The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What's the Matter with Einstein?  (Read 7733 times)

Offline purrcy

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • http://home.mminternet.com/~purrcy/
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« on: 08/11/2004 20:00:05 »
Several years ago, while I was thinking about dark matter and how we had misplaced 96% the matter in the universe, I realized that something was very wrong with how we perceived matter and that something was fundamentally wrong with physics.  To think that 96% of the matter in the universe is invisible, right in front of our eyes and we can't see it except for its interaction with matter is a very unsettling thought.  All we know about this dark matter is that it is responsible for holding our galaxies together.  The conclusion that I reached was that their is something fundamentally wrong with the physics concerning matter and that their must have been a moment in our past where physics took the wrong path in its evolution.  Since Albert Einstein marked the beginning of the age of modern physics with his Special Relativity theory I decided to begin there.

Einstein based his theory on the fact that light has the same speed for all observers.  He didn't bother to determine why it is so, just that the Lorentz transformation must be a result of its fact.  Since then, nobody has bothered to determine just why light travels at the speed that it does, and no other!  Einstein did not bother to include the multidimensional state of matter, nor the possibility that time might be multidimensional even though he required the use of the square root of minus one in his equations.  We should have known that their must be something wrong with Relativity when it disagreed with Quantum Mechanics, and when it predicted that it takes an infinite amount of energy to force a particle of mass to reach the speed of light!  It is amazing that no one has determined why!

Ever since I was a graduate student I have been bothered that a particles mass must increase with its speed.  That was the point when it became apparent to me that particles don't reach the speed of light, waves do; and, in particular, matter waves do.  It then became a question of "when does a particle become a wave?"

A close examination of  Quantum Mechanics shows that Schrodinger's equation, and, in particular, the operator for momentum, indicates that a particle's motion occurs as a wave;  and as a wave it travels at the speed of light with an energy of h-bar omega. Thus a particle is stationary except when it is in motion as a wave!  Relativity indicates that the wave travels in imaginary time and that the particle is stationary during real time.

An object travels at a speed v by converting a portion of its particles to waves, those waves displace a distance dx, and those waves then convert back to particles.  This cycle continues until all the particles in the object are displaced a distance dx.  Then these cycles repeat causing the object to move at the speed indicated.  The distance dx is on the order of 10exp(-30) cm. during an imaginary time interval on the order of 10exp(-40) sec. The motion appears to be continuous.  Motion on an object is similar to that of a Slinky moving down a staircase.  During a cycle the particle's time has the form

T=T*{SQRT(1-VV/CC) + iV/C}
where the real part is the time during which the particle is at rest, and the imaginary part is the time during which the wave travels the distance dx.  The real time is the time during which the particle ages.  Mass does not age during imaginary time.  This complex number has a magnitude which is conserved and is independent of speed.  Likewise, the matter in the object has the form
M=M*{SQRT(1-VV/CC) + iV/C).
The real term is the mass of the object and the imaginary term is the equivalent mass of the wave, which comes from E=M*CC.  The velocity of the object is then

v = cSIN(phi)
where phi is the phase of the complex numbers.

In the absence of a potential field the object will continue its motion by continuously performing the mentioned state changing cycles.  In the presence of a potential field the object will accelerate by increasing or decreasing the number of particles each moment that undergo the state changing cycles.  This theory of motion is seen to be quite different than Newton's F = MA.  A particle in a field will be coaxed by that field into using its own energy to change its states and displace the distance dx.  Motion does not have to be forced!  With the proper field motion of an object can be enticed to happen naturally.  An object can be enticed to reach relativistic speed by converting all of its mass into kinetic energy.  The equations of Classical Mechanics can be derived from this model by making the approximation that v is much less than c.

We can now understand that all observers, no matter how fast they travel, will spend some time in the real dimension of time, during which they can measure the speed of light.  Observers, being objects of mass, experience life in real time, and are completely unaware of imaginary time.  During that real time all observers are stationary, at rest, and each will determine the same number for the speed of light!  Also, the questions concerning Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are resolved:  a particle's position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously simply because they don't occur at the same time.  The relation for energy and time are equally resolved:  A particle doesn't experience its kinetic energy except during imaginary time.  It is amazing that Heisenberg had this insight concerning uncertainty without understanding why.

Their is one more thing about relativity that needs correcting:  The requirement that all particles are stationary during their real time and travel at c, the velocity of light, during its imaginary time, means that matter "knows" what stationary is, or zero velocity, and that it "knows" the value of c.  This requires that an absolute reference does exist!  In which case Relativity really doesn't exist!!  The principles of Relativity are now inherent in the principles and equations of Quantum Mechanics.  

Formalization of this new Wave Theory of Matter will require the use of mathematics from Quantum Mechanics, fluid dynamics, Maxwell's equations and Maxwell-like equations concerning wave probabilities.  We can see that a hole has a large curl and a relatively small divergence for its appetite for matter and its Hawking radiation, and that it exists entirely in its wave state and in imaginary time.  A hole exists in a different place and time, appearing to us as a singularity.  A star has a large kinetic energy requiring its mass to exist mostly in its wave state, and the star ages at a comparatively small rate.  Dark matter is simply matter waves, or the dark side of matter. And microwave background radiation is really matter waves passing through "our" universe from outside.  The subject of the Big Bang may have to be revisited now.  Physics now takes on a modern flavor.  And a unifying theory may be just around the corner.

So what does all of this mean?  When we learn to produce the proper field artifically we will be able to entice an object into the desired motion without forcing it to do so.  It will be a much more efficient way to produce motion.  Transportation of people and goods will be done cheaply, efficiently, very quickly and silently without roads and the polution that is presently the case.  We will be able to produce engines that don't use fossil fuel, and we won't have to fight wars to secure the remaining fuel on earth.  Space travel to anywhere will be possible, and done in imaginary time without anyone aging in the process.  A new source of energy will be available by using the field to convert any mass into kinetic energy and transforming this energy into a more useful form.  This model holds answers to questions from every field of physics.  Scotty, beam me up, the future is here!

Ron Poteet
11/1/4
« Last Edit: 26/03/2006 23:41:46 by daveshorts »


 

Offline Raedon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #1 on: 11/11/2004 09:36:44 »
as a philosopher and not a Scientist I honestly haven't been reading any theories..  It's just not my gig.

I just posted this so please forgive me but time is not what it seems.  TOE is a dream based on a reality we will never be able to comprehend until after we pass on or have major CNS upgrades.  I do not see how everyone can get so excited in the hopes that someone just won't ask something easy like, "Why does time seem to flow one way only?"

Everything I see does not really age, it only seems to because I need time for Ego support and to keep infinity from seeming finite (in a play on words way.)

  Tell people that in the afterlife all you do is watch a great Geometer spin it all at once and they usually say, "man, sounds boring!" They don't realize that infinity is a factor in the Universe we live.. this makes time and therefore, agenda worthless.

  Which is probably why we are here.  God has no agenda but that doesn't mean there are not two constants.  a perfect geometer and a perfect conciousness.  We all are Novelty of this "thinker" not because of boredom but because novelty of ego is needed?  It's hard not to put a human spin on things. lol




It is good to be alive! It's impossible I'm here but here I am.. and I rock!
 

Offline KennyC

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
    • http://www.kacweb.com
Re: What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #2 on: 25/11/2004 12:43:53 »
Ron, I am not a physicist, (but wanted to be one early in my life:) ), but have done quite a bit of reading, particularly wrt Special Relitivity and I've always been bothered by the assumption that light is "special" and that it is "set" to be constant and everything else revolves around that. I don't have the mathematics to work out alternatives, but I really wonder what might happen is we set something else to the constant .. space or time or ? and worked out the equations.

KAC
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #3 on: 01/12/2004 16:36:45 »
quote:
Originally posted by purrcy


...Their is one more thing about relativity that needs correcting:  The requirement that all particles are stationary during their real time and travel at c, the velocity of light, during its imaginary time, means that matter "knows" what stationary is, or zero velocity, and that it "knows" the value of c.  This requires that an absolute reference does exist!  In which case Relativity really doesn't exist!!  The principles of Relativity are now inherent in the principles and equations of Quantum Mechanics...

Ron Poteet
11/1/4




In order for the Lorentz contraction, time dilation, and mass transformation features of special relativity to make some sense, you have to use the same "world coordinate system" that was developed by Minkowski, and used by A. E. That is, the position of a point p is a function of a four-space:

p = f(x, y, z, -ict).

This differs fundamnetally from Euclidean/Gallilean space, even where we add "time"

p = f(x, y, z, t).

The difference is obvious, but its implications are subtle. Firstly, we finally have a consistent set of units. Time is now a space, just as x, y, and z coordinates. However, it is endowed with a very special property: Time is moving at the speed of light! So your observation that mass could not "know" about its speed through space is true, but it does know what its speed through Minkowski-space is, because it can be measured relative to time, which is already moving at c. Remember that no mass-energy may propagate faster than c? So what happens when we add a velocity through xyz space? Well, time slows down, since the total speed through Minkowski space must not exceed c. The Lorentz contractions, and (coupled to conservation-of-momentum) mass-transformation follows from these results.

Dark matter issues are no problem for relativity, in fact the observations that space is flat requires dark matter to make it true. Not too many years ago physicists knew about the electron and the proton. The neutron, neutrino, and quarks were discovered to fix problems with incomplete theory. Dark matter falls into the future category: A particle with interaction to gravitation, but not to electromagentic, weak, or strong forces. Actually, it may have been inevitable, whether its contribution to universal mass were 96%, or 4%. Its just convenient that it is so huge, that we can't easily overlook it.
 

Offline purrcy

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • http://home.mminternet.com/~purrcy/
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #4 on: 19/10/2009 22:29:11 »
What's the Matter With Einstein? - Part 2

It's be a while since I wrote Part 1 of this article and it needs an update.

It wasn't Einstein's fault that he was wrong about Relativity.  He suffered from the same problem that the rest of us have, Human Perception.  Plus he didn't have our perspective, that there is something fundamentally wrong with Physics.  Any Astronomer can tell you that Physics has not prepared him for what he is seeing in his new, hight tech, telescope.  Even some physicists are beginning to see the scope of this problem.

Human Perception.  Our eyes do not look out onto the Universe.  They only detect what light passes through them.  Our other senses only detect what touches them.  From our senses an image forms somewhere behind our eyes and between our ears.  This image is a mosaic of time-past, a result of light's finite speed.  Our brains were not meant to see Reality.  We must rethink Physic Dogma.

Consider a thought experiment:  flash bulbs are distributed equally distant, say one meter, throughout the Universe.  Two observers are placed somewhere, 100 light-years apart.  These flash bulbs are simultaneously flashed. What do these two observers see?  They see the same thing: a symmetric shell of light expanding at the speed of light with each of them placed at the center.  What can we say about this experiment?  We cannot see simultaneous events.  And each of these observers will experience time-zero at the location of the image within there brain.  Each of us experiences a unique and different time-zero relative to the events which occur within our perception.  The person sitting next to you exists in a different time-past than a different person you may see.  Everything that you see is time-past.  Time-zero is only a moment in time which quickly becomes time-past.  Obviously, we cannot say what future-time has in store for us.  Time-zero is the moment in time where we live.  Now, where is a point in space, as well as time.

Consider light to be the fundamental source of energy for the Material Universe (I'm leaving open the possibility that there may be other Universes out there.)  Everything in this Universe is made from this energy: matter, energy and time.  Our current understanding of the photon is that it has two states, the wave-state and the particle-state.  There is a third state of the photon that has not been considered, and that is the moment in time when a wave-state and a particle-state interact, which I call the phart-state for photon-particle interaction; in the future I will refer to the wave-state photon simply as the photon, and the three states of matter as the photon, the particle and the phart.

The photon is a vector and can be defined as

p = (c/f)e.

Where c is the speed of light, f is the frequency of the photon relative to a stationary reference, and e is the energy of the photon, a conserved quantity.  I will denote a vector by a bold-italicized font.  Since p is a vector it has a divergence and a curl, which satisfy the following equations:

div(p) = e

curl(p) = e

curl(curl(p)) = curl(e)


Of course, the above differential equations can have a source equal to zero, and the divergence can have a phase angle.  The first differential equation says that a photon has an energy, e, as is enters or leaves an object (and is equal to zero in free space,) The second differential equation, along with the third equation, defines a particle, and also says that a photon in free space has a shroud of energy equal to e, which also obeys the right-hand rule.

Photons are also vector potentials,

P = p/r

and photons can interact with other photons at a distance.  The mathematics of this interaction is more than I want to go into here.  Like the phart, this interaction is new to the physics world.

Consider that the curl of the photon has no other energy, except for it's shroud, than e.  The particle's energy lies completely within the photon's circular orbit; there is no translational kinetic energy.  A particle, without any other interactions, is stationary in space.  This means that matter recognizes a stationary frame of reference.  The motion of a body of matter occurs with sequential displacements of each particle within the body.  Practically, a body moves with ensembles of particles in motion at any moment in time, with the apparent speed of the object equal to v; the particles move as pharts, at the speed of light.  What we call time dilation shows us that these particles move in an imaginary dimension of energy and time, reducing the body's rate of time proportionately to the body's apparent speed. This leads us to the following equations for the state of a body in motion:

f' = f[square-root(1 – b^2) – ib]

M' = M[ditto]

b = (v/c)^2

The last equation comes from equating the classical kinetic energy to the ensemble energy (i.e. ensemble and time averages are equivalent.  Within the equation for mass, M', are the factors which define it's motion.  Ans f' shows us what time dilation really is.  The above equations shows us that property of time which guides the motion of a body is it's rate of time (in other words, it time dilation.)  Mass and rate of time are conserved quantities of the motion, and all states of the photon are quantum particles, and vectors.

One should understand that the only photons which we see are emitted photons which reach our eyes.  And that the image we see is something that only exists somewhere within our brains.  All mass in real time is stationary; and motion is an illusion, which is a property of human perception.
« Last Edit: 19/10/2009 22:33:34 by purrcy »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #5 on: 19/10/2009 23:58:59 »
You will find that everything makes perfect sense and all the "why" questions are answered when you consider an old idea that is more than a hundred years old. It has been in the background of physics all that time. All the great physicists knew about it, but dismissed it. Although there has never been any experiment that did not support it. James Clerk Maxwell advanced a hypothesis almost two hundred years ago that all of material things were actually reducible to electric and magnetic waves. The notion was that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality was the electromagnetic field.

Lorentz showed that if this were so, some very basic distortions would happen to matter when it was forced to move through space. The transformations that bear his name live on today. But, actually it was Poincare who did most of the heavy lifting to construct them.
 

Offline purrcy

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • http://home.mminternet.com/~purrcy/
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #6 on: 20/10/2009 00:02:26 »
Vern,

Do you have some references?  I'd like to read them.

Ron (purrcy)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #7 on: 20/10/2009 01:24:10 »
Look at the the evidence linked here then just do a Google search for Photonic Universe theories and you will be rewarded with many of the current photon-only universe schemes. There are many; all of them have the universe comprised of electric and magnetic change and nothing else, however they differ in the composition of the patterns that comprise matter. I have my own scheme, that works well for me, however, many others have different views.

Basically, it boils down to a fact that we don't like to contemplate; that fact is: nature behaves exactly as if its most basic constituent is the electromagnetic field. It is as in the words of giants of the past: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

We have danced around that great truth for many decades and dismissed it without much thought. However, it remains valid. So I suspect that within the next hundred years or so, we will finally get around to admitting that it is the reality.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #8 on: 20/10/2009 06:48:22 »
With some trepidation I will post on this thread. I fully expect to be shot down in flames, but then again, nothing ventured.

As an outsider, it seems we might be speaking with "forked tongues" when we describe "space".

On one hand, space is nothingness. It has no properties. Particles "whizz" around in space with no impediment to produce all the effects we consider to be our "reality".

On the other hand, we cheerfully describe space as being distorted by matter. Matter "bends" space.

Hang on just a moment. These two models seem (to me) to be slightly contradictory. What am I missing? (If it's a bunch of math, please don't waste your time - I won't get it)

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #9 on: 20/10/2009 12:26:25 »
Quote from: Geezer
With some trepidation I will post on this thread. I fully expect to be shot down in flames, but then again, nothing ventured.
Your post is well placed. Einstein assumed that space-time could be treated like any other variable. There is a much more simple explanation for relativity phenomena than that given by Einstein. An engineer tasked with designing a universe that consists of nothing more than electric and magnetic phenomena would immediately complain that any movement will distort material things in such a universe. In such a universe material things will be distorted by movement just as the Lorentz Transformations predict. Einstein knew about that, but dismissed it.

Einstein would have avoided that huge mistake if he had remembered Occums admonitions about simplicity.

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Quote from: the link
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[4]

« Last Edit: 20/10/2009 12:37:52 by Vern »
 

Offline purrcy

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • http://home.mminternet.com/~purrcy/
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #10 on: 21/10/2009 14:12:09 »
Conserved Energies:

All the conserved forms of energies take their places within [ditto],

[ditto] = [√(1 - α^2 - β^2 - γ^2 ...) -iα - jβ -kγ ...]

Where i, j, k, ..., are different orthogonal imaginary dimensions in energy and time.  And α, β, γ, ..., are the ratio of the conserved phart ensembles with their related classical forms.  All other equations in my second paper apply. 
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #11 on: 24/10/2009 03:14:35 »
What do all the equations imply. Usually we gather some insight about nature; we state the insight in simple terms; then we assemble the maths to support the insight. What is the insight that you propose?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #12 on: 09/03/2010 20:49:28 »
sorry, you lose me directly as you write "A close examination of  Quantum Mechanics shows that Schrodinger's equation, and, in particular, the operator for momentum, indicates that a particle's motion occurs as a wave;  and as a wave it travels at the speed of light with an energy of h-bar omega."

How do you come to this conclusion?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What's the Matter with Einstein?
« Reply #12 on: 09/03/2010 20:49:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums