NEIL TUROK: PHYSICS NEEDS A REVOLUTION

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-explain-the-universe-physics-needs-a-revolution-live-webcast-wednesday-video/
"To Explain the Universe, Physics Needs a Revolution: Live Webcast Wednesday [Video] Physicist Neil Turok will describe his vision for simpler theories in a public lecture"

As I suggest in my comments on the article, physics should get rid of a false fundamental axiom - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:08:47 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com...


Pentcho Valev FAQ

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm


John Baez, "The Crackpot Index"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I am watching this.

Light is optical! Optically it doesn't have a wavelength.
Radiation and emission are also waves, or radio emission
and waves (motion in an electric field).

Light is corpuscular, where for examples "waves are corpuscular".

The Planckian regime is corpuscular, for Maxwell.
(Fields are invariant.)

That is a real nerd, pay attention.


So, "light" is radiative and not emissive?

Maxwell then as scale then gauge invariant is sub-
Planckian. (This is for building the triangular result
and inequality in the spiral and the trilateral or square,
_also_, as with the Pythagorean for the action moment,
scale. Then, gauge is under the action moment and action
potential as of Psi, that brings itself out.) This is also the
kinetic term.

Dark energy and matter is adding back up.
That's just the classical in the large.

"Light" is a massless wave and
only has wavelength on absorb(p)tion.

It is the radiative and attenuates
in energy (eg, zero in a vacuum).

Turok is like "My God where is the dark
matter and what is it."

It's not, that's just how much it would be.

Time is forward! That keeps it simple.

In the multiverses, if there is one that is
just the universe, then it is the universe again already.

The multiverse theory is used as a metaphor for
hypothetical abstract of decision-making and input as
contrasted to a steady-state universe, for example.
Then there are only inputs and everything has inertia
as matter and what. As well, the state is also nearly immediate
with input and decision making, even to stimulus and response.

There is a multiverse interpretation that is the same.

Antimatter/matter ratio is totally different than dark matter
(measurement). The chiral ratio is of the FSC inverse and the
134/132 eg as of the 127.

Of interest is some regular notion of propagation vis-a-vis
transport at 0.5c and "warp speed".

Thank you I saved a copy. If I play it back as often as a book,
it'll be on and off a shelf for years. Thanks, I plan to watch
this again.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:08:47 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Optical lenses or focused radio effect?

This is where EM and sound etc attenuate
through space [1] but lenses are focus-ed (to focus,
refining the optical line of sight in the tunnel).

[1] in media

[Pentcho Valev]

Physics needs a resurrection rather than a revolution (Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate killed it):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

Pentcho Valev

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Professor Turok does note some interesting new limits
of the new refinements as atomic lattice clocks as
superceding atomic clocks. There are some troubling
numbers and really I'm not for "another" warp effect
as to that there already "would" be. Then, with these
notions we can take off or out of the high energy regime,
also a lot goes to model refinement, for the neat and
tidy usual progression of things.

Still it is the standard kilogram and etc, really, these
branch limits at the point of effect here with the
light transport model, and co-transport, you see this could
discover an efficiency in terms of the means.

All the standard is quite well held up, thank you, again
these are usual astronomical concerns and of the fabric.
Of course, as those are relativistic and absolute systems
in effect, and other effect's models are based on these,
as well this could help centralize and annotate regular
models of field effect (extra-ordinary fields).

[Pentcho Valev]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9lgX8GaE
The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything - Neil Turok Public Lecture

At 1:27:22 Neil Turok suggests that Einstein's general relativity is wrong. Actually it is not even wrong. Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not, to use Einstein's words, "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf
Michel Janssen, The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard

The making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting" ("empirical models") as defined here:

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Note that the parameters of the empirical model "do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property". So Einstein's general relativity idiotically predicts that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.popsci.com/einsteins-theory-general-relativity-turns-100-and-is-still-full-surprises
"That sensation eluded most of his colleagues back then, and it still does. They study Einstein's greatest insight without fully grasping how he achieved it, or what it meant to him; they typically don't "feel relativity in their bones," in the words of Columbia University theoretical physicist Brian Greene. The lack of understanding comes from a sticky misconception of what general relativity is, even among those who spend their careers making use of it. It is broadly described as a theory of gravity, but it is not just a theory. It is written out as a series of equations describing how objects move, but it is not just equations. General relativity is best thought of as a landscape, both literally and figuratively."

Yes, unlike special relativity, general relativity is "a landscape", or "a classified catalogue", or "a purely empirical enterprise":

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." x

Pentcho Valev