is a ‘point at infinity’, and not simply like “never ending.”

Also I have briefly read the internet article by Robert S. Fritzius you mentioned. I believe ‘the Light’ has some relevance here. Consider that both matter and antimatter are ‘moving’ forward in time in their own respective universes, but as viewed from our universe antimatter is ‘moving’ backward in time (and vice versa). Hence, as we cannot view that other universe we have time asymmetry.

Incidentally I was only born in Austria, and like you I am not a physicist.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 22:42 GMT

Dear Robert,

Because your vita just mentioned the place of your birth, and you are speaking the language of physicists quite well, I made a wrong guess. Recently I wrongly attributed a post to Peter Jackson because for my impression the English was too good for Yuri. So I am obviously sometimes wrong. I am however sure that those like me are not wrong who consider G. Cantor's aleph_2 not pure mathematics but insane phantasm that has no logically consistent basis at all and did not find any reasonable application within more than a century of unnecessary confusion. My Appendix B tries to explain the basic naivety. Don't get me wrong: The mutually excluding properties of being infinitely countable and of being uncountably continuous can be denoted by any two different names including aleph_0 and aleph_1.

So far I was hoping in vain someone would take issue against my certainly unwelcome arguments. To me any correction of my essay would be welcome. I feel in dept to Robert Fritzius who corrected my last IEEE paper.

The Riemann sphere is indeed worth a discussion. To me it indicates narrow minded formal thinking when the point on top is considered separately. If we assume truly real in the sense of not irrational numbers that include real in the sense of not imaginary as well as imaginary numbers, then it is not justified to numerically address any point of the sphere. Infinity and nil, poles and zeros are in this sense no exceptions. The sphere illustrates what I called the inner view at infinity belonging to the unreachable border of the complex plane and also the outer view where the limits minus infinity and plus infinity for real and imaginary part met.

I see anti-matter and anti-worlds theoretical concepts rather than demonstrable reality. If we abandon the questionable concept of an a priori given block time along which the very moment is moving in favor of the very moment as the reference point, then all anti stuff vanishes. Engineers like me enjoy the possibility to see a standing wave as two superimposed waves that are traveling into opposite direction and vice versa.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT

Dear Eckard

I left my post for you about non-Archimedian geometry, which drew the attention of Professor Winterberg(see Benavides essay)

There is my contrarguments.

Yours sincerely

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Dear Robert,

Thank you for the hint. While Leslie Lampert is a founder of LaTeX and he even deals with the relationship between continuity and quantum mechanics, he did perhaps not devote much attention to the loss of valuable Euclidean basics in mathematics.

I have to read his 14 pages of "Buridan's Principle".

Kind regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 04:42 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I hope you find it helpful.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 18:57 GMT

Dear Robert,

While Lamport's paper was written in 1984 and took the present mathematics for granted without even dealing with the definition of continuity, without any distinction between real and rational numbers, without distinction between boundedness and compactness, etc., I consider my approach quite different and a genuine solution to the old problem.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT

Dear Eckard,

It only remains for you to publish your solution in a maths journal.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

[url=http://onlinecasino78.weebly.com/]

online casino slot

[/url][url=http://free-car-insurance-quote-save60.weebly.com
/] car insurance massachusetts[/url]

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

[URL=http://tramadol.jkr30.com/feed_folder/link/tramadol/1_g
eneral1.html][IMG]http://tramadol.jkr30.com/feed_folder/img1
/tramadol/1_general1.png[/IMG][/URL]

[URL=http://tramadol.jkr
30.com/feed_folder/link/tramadol/2_general1.html][IMG]http:/
/tramadol.jkr30.com/feed_folder/img1/tramadol/2_general1.png
[/IMG][/URL]

Tramadol hydrochloride (Ultram , Tramal) is a centrally acting opioid analgesic used in the treatment of moderate to severe pain. Including the drug has a wide range of applications ? Lich treatment of restless legs syndrome and fibromyalgia. It was developed by the pharmaceutical company Grunenthal GmbH in the late 1970s. [1 ] [2 ]rnTramadol has weak agonist actions ? -Opioid receptor , serotonin lost and inhibits norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. [3 ] [4 ]rnTramadol is a synthetic analogue of the phenanthrene alkaloid codeine and as such is an opioid and a prodrug ( metabolized to morphine, codeine , tramadol is O desmethyltramadol converted ) . Opioids are chemical compounds that act on one or more of the human opioid receptors. The euphoria and respiratory depression are mainly due to the 1 and 2 receptors causes ; ? The addictive nature of the drug is because of these effects and the serotonergic / noradrenergic effects [ Edit]. The opioid agonist effects of tramadol and its major metabolite ( s ) are almost exclusively ? Year by the substance of the Ma ? Took on ? -Opioid receptor mediated . This property differs from many other tramadol products ( including normal morphine ) of the opioid class, which is usually not about Tramadol degree of subtype selectivity . [url=http://en.wikipedia.org]Aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopadie[/url]

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread