A Return to Absolute and Realist Physics

a reply to: TheRedneck

OK, I am impressed.

I am especially impressed by your observation that much of what passes today for physics is indeed philosophical rather than realist. Philosophy is fine, but it proves lacking when actual uses for the philosophical-based physics is desired.

Thanks for the positive feedback. Of course, realism is a philosophy too. I believe the biggest mistake of modern physics was setting realism aside for the Copenhagen interpretation and other alternatives to realism. In my view, it is just a "gasping at straws" to find something, anything, to get quantum mechanics consistent with relativity. However, if we return to absolutism (and simply set relativity aside) realism can be returned to as well, and we can once again make sense of our world.

I will need to dig a little deeper into your equations to make more constructive comments... the disadvantage of video is that it is becomes difficult to follow the entire path unless one does so blindly. However, you have done an exceptional job of showing the pathway you used to arrive at your conclusions, so a little research deeper into your work should be simple enough to accomplish.

It would be most excellent to learn your further thoughts after you dig deeper into the works. Especially if you follow through the math. I don't think the math is overly difficult (much easier and far shorter than GRT or QED) but it isn't trivial either, as it does involve vector calculus in places and it might take a few hours to get through on some of the papers. So I don't know how many have dug into the math, and that's where a lot of the understanding can come from. I look forward to any constructive comments.

i have done some work on the nature of gravity and its relationship to quantum entanglement and dark matter/energy... perhaps when I am at a more developed position in that work, we can discuss it. My conclusions thus far may assist you in furthering your work.

Thank you for a great mental stimulation!

TheRedneck

I would welcome any thoughts on gravity. I may get into that in time, but right now I'm working to model the Lorentz force equations and I don't know how long that will take.

a reply to: dragonridr

Ok im unclear on something whats the point of adding a variable of a static aether? It causes additional math with zero benefits. All Einstein
did was show coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation are moving frames of reference with inertial coordinates.

It also made predictions that turned out to be wrong such as the aether wind, gave the wrong answer for simple problems like the transverse doppler effect. And don't get me started on elastic matter thats just overly complicated when o can just use points in SR.

The experimental arguments you give against an aether can largely be rebutted if we accept the Lorentzian view of rods that shrink and clocks that slow down as they move through the aether and if we can derive Maxwell's equations from simple aetherial postulates. I have done the latter. Once you have those two things (the Lorentz transformation plus Maxwell) the experimental record follows.

There are several reasons to consider an aether.

The first reason is that an aether likely exists as a real physical thing. Since light waves exist, it is likely that some substance must be "waving". And since light is transversely polarized, that indicates that the waving substance must be a solid. Such thinking is similar to that of the classical physicists before Einstein. (We must depart from the classical physicists with an embrace of quantum mechanics, but the concepts of realism, absolutism and an aether can be returned to.)

A second reason is that points have infinities associated with them. If we go back to aetherial thinking, including realism and absolutism, then we can again have finite sized objects that are continuous and the infinities go away.

A third reason is that with realism and absolutism we can easily understand quantum collapse as the instantaneous collapse of a real, finite, wave function.

Einstein's relativity requires point-like interactions because he was a realist and also a causalist. By relativity's relative simultaneity, any finite sized body will have an infinite number of different time relations prevalent on its ends. Defining one end as A and the other as B, in one frame (the frame at rest with A and B) we can envision events at A and B that are simultaneous. In some other frame the event at A will be before the event at B, while in another frame the event at A will be after the event at B. If we assume reality and causality (as per Einstein) this means that causal events can only be point-like. And that thinking is what leads to point-like entities and the problem of infinities (second reason above) as well as the problem concerning quantum collapse (third reason above). If we return to the aether and set relativity aside, those two problems go away.

Lastly is the fourth reason. If an aether does exist, then it might be possible to control it. Of course we already do, as we send radio and other waves around the earth for communications. But further control and new inventions might be possible if we truly understand it.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thanks for the positive feedback.

In a world where so many are either somewhat illiterate in mathematics, overly arrogant and mentally fixed on one and only one possibility, or simply unwilling to put forth the effort needed to understand our world, it is refreshing to see a new perspective to the questions that seem unsolvable. Thank you as well.

Of course, realism is a philosophy too. I believe the biggest mistake of modern physics was setting realism aside for the Copenhagen interpretation and other alternatives to realism. In my view, it is just a "gasping at straws" to find something, anything, to get quantum mechanics consistent with relativity. However, if we return to absolutism (and simply set relativity aside) realism can be returned to as well, and we can once again make sense of our world.

I cannot disagree. As an engineer, my purpose is to use the concepts uncovered by physicists to provide technology to improve humanity. As a research engineer, I tend to straddle the sciences, since I often work with phenomena which are not yet intuitive. So my knowledge of physics, while perhaps not on a par with yours, is not trivial.

I tend to think we need both approaches: without some realism, any discoveries made are simply too abstract to be useful, save perhaps as mental gymnastics for the researchers, but without a mathematical basis any phenomena are separated from application by the lack of quantification. My initial impulse is to accept Einstein's equations (both SR and GR), but I have to agree that they become too abstract in modern approaches.

It would be most excellent to learn your further thoughts after you dig deeper into the works. Especially if you follow through the math. I don't think the math is overly difficult (much easier and far shorter than GRT or QED) but it isn't trivial either, as it does involve vector calculus in places and it might take a few hours to get through on some of the papers. So I don't know how many have dug into the math, and that's where a lot of the understanding can come from. I look forward to any constructive comments.

No, the math does not appear to be overly difficult, only new in its approach. I am well-versed in mathematics, but vector calculus is still not intuitive. That takes a little time to fully comprehend.

One advantage I may have in this is that I am not overly tied to quantum mechanics, as are most new physicists graduating their institutions. While I know the theories, I was able to basically "test out" of some of the formal classes in that respect. I have always suspected the reason was that I was pretty good at questioning Schrödinger's assumptions, and stumped the instructor on more than one occasion. So while I do have the needed familiarity, I managed to avoid the 'indoctrination' into the accepted constructs.

Any theory that emerges must contain certain elements to properly function: it must have a mathematical basis that is complete under the conditions being considered, it must conform to empirical observation, and it must have a realistic approach to why the mathematics is applicable.

I would welcome any thoughts on gravity. I may get into that in time, but right now I'm working to model the Lorentz force equations and I don't know how long that will take.

Since this is something that I highly, highly doubt I will live to see bear fruit, I am not overly secretive about my theories. Understand there are some things I do not... can not... discuss in a public forum, but my gravitational theories are not part of them (well, not in the abstract anyway). So, at the risk of (again) upsetting the sensibilities of some closed-minded individuals...

So... you are familiar with Einstein's space elevator thought experiment? The connection he made between gravity and inertia?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

One advantage I may have in this is that I am not overly tied to quantum mechanics, as are most new physicists graduating their institutions.

The realist and absolute approach to quantum mechanics is linked to in the OP. It is based on a real, physical wave. No operators, commutators, nor matrices are used. The underlying real wave collapses from state to state instantaneously when momentum is transferred. Here again is the link: Absolute Quantum Mechanics

As for a space elevator making it hard to distinguish between gravity and being in an accelerating frame, sure, go ahead with your thoughts.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Yes, the wave nature is real; it has been observed on multiple occasions. I am not disputing that, not am I disputing quantum mechanics in general. I am only stating that I do not consider quantum theory (meaning any of the myriad theories that comprise such) as settled science. There are still issues which quantum mechanics cannot explain without some seriously questionable mathematical gymnastics.

Einstein did not state that it was difficult to distinguish between gravity and inertia based his thought experiment; he stated that it was impossible to differentiate between the two under the circumstances. Thus there can be no difference between the phenomena we consider gravity and that we call inertia. They are one and the same, only differing in the context under which we observe them.

That is itself a major tenet of my gravitational theory. If you dispute that, you will not be interested in what I have to say. I still enjoyed your presentation and intend to examine it more thoroughly, though.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: delbertlarson

Yes, the wave nature is real; it has been observed on multiple occasions. I am not disputing that, not am I disputing quantum mechanics in general. I am only stating that I do not consider quantum theory (meaning any of the myriad theories that comprise such) as settled science. There are still issues which quantum mechanics cannot explain without some seriously questionable mathematical gymnastics.

Einstein did not state that it was difficult to distinguish between gravity and inertia based his thought experiment; he stated that it was impossible to differentiate between the two under the circumstances. Thus there can be no difference between the phenomena we consider gravity and that we call inertia. They are one and the same, only differing in the context under which we observe them.

That is itself a major tenet of my gravitational theory. If you dispute that, you will not be interested in what I have to say. I still enjoyed your presentation and intend to examine it more thoroughly, though.

TheRedneck

No that's not what Einstine said at all. What he said is they are indistinguishable from each other to an observer. And thanks to the international space station we see he was right. The space stations gravity is off set by centrifugal force. It makes the astronauts appear weightless but in reality they are not.

Now about ether there is a huge problem if it exists it can't explain the transverse doppler effect. According to the theory of special relativity, if a beam of atoms which is emitting light is observed in a direction which according to the observer is at right angles to the direction of relative motion, then the
frequency of the light should differ from the
frequency the light would have if the source were at rest relative to the observer. This is the transverse Doppler effect. According to the classical ether theories there should be no change in frequency in this case.

No matter how you do the math the shift will not occur in an ether, and trust me ive seen plenty of students try using the lorentz transformations they all think they found something new.

a reply to: dragonridr

You're right. Sorry to have mentioned it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dragonridr

You're right. Sorry to have mentioned it.

TheRedneck

I do agree with you that quantum mechanics isnt completed science. We are constantly learning new things. However I think we are probably on the right track since it has led to new discoveries.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I found this yesterday www.livescience.com...

Could this news help you?

Will they perform more experiments which might get you some free results?

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: delbertlarson

I found this yesterday www.livescience.com...

Could this news help you?

Will they perform more experiments which might get you some free results?

No we knew some thing similar was there because we all ready discovered this in galaxy clusters. Just confirms there is far more plasma between galaxies then we thought.

I guess the other big thing it teaches us us we will never be travelling outside our galaxy the temperatures are just to great

a reply to: dragonridr
Thanks dragonridr.

I would debate the possibility of us being able to leave our own solar system.

But. I'm pro earth.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There are still issues which quantum mechanics cannot explain without some seriously questionable mathematical gymnastics.

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has re-normalization of infinities as well as running coupling constants. Quantum field theory (QFT) has infinities in the quantum vacuum. But a quantum mechanics (QM) based on a real wave absolutely collapsing via momentum transfer doesn't need those things. We may be close to agreement in this - I just wish to separate out QM from QED and QFT. I think QM is fine, and that it is only QED and QFT that have issues.

Einstein did not state that it was difficult to distinguish between gravity and inertia based his thought experiment; he stated that it was impossible to differentiate between the two under the circumstances. Thus there can be no difference between the phenomena we consider gravity and that we call inertia. They are one and the same, only differing in the context under which we observe them.

That is itself a major tenet of my gravitational theory. If you dispute that, you will not be interested in what I have to say. I still enjoyed your presentation and intend to examine it more thoroughly, though.

The part "there can be no difference between the phenomena we consider gravity and that we call inertia" seems problematic. Inertia is a resistance to acceleration, while gravity is a force providing acceleration, so they have a difference. Now, each involves mass - the force due to gravity is proportional to mass (gravitational mass), and the resistance to acceleration in the equation F = ma also involves mass (inertial mass). It is my understanding that the space elevator concept leads us to the conclusion that gravitational mass equals inertial mass, not that gravity is equivalent to inertia.

In the time spent preparing this response I see that you may have withdrawn support from what you had posted earlier. Sometimes ideas are thrown out quickly when they meet a critical flaw, and sometimes it is right to throw the idea out. However, on occasion the idea may still have merit and simply need to be tweaked. One example that only needed tweaking, in my opinion, is the idea of the aether. Your ideas on gravity may have value even if there are some early flaws pointed out. So if your ideas aren't ready, that is fine. But you might want to keep thinking about how to get past any present obstacle. Sometimes we can be basically on the right track and just need a small change in direction. Other times we've gone the wrong way entirely. It isn't always easy to tell.

a reply to: dragonridr

Now about ether there is a huge problem if it exists it can't explain the transverse doppler effect.

If we have Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz transformation in an aether, I don't see how the transverse Doppler shift, or any EM phenomena for that matter, won't be calculated the same as they are in relativity. (The equations are the same.) I will readily admit that if you have some other aether theory that does not have Maxwell and Lorentz, then sure, lots of things are likely wrong. But that doesn't mean that a better aether theory should be discarded because the older ones had problems.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: delbertlarson

I found this yesterday www.livescience.com...

Could this news help you?

Will they perform more experiments which might get you some free results?

Thanks for the link. As already mentioned by dragonridr, the article presents news that is completely consistent with status quo science so it isn't directly relevant to the debate of realism and absolutism versus instrumentalism and relativism. However it is always good to learn about new experimental results, so thanks again.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: dragonridr

Now about ether there is a huge problem if it exists it can't explain the transverse doppler effect.

If we have Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz transformation in an aether, I don't see how the transverse Doppler shift, or any EM phenomena for that matter, won't be calculated the same as they are in relativity. (The equations are the same.) I will readily admit that if you have some other aether theory that does not have Maxwell and Lorentz, then sure, lots of things are likely wrong. But that doesn't mean that a better aether theory should be discarded because the older ones had problems.

It has to do with the angle at 90 degrees aether models line up nicely if the object is receding or approaching you. The math is identical. However if we are to assume the ether is not moving we hit a problem. And it would have to be in order to be undetectable. If we assume light travels at c throughout space relative to the observer,aberration effects cause any observation at 90 degrees in there own frame to see the backside of the object causing, a partial recession red shift the entire length traveling in an ether. We would see it as a stronger red shift then SR predicts it would be.

In transverse motion data we should see stationary ether propagation effect supplemented by a Lorenz redshift I spoke of earlier at every angle not just 90 degrees. This inconsistency proves an ether doesn't exist, But relativity explains it nicely. In other words you cant make changes to Lorentz calculations that only apply in one observation and not others.

SR predicts Lorentz squared transverse red shift. Which is exactly what we see in experiments.

I have long maintained that physics has been distracted by many elements of QM, be it QED or QFT. I think the unrestrained zeal to prove Einstein wrong lead to much of this confusion and distraction. So many defined their very existence trying to prove Einstein wrong, but I guess he was a pretty big target. If people would have spent half the energy trying to prove him right, rather than wrong, we might be further along.

Oh, and I was never a big fan of Hawking (not really at all).

I for one am very relieved to now start seeing science return to less 'mystical' (read: non-FM (F'in Magic)) areas of study.

Just my .02

a reply to: dragonridr

...if we are to assume the ether is not moving we hit a problem. And it would have to be in order to be undetectable. If we assume light travels at c throughout space relative to the observer,aberration effects cause any observation at 90 degrees in there own frame to see the backside of the object causing, a partial recession red shift the entire length traveling in an ether. We would see it as a stronger red shift then SR predicts it would be.

In transverse motion data we should see stationary ether propagation effect supplemented by a Lorenz redshift I spoke of earlier at every angle not just 90 degrees. This inconsistency proves an ether doesn't exist, But relativity explains it nicely. In other words you cant make changes to Lorentz calculations that only apply in one observation and not others.

Perhaps an outside reference may help clarify the issue about experimental refutation of the aether. In Wikipedia's article on Lorentz Aether Theory we find this:

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity.[1] The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.

The above quote is essentially the same point as my responses above. Once you have the Lorentz Transformations and Maxwell Equations, the experimental record is explained. You don't need relativity.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I'm not withdrawing support. However, I have learned through repeated episodes throughout my life that precious few are willing to look at phenomena in a new light. It seems to be an aspect of human nature.

My theories are incomplete, yes, but complete enough at this stage to perhaps be considered in light of other theories such as yours. My hope was that you would be open to a new perspective, but it appears those hopes were in vain. As with any new concept, it requires a decent amount of explanation, and I simply believe my time is better spent expanding my theories than explaining them in vain (again).

A phenomenon is defined by the way matter and forces react under its influence. If there is no difference between the way matter and forces interact with two phenomena, then the two phenomena are a single phenomenon, by definition. That is a very simple concept, but I will admit that people tend to have a hard time with it.

I will leave the subject with this: Einstein's thought experiment stopped too soon; if it is carried out to a logical conclusion, one can reach a potential understanding of gravity and inertia that leads to a mathematical solution. That solution not only matches well with observations of the two, but explains many presently unexplained phenomena, and does so by removing the concept of the singularity. That is why I thought you might be interested.

But it is proposed by someone who uses "TheRedneck" as an internet moniker, so it obviously is not to be taken seriously; no matter. I will dig through your math when I have time and get back to you. Again, sorry for bothering you with it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Hawking was extremely intelligent and gave us many insights into the nature of black holes. This is significant primarily because the black hole must exist outside the realm of physics, as the mathematical formulas break down in the concept of the singularity... the main point of the OP. Without mathematics to explain the phenomenon, we have no hope of understanding the phenomenon... and a phenomenon cannot exist without being explainable. Therefore we are at an impasse: if a black hole singularity exists, it must be quantifiable by mathematics, but mathematics cannot explain the singularity.

Hawking was afflicted with a terrible disease that severely affected his ability to communicate. As time went on, I believe he simply made some erroneous assumptions in his mind, and was unable to heave those assumptions properly vetted by others due to his communication handicap. A shame really; he was a great intellect regardless.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My hope was that you would be open to a new perspective, but it appears those hopes were in vain. As with any new concept, it requires a decent amount of explanation, and I simply believe my time is better spent expanding my theories than explaining them in vain (again).

It was your response to dragonridr that led me to believe you were withdrawing your idea. I would still welcome learning about it, as I am always open to new perspectives. (No guarantee of agreement, but I'm always happy to consider something new.)