Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4

[Pentcho Valev]

For more than half a century, theoretical physicists have been reconciling spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and the absolute (Newtonian) time of quantum mechanics:

"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/images/photo20150819051851.jpg

In Big Brother's world scientists are desperately trying to reconcile 2+2=5, gloriously discovered by Big Brother, and 2+2=4:

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/424/423180/in-philosophy-or-religion-or-ethics-or-politics-two-and-two-might-make-five-but-when-one-was-quote-1.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 12:07:06 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> For more than half a century, theoretical physicists have been reconciling spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and the absolute (Newtonian) time of quantum mechanics:

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Saturday, 17 February 2018 09:07:06 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> For more than half a century, theoretical physicists have been reconciling spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate

No. Even Great Guru was unable to hold such an idiocy for
long time, so his GR Shit has rejected it.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 17.02.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."

This is in fact true.
There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.

Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume
something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well
with assumed features of material objects.

But who is right?

Actually I assume, that GR is right and QM provides only a local
approximation, which is valid under the assumption of a constant and
universal time.

This 'universal' refers to 'universe'. But: This universe is actually
not universal, but our own specific impression we have from a more
difficult reality.

'The universe' is actually our own past light cone, hence kind of
optical illusion.

To show the validity of this assumption I had used various examples.

My favorite example is 'Growing Earth'. But also possible are comets or
the impact of the probe on Temple I.

TH


ps

here you find a more elaborate version of this concept:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 18/02/2018 v 19:00 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

>
> This is in fact true.
> There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.
>
> Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume
> something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well
> with assumed features of material objects.

Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.

Relativistic quantum chemistry is very succesful
in modelling electron behaviour in heavy atoms
in the context of chemistry.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/18/18 12:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.02.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>> "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means
>> reconciling totally different notions of time.

But not when one considers Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity,
which is what any knowledgeable person would do (QM is the
non-relativistic, low-energy limit of QFT, but the world we inhabit is
CLEARLY relativistic and contains high energies). QFT is fully
consistent with SR, which is the local limit of GR.

>> [... irrelevant nonsense based on ignorance]

> There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.

Not really.

> Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume
> something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well
> with assumed features of material objects.

This is not true, and shows a complete lack of understanding of basic SR
on your part. In particular, the "length contraction" of SR does not
affect material objects at all, it is a MEASUREMENT ISSUE.

(And it is not "assumed", it is derived from much more
fundamental principles applied to specific measurement
techniques.)

> [... further nonsense based on ignorance]

Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:

>> This is in fact true.
>> There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume
>> something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well
>> with assumed features of material objects.
>
> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.

Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.

(Especially I dislike 'length-contraction'.)

I had the idea of time being mainly a local phenomenon. Any place and
object has its own time and since we are somehow objects and somewhere,
we have also our own time.

Only this time is not universal, be especially ours.

All places with the same time build what I call a 'time-domaine'.

This is apparently the case for the surface of planet Earth. And this is
where we could go, while using the same clocks.

Would we go into a realm with a different time-axis, we would be
annihilated.

Such an effect is visible at the impact of the probe on 'Temple I',
assumed this object would belong to such a realm with a different time.

Also comets could be understood in this manner. Then comets are simple
rocks and the tail is caused be the disturbance of space by a rock
flying through.

So empty space is not really empty, it looks empty only in a certain
perspective (ours).

> Relativistic quantum chemistry is very succesful
> in modelling electron behaviour in heavy atoms
> in the context of chemistry.
>

If 'Growing Earth' is in fact rue, then the particle concept (of QM)
could not be true.

And even if this idea is heavily rejected, it is IMHO nevertheless correct.

(I have spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of examples
in favor of this idea.)


TH

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:01 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>
> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.

Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 20.02.2018 um 22:07 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:01 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>> Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>>
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>
>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>
> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>

This is STRANGE logic.

btw here's the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dryvDlB1hWA



TH

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:35 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> Am 20.02.2018 um 22:07 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>> Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:01 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>> Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>>
>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>>
>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>
> This is STRANGE logic.

You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
Quantum objects are definitely very local.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:

>>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>>>
>>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>>>
>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>>
>> This is STRANGE logic.
>
> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.

'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.

> Quantum objects are definitely very local.

Yes, quantum objects are very local.

BUT: if time is not restricted to the (our) local time, than SRT is only
a local approximation as well as QM, because both depend on one
universal time (which is fact our local time and not universal).

Since space and time are 'relative' in GR, quantum objects must be as well.

Since 'quantum objects' are more or less particles, these particles are
'relative', too.

(You could also say 'observer dependent' - instead of 'relative').

This would violate fundamental assumptions of QM, since matter is not
expected to vanish or to pop out of nowhere.


But we know, that matter can in fact pop out of nowhere (called 'big
bang') or vanish into nothing (called 'black hole').

As you said GR is correct, hence QM is not.


TH

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 21/02/2018 v 15:06 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>
>>>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>>>
>>> This is STRANGE logic.
>>
>> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
>> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
>
> 'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.

It is not, at least not in physical sense of correctness
as agreement with observation within uncertainty of measurement.

There are generally many physical models, that fits these criteria
under restricting conditions as special cases
of more general and more complex models.

>
>
>> Quantum objects are definitely very local.
>
>
> Yes, quantum objects are very local.
>
> BUT: if time is not restricted to the (our) local time, than SRT is only
> a local approximation as well as QM, because both depend on one
> universal time (which is fact our local time and not universal).

That is not related. Locality of SR does not relate
to time restriction, but to Euclidean space-time metric.

>
> Since space and time are 'relative' in GR, quantum objects must be as well.

THAT is strange logic.

>
> Since 'quantum objects' are more or less particles, these particles are
> 'relative', too.

THAT is strange logic.
BTW Molecules are quantum objects as well.

>
> (You could also say 'observer dependent' - instead of 'relative').
>
> This would violate fundamental assumptions of QM, since matter is not
> expected to vanish or to pop out of nowhere.

YEs, avoid then such a logic.

>
>
> But we know, that matter can in fact pop out of nowhere (called 'big
> bang') or vanish into nothing (called 'black hole').
>
> As you said GR is correct, hence QM is not.

False conclusion.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:09:20 UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 21/02/2018 v 15:06 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> > Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> >
> >>>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
> >>>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
> >>>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
> >>>
> >>> This is STRANGE logic.
> >>
> >> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
> >> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
> >
> > 'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.
>
> It is not, at least not in physical sense of correctness
> as agreement with observation within uncertainty of measurement.

Observation, of course, as performed by twins imagined
by an insane guru.

[Thomas Heger]

If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
observe must be 'relative' as well.

IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a new/different
direction, then another world must appear, while ours would disappear.

This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.

To make this possible our matter must also be time-dependent.

This is actually hard to swallow (but not THAT hard).

If this assumption would be correct, we could explain various strange
phenomena with it:
-black holes
-particles
-jets
-CMBR

and various others.

Here comes the link to my 'book' again:


https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


I tried to explain the idea with it. It has about 150 pages and is
technically a google doc presentation.



TH

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 22/02/2018 v 12:49 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
> observe must be 'relative' as well.

Fortunately, it is not.

>
> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a new/different
> direction, then another world must appear, while ours would disappear.

>
> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.

Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend
on what model we use.

[Evonne Lamarr]

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> Dne 22/02/2018 v 12:49 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>
>> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
>> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
>> observe must be 'relative' as well.
>
> Fortunately, it is not.
>>
>> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a
>> new/different direction, then another world must appear, while ours
>> would disappear.
>> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
>> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.
>
> Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend on what
> model we use.

You just hate germans, as I can translate. For whatever obscure reason.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 22/02/2018 v 21:40 Evonne Lamarr napsal(a):

Wrong, as usually.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 21:38:30 UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 22/02/2018 v 12:49 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>
> > If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
> > more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
> > observe must be 'relative' as well.
>
> Fortunately, it is not.
> >
> > IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a new/different
> > direction, then another world must appear, while ours would disappear.
>
> >
> > This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
> > equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.
>
> Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend
> on what model we use.

Yes, some parts of the reality do depend. Our
clocks for instance.

[Thomas Heger]

Anti-German sentiments are not that rare among Czech people.

Anyhow...

That time is part of our reality, that is certainly acceptable.

But this was not the question.

I said, that our time is not the only time possible, hence time is not
universal.

The reason is a little tricky to explain.

A very good book about this subject is written by Alexander Franklin
Mayer and called 'Geometry of time'.

Unfortunately it's pretty expensive and the free pdf-version is not
available anymore (as far as I know).

TH

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 24/02/2018 v 19:39 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> Am 22.02.2018 um 21:40 schrieb Evonne Lamarr:
>
>>>> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
>>>> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
>>>> observe must be 'relative' as well.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, it is not.
>>>>
>>>> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a
>>>> new/different direction, then another world must appear, while ours
>>>> would disappear.
>>>> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
>>>> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.
>>>
>>> Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend on what
>>> model we use.
>>
>> You just hate germans, as I can translate. For whatever obscure reason.
>>
> Anti-German sentiments are not that rare among Czech people.

Not as much as trolling behaviour on the Usenet.

In fact, I cannot say I like Germans less then other nations.

Even if Czech nation has many reasons not to like Germans.
Germanic tribes and ruling houses made multiple fatal blows to us
during Czech history since the early 9th century till WWII aftermath.

But such an approach is largely abandoned by the generations
born after the WWII, as today Germans are not Germans from history.

[Eveline Hurst]

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> Even if Czech nation has many reasons not to like Germans.
> Germanic tribes and ruling houses made multiple fatal blows to us during
> Czech history since the early 9th century till WWII aftermath.

You need to love, not to like. Like only is the same as to hate.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 25/02/2018 v 22:08 Eveline Hurst napsal(a):

You are among the last who could dare
to request it from others,
being a famous misquoting nymshifting troll.

[Thomas Heger]

Especially are the current Germans not the Germans from kuk Austria.

Czech republic was once a part of the Empire of the Habsburgs, while
Prussia was never.

In fact there had been loads of tensions between Austria and Prussia,
which have lead to the 30 years war, which almost depopulated the
region, where I live now (Berlin).

Prussians captured Silesia later, what was not very helpful for friendly
relations neither.

Also the different believe system (Catholics vs. Protestants) had cause
tensions.

I personally like Czech republic very much and have been there very
often (about 30 times in Prague).

My ancestors were mainly from Silesia, which included most likely people
from Poland and/or Czech republic.



TH

[Eveline Hurst]

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> Dne 25/02/2018 v 22:08 Eveline Hurst napsal(a):
>> Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
>>
>>> Even if Czech nation has many reasons not to like Germans.
>>> Germanic tribes and ruling houses made multiple fatal blows to us
>>> during Czech history since the early 9th century till WWII aftermath.
>>
>> You need to love, not to like. Like only is the same as to hate.
>
> You are among the last who could dare to request it from others,
> being a famous misquoting nymshifting troll.

Recall what you wrote, potty? You don't love germans. The most of it would
be a like. YOur wording.

[Thomas Heger]

I would say: no.



Clocks themselves do not understand models at all, they just operate as
designed. Clocks measure something we call 'time'.

But what something is, that is not entirely understood.

We would need some sort of 'overall picture' about how time behaves on
large scales. Only this is difficult to achieve, since we are - as
'Earthlings' - bound to our home planet (more or less).

This picture could only be guessed, where assumptions are based on
fundamental understanding about how the universe might work.

We could - for instance - assume two arrows of time pointing in opposite
directions.

This would allow two worlds with opposite features, which could add up
to nothing.

Or time behaves like a Moebius ribbon and the universe folds back into
itself. (like: ... the end is also the beginning)

Such models would allow a universe, which is stating from nothing and is
also eternal and infinite.

If we had such a model, we could estimate, whether or not other worlds
with other times existed (or not).

TH

[Ický Bezdrátovì]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I personally like Czech republic very much and have been there very
> often (about 30 times in Prague).

You dont know czechians.

[Keith Stein]

On 19/02/2018 00:57, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/18/18 12:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 17.02.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>>> "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means
>>> reconciling totally different notions of time.

UNIVERSAL TIME 't'

[Keith Stein]

On 19/03/2018 15:21, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 19/02/2018 00:57, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 2/18/18 12:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 17.02.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Pentcho Valev:

>>>> "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means
>>>> reconciling totally different notions of time.



>         UNIVERSAL TIME  't'

Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


> The Big Bang Myth ... Keith Stein - Mountain Man's News Archive
> www.mountainman.com.au/news97_9.html
> Date: 22 Feb 1997 06:57:03 +0000. From: Keith Stein Organization: My
Organisation Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag.
Subject: THE BIG BANG MYTH ...