Space, Time, and Matter

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

if you take your hypothesis as correct, then there must be something due to the impedance which counteracts time travel. It seems like your impedance is a one way effect. So, it could be described thermodynamically.

"Hypothesis"...you mean my suggestion (no testable procedure here my friend).

Yes, indeed.

First of all, let's replace the term 'Time' with the term 'Causal', so we don't get lost in the phraseology.

Now, imagine if higher dimensional space (Our Calabi-Yau again) was void of the Causal Dimension, it would be trans-chronological (all seeing: forward and backward in the causal arrow). And particles were able to be connected through this higher dimensional connection.

This would leave us with one big problem...what's the difference between Deterministic Events and Freedom of Choice Events?????

I feel the answer lies in the Causal Dimension (or lack of it to be more precise). If higher dimensional space could see into the future, and know what particle will be interacting with what other particles and where and when, then this would be a purely Deterministic view of the history of the universe. BUT, Freedom of Choice is clearly present in our observable world. SO, what if this all-seeing Deterministic nature of higher dimensional space were corrupted by Freedom of Choice within particle events, so that trans-chronological vision became blurred the further into the future an event is seen.

What I'm saying here, is perhaps it is Freedom of Choice which forces the universe to act, by countering-out the freedom using deterministic processes.

Are basic freedoms the cause of dynamism within the particle world?

And if organic life has the greatest of all freedoms, then is life evolving because of the environment, or is the environment evolving because of the evolution of life?

It might sound silly, but now bring your attention to the basic principles involved with Young's Double Slit Experiment and the issue of Observation.

In this way, probability and uncertainty could be viewed like Deterministic Chaos...it's only Chaos because we don't know all of the pieces of the puzzle. And Quantum systems may perhaps be likened to a shoreline, where the ocean and land meet, it's complex, unpredictable and rough...could this be the meeting place between Freedom and Determinism???

Food for thought.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

re:
Toleman - > Surface brightness test are not 'obeying' the requirements of expansion, as those papers indicate.... add to this the redshift anomalies, quasars, wmap anomalies, quasar time-dilations..... etc.

My point is, the only example you gave was "oh well the expansion of the universe can be >c".

That makes as much sense as arguing that my car cannot exceed 160 km/hr because my speedometer has a large error at 6o km/hr.

The fact is that any observable object in the Universe will have a recession velocity <c. So your references have no relevance.

The criteria that expansion velocities can exceed c are based on
(1) The observable Universe is flat.
(2) The blackbody temperature of the CMB is even in all directions relative to the observer.

To me, thats just a mathematical thought experiment. I'd like something testable... the 'information' and 'energy' examples of >c have been provided with independent techniques and lab experiments. Of course once results hit the einstein theories it becomes 'impossible'.

Try thinking of light as a communication channel for information.

Phase and group velocites of light waves exceeding c have been known for decades. Does this violate SR? No. For SR to be violated information must travel faster than light.
Show me how we can isolate a specific crest in a monochromatic wave and convey that information in the channel. Since the wave is monochromatic means we have no specific information on the crest.
All experiments showing faster than light travel run into the same problems.

Yes I know requested lab cosmological-time-space expansion tests are not available. I don't know where you will go from here. On the flipside, i've seen enough evidence on longitudinal transmission and entanglement experiments to be convinced c does not represent a limit, at which point sr has been violated and relativity time vanishes.

Once again old hat news. Go read up on Bell's inequality and photon polarization tests. The No Communication theorem indicates that no information is transmitted in quantum entanglement tests.

The longer we keep playing the relativity game... the longer nonsense like this will continue:
Hawkings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...e-machine.html
LHC phantoms: http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...-1225788270808

With regards to the LHC phantoms, the scientific paper was based primarily on quantum and statistical mechanics. The mathematical flaws were noted and the paper was retracted within a few days.
Why didn't you refer to this? Cherry picking again?

I'm leaning towards c just being a ratio of energy and mass, not a limit as required by SR intern GR, and no need for an introduction of a 4th D time in to physics. Once we do away with this, we can do away with the paradoxes.

Doing away with velocity c as a limit for the information channel creates a paradox as it violates cause and effect. Show me an experiment where c varies for observers in inertial frames.

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

Far be it from me to say what you are proposing is wrong Nesti. The only way I know of what is real is if it is testable and it can successfully predict unforseen events that can be measured or observed.

The arrow of time is the tricky one. The mathematics tells us it is all reversible. Experiment does not. If this is so last century, let me know as I came up through Physics in the early seventies.

Chaos theory does not work at the quantum level as it is impossible to have feedback from indeterminate states.

I personally think that all brains (complex systems) are working at some sort of quantum level. Some better than others.

In fact I propose that all past interactions of matter due to quantum entanglement actually drives the arrow of time because indeterminate states can hardly drive anything backwards as they have no starting values to go back to!

If this sounds insane I am sorry.

Bert

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Far be it from me to say what you are proposing is wrong Nesti. The only way I know of what is real is if it is testable and it can successfully predict unforseen events that can be measured or observed.

I did say it was a suggestion...what I am saying isn't even a hypothesis...moreso rhetoric. I know of no way of testing any of it.

Originally Posted by avandonk

The arrow of time is the tricky one. The mathematics tells us it is all reversible. Experiment does not. If this is so last century, let me know as I came up through Physics in the early seventies.

Mathematics can also demonstrate 1+1=3...but we all know that's just fiddling with the engine. Mind-you, how many times has a new branch of mathematics emerged in order to satisfy observation/experimentation?

Originally Posted by avandonk

Chaos theory does not work at the quantum level as it is impossible to have feedback from indeterminate states.

I used the difference between Chaos and Deterministic Chaos as an analogy, not as a reference...I wrote: "probability and uncertainty could be viewed like Deterministic Chaos".

However, I did infer that Quantum states may be driven by a conflict between Deterministic properties and Freedom of Choice. I wrote, "Quantum systems may perhaps be likened to a shoreline, where the ocean and land meet, it's complex, unpredictable and rough...could this be the meeting place between Freedom and Determinism".

Originally Posted by avandonk

I personally think that all brains (complex systems) are working at some sort of quantum level. Some better than others.

My observations of some WA drivers only today allows me to support that suggestion.

Originally Posted by avandonk

In fact I propose that all past interactions of matter due to quantum entanglement actually drives the arrow of time because indeterminate states can hardly drive anything backwards as they have no starting values to go back to!

Firstly, that's the first time I have read you putting forth a suggestion...I hope this is a trend forming. And yes, I get what you wrote...If I understand, you look toward a type of inertia of states and values from which to progress onward from (Causal). The next outcome being the next starting point. A smoking gun being entangled states or bullet itself?...perhaps a relic of some hidden information protocol??

Originally Posted by avandonk

If this sounds insane I am sorry.

Hardly. If I get you correct, you're saying the driving force of particles is from the past, and we see evidence of this in entangled states, right?! I'm saying the driving force comes from the present, but the aiming point is derived from future. An analogy: You say the Donkey is before the cart. I say the cart needs to be before the donkey so that the donkey may see where the cart is drifting. It is vastly different, but the end goal is identical; a stable reality which fits the law as we know them, and observations.

Now, this may sound beyond insane, but remember the thread on the Right Hand Rule, where the end result was that we have Conventions, but the origins of these conventions are unknown? Well, insane as it sounds, I also feel that conventions arise out of the particle interplay...and if we shift a gear from insane to certifiable, then perhaps the laws themselves were created at the birth of the universe...where energy and states jostled around to fit the expansion.


certifiable maybe...but it's fun to explore the impossible.

[Octane (Humayun)]

1+1=3, for very large values of 1.

H

Originally Posted by Nesti

Mathematics can also demonstrate 1+1=3...

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Doing away with velocity c as a limit for the information channel creates a paradox as it violates cause and effect (if one continues to using relative-c as the measuring device). Show me an experiment where c varies for observers in inertial frames

Happy to...
http://ldolphin.org/sagnac.html

Einstein "That has nothing to do with relativity"
Sagnac "In that case, Dr Einstiein, relativity has nothing to do with reality"

Minowski Universe like all other poly-dimentional forms are just mathamatical imaginary ring arosies...

Relativity, by fixing c as a limit, then requires the extra dimension 'time' to be attached to 3d, and contract and dilate.

Soon as one reintroduces reality, and realises c is just an arbitrary ratio, very handy in calculating mass energy relationships in a field... then time dilation can be turfed along with. It appears, for relativists, 'time' only exists because of this relationship... ie because clocks which use a length measurement... magically 'change'....

there is simply no need for it, and the sagnac c+v and c-v experiment appears what you have asked for.
* Sagnac experiment
* Dayton Miller data
* Steve Bryant's revist of michelson morely data http://www.relativitychallenge.com/a...ry/experiments

Seems convincing to me.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Happy to...
http://ldolphin.org/sagnac.html

Einstein "That has nothing to do with relativity"
Sagnac "In that case, Dr Einstiein, relativity has nothing to do with reality"

Minowski Universe like all other poly-dimentional forms are just mathamatical imaginary ring arosies...

Relativity, by fixing c as a limit, then requires the extra dimension 'time' to be attached to 3d, and contract and dilate.

Soon as one reintroduces reality, and realises c is just an arbitrary ratio, very handy in calculating mass energy relationships in a field... then time dilation can be turfed along with. It appears, for relativists, 'time' only exists because of this relationship... ie because clocks which use a length measurement... magically 'change'....

there is simply no need for it, and the sagnac c+v and c-v experiment appears what you have asked for.
* Sagnac experiment
* Dayton Miller data
* Steve Bryant's revist of michelson morely data http://www.relativitychallenge.com/a...ry/experiments

Seems convincing to me.

First all take note of my post I referred to inertial frames of reference.
The apparatus is rotating hence it is not an inertial frame of reference.

Secondly it can be shown that the light path distance varies when comparing each direction. The interference pattern is due to the light reaching the detectors at different times due to the different distances. This has nothing to with the speed of light varying.

An excellent description of this is found here.
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relat...ac-effect.html

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Um no, all components in the frame are not rotating. The mirrors, the source, the whole shebang are in a frame of reference.

The rotation you speak of is playing the usual relative-observer game... jumping in and out of frames to dismiss when convenient...

That link you posted is a shining example of a misunderstanding of the experiment. In this experiment, the light source, the mirrors, are all in the frame... nothing is rotating with respect to the measurements... with that link... you "jump out" and say 'ohh but the frames rotating'. Sorry, the components within the frame involved in the experiment are not rotating, they are however recording a c+v and a c-v.

Cheers,
Alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Um no, all components in the frame are not rotating. The mirrors, the source, the whole shebang are in a frame of reference.

The rotation you speak of is playing the usual relative-observer game... jumping in and out of frames to dismiss when convenient...

That link you posted is a shining example of a misunderstanding of the experiment. In this experiment, the light source, the mirrors, are all in the frame... nothing is rotating with respect to the measurements... with that link... you "jump out" and say 'ohh but the frames rotating'. Sorry, the components within the frame involved in the experiment are not rotating, they are however recording a c+v and a c-v.

Cheers,
Alex

Oh come now Alex. You have forgotten the observer. The observer isn't rotating with the apparatus. The observer is in a fixed (inertial) frame of reference. The apparatus is rotating relative to the observer. Measurements are performed in the observer's frame of reference.

In the observer's frame of reference when the light beam travels in the same direction as rotation it has to "catch up" with the mirrors. When travelling in the opposite direction of rotation, the mirrors are "approaching" the light beam. Hence the distance covered by the light beam is different in both cases which is the cause of interference.

The velocity is c in both cases. If the total distance is s1 in one direction, and s2 in the opposite direction then the time delay (delta t) is simply

Delta t = (s1-s2)/c. Delta t is not due to the speed of light varying.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

But the source, splitter and the detector are in the frame no?

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

But the source, splitter and the detector are in the frame no?

Only the splitter and mirrors rotate. The detector and the source are stationary in the observer's frame of reference.

Regards

Steven

[Thoreau (Callum)]

Yes, the multiverse theory. It sounds logical but I need more evidence rather than theories. I attempted to explain this to my friends, using speech, evidence and examples, they understood.

[Thoreau (Callum)]

If you eliminate the logical, then the illogical must be correct, no matter how obsurd it appears.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

But the source, splitter and the detector are in the frame no?

Every piece of the device, every molecule, every atom and every sub-atomic particle is in it's own frame of reference.

Even if two particles are traveling alongside each other, they are still not in the same frame.

I'm guessing this is why a [hypothetical] Test Particle is assumed to be both infinitely small in size and mass...a true reference point.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Thoreau

If you eliminate the logical, then the illogical must be correct, no matter how obsurd it appears.

I believe logic pervades all...in my belief, it is the intuitive and counter-intuitive which vary.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Only the splitter and mirrors rotate. The detector and the source are stationary in the observer's frame of reference.

Regards

Steven

The splitter is the source. I think we are creating an observer here.

Do you have any refs to a closed version experiment?

I'm satisfied with the splitter as the source and pattern as the result being in the frame.... but hey shouldn't we be able to mount a ccd in the experiment to remove the observer that is being created here. Along the lines of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E with the sagnac setup

I've seen a paper on this experiment with electrons, but yes reducing errors with particles of charge is difficult... as outlined in that paper.

very piece of the device, every molecule, every atom and every sub-atomic particle is in it's own frame of reference.

Even if two particles are traveling alongside each other, they are still not in the same frame.

I'm guessing this is why a [hypothetical] Test Particle is assumed to be both infinitely small in size and mass...a true reference point.

Measurements become pointless? hehee

Once you remove c as your limit, all reveals.

To me relativity is a mathematical play on measurements... convenient and i guess fun for some... but does not tell us anything about reality. Time is an invention.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

The splitter is the source. I think we are creating an observer here.

Do you have any refs to a closed version experiment?

Here is how to operate a Sagnac Interformeter.
It users a Helium/Neon laser as the stationary source.
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/opti47...rferometer.pdf

I'm satisfied with the splitter as the source and pattern as the result being in the frame.... but hey shouldn't we be able to mount a ccd in the experiment to remove the observer that is being created here. Along the lines of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E with the sagnac setup

I can't view the link as I am on a very slow dial up so I cannot make any comments. What are you suggesting mounting a CCD on the turntable?

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Here is how to operate a Sagnac Interformeter.
It users a Helium/Neon laser as the stationary source.
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/opti47...rferometer.pdf



I can't view the link as I am on a very slow dial up so I cannot make any comments. What are you suggesting mounting a CCD on the turntable?

Regards

Steven

Well yes...

Put the whole lot in the frame, spin it, fling it, whatever.

To me the splitter represents the source (in the frame) and the pattern the result, and is all in the frame. But hey... why not pop the lot on the turntable (in the frame)... to satisfy yourself.

Record the evidence to the ccd memory... now unless the ccd-memory acts as a relativity-time-domain capacitor.... so when you take out the result and view it, all the evidence magically re-arranges it'self because you just applied the relative 'rotated frames' for the entire experiment run... I've no doubt mathematics can be constructed to satisfy this, but the absurdity leaves me awestruck.

To me there are just so many variants of these experiments, that i simply cannot find data on.... to me due diligence has not been demonstrated. (do it again in magnetic fields, in space, in freefall, altitude, vertical)

I don' think this is exactly what we are after for your variable c request, it's more leaning towards detection of aether drift. The link you posted has the same introduced observer dilemma, relativity-theory has introduced in it's explanations. I'm ok with the splitter being the source... you're not... can we include it in the experiment?

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Well yes...

Put the whole lot in the frame, spin it, fling it, whatever.

To me the splitter represents the source (in the frame) and the pattern the result, and is all in the frame. But hey... why not pop the lot on the turntable (in the frame)... to satisfy yourself.

Record the evidence to the ccd memory... now unless the ccd-memory acts as a relativity-time-domain capacitor.... so when you take out the result and view it, all the evidence magically re-arranges it'self because you just applied the relative 'rotated frames' for the entire experiment run... I've no doubt mathematics can be constructed to satisfy this, but the absurdity leaves me awestruck.

To me there are just so many variants of these experiments, that i simply cannot find data on.... to me due diligence has not been demonstrated. (do it again in magnetic fields, in space, in freefall, altitude, vertical)

I don' think this is exactly what we are after for your variable c request, it's more leaning towards detection of aether drift. The link you posted has the same introduced observer dilemma, relativity-theory has introduced in it's explanations. I'm ok with the splitter being the source... you're not... can we include it in the experiment?

The CCD is the key issue not the beamsplitter.

Put the CCD on the turnatable and you won't get an interference pattern.
The CCD is now the "observer".
This is the same as rotating the room containing the observer and the interferometer. The observer is now stationary relative to the interferometer as they are now both in the same frame of reference.

This is equivalent to a normally mounted interferometer except that the turntable is not rotating. The interferometer and the observer are in the same reference frame. As we already know interference doesn't occur under this condition.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

I acknowledge the null expectation of SR.

The Sagnac experiment did include the luminous source and the photographic plate... and the Michelson "Normally mounted interferometer" is different to this experiment.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...d=0CBQQ6AEwAA#

Another source here: http://www.phil-inst.hu/~szekely/PIR...leri_09_ft.ppt

Again if you have a reference to a modern ccd version, i would be keen to inspect, i've only come across electron versions, plagued with errors.