info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Perimeter Institute: Time in Cosmology
67 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jun 28, 2016, 9:31:51 AM6/28/16
to
https://perimeterinstitute.ca/conferences/time-cosmology
The plan is to bring together for critical and focused discussions several of the most influential and provocative contemporary thinkers on these questions. We hope to involve leaders with diverse views on the nature of time. Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 2:30 – 4:00pm. Fundamental Time, Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute, Joao Magueijo, Imperial College London
These two leaders used to reject Einstein's relative time whenever they were writing bestsellers:
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. [...] Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."
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..."
At present Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin are not writing bestsellers and accordingly can think of no reason why Einstein's relative time should be rejected. They are both going to sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" at the conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00
"No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."
Pentcho Valev
The plan is to bring together for critical and focused discussions several of the most influential and provocative contemporary thinkers on these questions. We hope to involve leaders with diverse views on the nature of time. Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 2:30 – 4:00pm. Fundamental Time, Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute, Joao Magueijo, Imperial College London
These two leaders used to reject Einstein's relative time whenever they were writing bestsellers:
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. [...] Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."
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..."
At present Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin are not writing bestsellers and accordingly can think of no reason why Einstein's relative time should be rejected. They are both going to sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" at the conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00
"No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jun 28, 2016, 2:06:03 PM6/28/16
to
Judging from hints in this article, one may be going to abandon Einstein's idiotic spacetime at the "Time in Cosmology" conference:
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/06/28/483805061/has-physics-gotten-something-really-important-really-wrong
Adam Frank, Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?
The idea is not new:
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/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
https://indico.cern.ch/event/375104/page/7290-general-public-session
On Saturday July 2nd, 2016, a session for the General Public entitled "Cordes & Maths" ("Mathematics of Superstrings") is organized at Collège de France, in collaboration with the séminaire Poincaré and the Clay Mathematics Institute. 16h45: Nima Arkani-Hamed (IAS, Princeton): "Physics and Mathematics for the End of Spacetime"
However abandoning spacetime entails admitting that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false - an admission that, in my view, Einsteinians would never make:
http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/06/28/483805061/has-physics-gotten-something-really-important-really-wrong
Adam Frank, Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?
The idea is not new:
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/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
https://indico.cern.ch/event/375104/page/7290-general-public-session
On Saturday July 2nd, 2016, a session for the General Public entitled "Cordes & Maths" ("Mathematics of Superstrings") is organized at Collège de France, in collaboration with the séminaire Poincaré and the Clay Mathematics Institute. 16h45: Nima Arkani-Hamed (IAS, Princeton): "Physics and Mathematics for the End of Spacetime"
However abandoning spacetime entails admitting that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false - an admission that, in my view, Einsteinians would never make:
http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jun 28, 2016, 5:33:01 PM6/28/16
to
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 7:31:51 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> At present Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin are not writing bestsellers and
> accordingly can think of no reason why Einstein's relative time should be
> rejected.
And both of them are much, much smarter than Puerile Pentcho. They also
>
> At present Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin are not writing bestsellers and
> accordingly can think of no reason why Einstein's relative time should be
> rejected.
know that relative time is confirmed by all valid measurements of time.
> However abandoning spacetime entails admitting that the underlying
> premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false
winning.
Gary
Pentcho Valev
Jun 29, 2016, 10:21:23 AM6/29/16
to
In 2000 the journal Nature informed the world about the discovery of light pulses that can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal speed of 300000 kilometers per second, but Neil Turok heroically saved Einstein's relativity by saying "I doubt this will change our view of the fundamental laws of physics":
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
July 19, 2000: "For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/speed_of_light.html
"SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second. [...] Exact details of the findings remain confidential because they have been submitted to Nature, the international scientific journal, for review prior to possible publication. [...] This weekend Wang said he could not give details but confirmed: "Our light pulses did indeed travel faster than the accepted speed of light. I hope it will give us a much better understanding of the nature of light and how it behaves." [...] Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University, said he awaited the details with interest, but added: "I doubt this will change our view of the fundamental laws of physics."
Countless experiments have shown that the speed of light is NOT CONSTANT but Neil Turok and his brethren Einsteinians couldn't care less:
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857
"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860
http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"
http://www.kltv.com/story/32333683/according-to-china-physics-news-the-experiment-of-alternating-electricity-could-be-superluminal-which-challenges-the-theory-of-relativity
"In February 2015, Chang published a paper: “Measurement of Time Delay of Alternating Electric Field in Wires” on an open access journal Modern Physics with graduate student K. Liao and Dr. Jing Fan. They published three more papers later. The latest research paper was published in November 2015, which has a title: “The Speed of Alternating Electricity Can Be 20 Times Faster than the Speed of Light”. [...] This superluminal experiment has been repeated in more than 5 laboratories worldwide."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
July 19, 2000: "For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/speed_of_light.html
"SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second. [...] Exact details of the findings remain confidential because they have been submitted to Nature, the international scientific journal, for review prior to possible publication. [...] This weekend Wang said he could not give details but confirmed: "Our light pulses did indeed travel faster than the accepted speed of light. I hope it will give us a much better understanding of the nature of light and how it behaves." [...] Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University, said he awaited the details with interest, but added: "I doubt this will change our view of the fundamental laws of physics."
Countless experiments have shown that the speed of light is NOT CONSTANT but Neil Turok and his brethren Einsteinians couldn't care less:
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857
"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860
http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"
http://www.kltv.com/story/32333683/according-to-china-physics-news-the-experiment-of-alternating-electricity-could-be-superluminal-which-challenges-the-theory-of-relativity
"In February 2015, Chang published a paper: “Measurement of Time Delay of Alternating Electric Field in Wires” on an open access journal Modern Physics with graduate student K. Liao and Dr. Jing Fan. They published three more papers later. The latest research paper was published in November 2015, which has a title: “The Speed of Alternating Electricity Can Be 20 Times Faster than the Speed of Light”. [...] This superluminal experiment has been repeated in more than 5 laboratories worldwide."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jun 29, 2016, 11:43:38 AM6/29/16
to
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 8:21:23 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> In 2000 the journal Nature informed the world about the discovery of
> light pulses that can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal
> speed of 300000 kilometers per second, but Neil Turok heroically saved
> Einstein's relativity by saying "I doubt this will change our view of
> the fundamental laws of physics":
Turok is right, Puerile Pentcho is wrong because he doesn't understand
>
> In 2000 the journal Nature informed the world about the discovery of
> light pulses that can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal
> speed of 300000 kilometers per second, but Neil Turok heroically saved
> Einstein's relativity by saying "I doubt this will change our view of
> the fundamental laws of physics":
physics.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
> July 19, 2000: "For generations, physicists believed there is nothing
> faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles
> per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a
> pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the
> chamber before it had even finished entering.
doesn't arrive at some point at the same time, so a pulse can leave a
distance L before it finishes entering. Secondly, cesium vapor is highly
absorbing but takes a while after the front of a pulse enters it to achieve
maximum absorption, so the whole back end of the pulse doesn't make it out
of the chamber.
Also, this experiment has nothing whatever to do with Puerile Pentcho's
preposterous claim that the speed of light is dependent on the motion of
its source.
> Countless experiments have shown that the speed of light is NOT CONSTANT
> but Neil Turok and his brethren Einsteinians couldn't care less:
the perfidiously false claim that the speed of light is dependent on the
motion of its source.
Remainder of regurgitated baloney deleted.
Gary
Pentcho Valev
Jun 29, 2016, 2:30:45 PM6/29/16
to
In Einstein's schizophrenic world the realist question "Is time absolute, Newtonian, or relative, Einsteinian?" is meaningless. Scientists accept both concepts of time (even though they are incompatible and accordingly one of them is unavoidably false) and are going to create a new theory, quantum gravity, in which the absolute time and the relative time will gloriously coexist:
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
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?"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
Pentcho Valev
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
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?"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jun 29, 2016, 9:09:57 PM6/29/16
to
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 12:30:45 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> In Einstein's schizophrenic world the realist question "Is time absolute,
> Newtonian, or relative, Einsteinian?" is meaningless. Scientists accept
> both concepts of time (even though they are incompatible and accordingly
> one of them is unavoidably false) and are going to create a new theory,
> quantum gravity, in which the absolute time and the relative time will
> gloriously coexist:
Puerile Pentcho perpetrates perfidious poppycock. Quantum electrodynamics
>
> In Einstein's schizophrenic world the realist question "Is time absolute,
> Newtonian, or relative, Einsteinian?" is meaningless. Scientists accept
> both concepts of time (even though they are incompatible and accordingly
> one of them is unavoidably false) and are going to create a new theory,
> quantum gravity, in which the absolute time and the relative time will
> gloriously coexist:
marries QM with special relativity; hence, time is NOT absolute in QED.
Any quantum gravity theory must obviously agree with QED, not the old-style
QM.
Remainder of regurgitated poppycock deleted.
Gary
Pentcho Valev
Jun 30, 2016, 7:25:50 AM6/30/16
to
Einsteinians return to Newtonian space and time (go to 53:28 in the video):
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116
FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:28
The reactions of the participants show that in Einstein schizophrenic world this could only be a joke - after all, career and money can only come from Divine Albert's Divine Theory:
http://s8int.com/images9/eistein.jpg
Pentcho Valev
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116
FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:28
The reactions of the participants show that in Einstein schizophrenic world this could only be a joke - after all, career and money can only come from Divine Albert's Divine Theory:
http://s8int.com/images9/eistein.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jul 1, 2016, 3:37:34 AM7/1/16
to
Integrity in Perimeter Institute:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok, September 2013: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://blog.physicsworld.com/2015/06/22/why-converge/
June 2015: "My view is that this has been a kind of catastrophe - we've lost our way," he [Neil Turok] says."
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060107
Neil Turok, June 2016 (11:47): "Physics is in a golden age. It really is."
Pentcho Valev
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok, September 2013: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://blog.physicsworld.com/2015/06/22/why-converge/
June 2015: "My view is that this has been a kind of catastrophe - we've lost our way," he [Neil Turok] says."
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060107
Neil Turok, June 2016 (11:47): "Physics is in a golden age. It really is."
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages