The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Mike's side topic on the photon and time  (Read 9381 times)

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #25 on: 01/02/2012 17:44:31 »
part the almost last

Quote
Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature,  near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole
Quote
Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...

Quote
I should have added and near zero entropy.
I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole.  The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.
Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size.  It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.
.

By complementary I meant they don't fit together - they do not complement each other - and they don't.  BUt I had not really grasped what you were getting at - I thought you were using the black hole as an example of the conditions - but you are saying that a universal black hole is the end state.  hmmm - interesting - problem is that that we have superclusters that we are pretty certain are not gravitationally bound.


 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #26 on: 01/02/2012 17:49:54 »
part the last

As a side issue, I believe the ground state of the Universe is as described above.  If, as believed by many the Universe is doomed to expand forever and ultimately die through lack of fuel.  It will never reach its ground state despite the ground state being more stable.  This is one reason that makes me believe it is not doomed to expand forever.

Is it truly a ground state if it will never reach it?  It is a stable end-state - and there are many stable end-states to the universe that have been postulated; but we do have to make a passing acquaintance with experimental observation, and things are not slowing, stopping and reversing
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #27 on: 02/02/2012 13:54:08 »
MikeS and his amazing technicolour dreampost

You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time.
  of course you can.  Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.

Quote
We know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time.  You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first.  In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity.  You say that “space-time does not require gravity”   It does, without gravity time has no arrow.  There is no space-time without gravity.  No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe.  Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.


you can have an instantaneous force - although not a perceived action or consequence.  gravity, to be seen or observed needs the passing of time, but does not have time as a component in the classical newtonian formulation F=GMmr^-2.   that time is dilated by differing gravitational potentials is different in a subtle way - the difference needs alternate positions of observation to be obvious - ie you cannot look at your watch and say Oh Time is dilated here.  time has a clear direction without gravity and there is spacetime without gravity - the whole of Special relativity is based on flat space time with non-accelerating frame of reference - ie there is no gravity there. 

As you say “.  gravity, to be seen or observed needs the passing of time, but does not have time as a component in the classical newtonian formulation F=GMmr^-2.”
So gravity, to be seen or observed does need the passing of time. 
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
The law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time.
You say “time has a clear direction without gravity and there is spacetime without gravity”.
In what way does time have a clear direction without gravity?  Please give examples.

SR is a special case of Relativity that purposely does not take into account gravity.  Fact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #28 on: 02/02/2012 13:55:12 »
part the second

Quote
Einstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that.
  Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.


Quote
I did say “to the best of my knowledge”.  Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?

I think the best way to think about it is the principle of least action - that without an outside impetus a particle will follow a path that minimizes certain combinations/calculations of potential and kinetic energy.  It could go around the houses and do loop-the-loops but the simplest, least energetic way is for it to follow the geodesic.  Einstein reversed the question to - why would it do anything else?

I agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?”
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #29 on: 02/02/2012 13:55:43 »
part the third

Quote
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.  We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance.
Quote
Acceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious
Quote from: Mike
Average acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt).  There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time.  Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity.  That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time.  However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration.  Have I made that clear?
 
OK - I See what you mean.  Will have to think and make sure there isn't a problem with that - it is very complicated


I do not think it is complicated at all it is very straightforward.  It is however totally alien to experience and not something that under normal circumstances we ever have to consider.

Lets look at what is happening from a different perspective.
Speed = distance/ time.  Speed is affected by two variables distance and time.  If you travel 10km in 1hour then your speed is 10km/h.
If time contracts by 50% then you are still traveling at 10km/h but you have actually accelerated. The acceleration being purely due to time contraction (time flowing faster).
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #30 on: 02/02/2012 13:56:06 »
Quote
Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.
 
Quote
Technically it is the gravitational potential

Quote
I agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”
[\quote]
The devil is in the details - in a complicated subject you are best advised to stick to the letter of law rather than try and expand it, unless you need to expand it.

I take you point.
Perhaps it would have been better if I had said
“Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass due to the gravitational potential caused by that mass”.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #31 on: 02/02/2012 13:56:32 »
The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time.  If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface.
Quote
Nope - gonna have to explain that more.[/color]
Quote
It is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.
The Earth is continually passing through space time.  The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth.  The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away.  The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth.  Each shell has a different time dilation factor.  The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth)  As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth.  From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?



that sounds like a 3d object changing in time - rather than a 4d spacetime.  a shell of a sphere or ball is a 2d/3d object.  I understand your problems - they are universal not unique.   I am sure you understand how to transform an object around the line y=x on a cartesian plane.   you need to be able to think of that level of transformation between space and time  - it isnt an object in space that changes in time, it is an object in spacetime.  This is one of the areas where maths actually help visualise the reality - will see if there is a nice webpage.  check out hyperphysics whilst I am looking - that is always good.

Different people interpret 4d space-time in different ways.
It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it.

As I understand it Einstein believed it to be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time.  If this is correct then the Earth is an object in space that changes in time, in as much as it passes through time.  The examples of time shells is a way of visualizing this.  Although there are many time shells, each one being one plank time thick, you only have to visualize two.  One at the surface of the Earth and the next one out.  As the Earth passes from a dilated time shell (or reference frame) into the next less dilated time shell (or reference frame) it is accelerating in space-time. This process is continuous.
I agree the math’s would help.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #32 on: 02/02/2012 13:57:04 »
It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say  aether.   This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface .  The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth.  As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time.  This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time.  All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time.  The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field.  As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence.  They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation.  As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time.  This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases.  The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system.  (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability.  For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor.  The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table)
 
Quote
You might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up[/color]

Quote
Quote
I have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters.  I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear.  I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.  Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.

My problem with this is that I already have a mathematically sound (that means that all the maths agrees with itself and there are no logical screw-up) and empirically good  (by that I mean that nothing has been shown to be outside the predictions and calculations of the model) theory to work on - and it does not involve the extras and add-ons. 

It isn't that there isn't room for improvement - but more that any improvements must be at least as good and must be more basic and simple.  ie they must have the same (or better predictive power), be logically and mathematically sound, AND have some little bit more insight to the lower fundamental concepts of what the hell is going on.   

You seem to be saying that you already have a mathematically sound model or theory of ‘Time’ and ‘Gravity”.  There is no mainstream theory of Time and Einsteins theory on gravity only goes so far.  What I have attempted to do is fill in some of the ‘holes’.

In a nutshell.
What we know as Time is the delay in light between traveling instantaneous and its measured finite speed.  This is due to the relationship between energy and gravity (energy/gravity) and manifests itself in the speed of light.

Gravity is acceleration in time caused by the warping of space by mass.  The warping of space by mass results in a graduated gravitational potential that accelerates mass by increasing the passage of time.

I fail to see how it could be any simpler than that.

The above model on Gravity and Time is very simple, consistent and fits in with what we think we know.  If you disagree, please be specific so that I may address the points you raise.

What predictions does this model make that require experimental verification.
Basically this model relies on the time dilation factor being the relationship of energy/time.  We already know that the gravitational potential gradient of mass dilates time (slows it down).  The model predicts that energy (photons) contracts time (speeds it up). 

We need an experiment to verify that a large input of energy can contract time.
If we knew the mass of the sun, we could theoretically calculate its time dilation factor.  The sun radiates a lot of energy and if this model is correct then that energy should contract the passage of time reducing the time dilation factor due to mass.  This could be experimentally tested by flying a probe containing an atomic clock either directly into the sun or in an inward spiral into the sun.  The probe should last long enough before it overheated to give a meaningful result.  If a similar experiment could be done on Earth then it would overcome most of the problems of correcting for red-shift etc.  Perhaps placing the atomic clocks sensor in a high temperature source would work.  It may well not work, as no matter how high the temperature, it may just be on too small a scale to have any affect on the passage of time.  This is similar to; too small a mass will not have any effect on gravitational potential.  A lot of mass is required to have any noticeable effect.  Likewise, it is probable that a lot of energy will be required to have a noticeable effect.

If this were to be verified then I believe the rest of the model just slots into place.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2012 12:35:21 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #33 on: 02/02/2012 13:57:36 »
part the almost last

Quote
Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature,  near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole
Quote
Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...

Quote
I should have added and near zero entropy.
I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole.  The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.
Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size.  It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.
.

By complementary I meant they don't fit together - they do not complement each other - and they don't.  BUt I had not really grasped what you were getting at - I thought you were using the black hole as an example of the conditions - but you are saying that a universal black hole is the end state.  hmmm - interesting - problem is that that we have superclusters that we are pretty certain are not gravitationally bound.




Yes, they are complimentary.
Zero useable energy is the same as zero entropy and these are the conditions you expect at zero temperature.  These are the conditions you find at a black hole along with zero passage of time and zero size.
I would be interested to know in what way you think they are not complementary???

Sorry I did not make it clear that I was talking about a black hole being the end state of the Universe.

I believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe.  The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do.

A simple analogy would be an explosion in a balloon (balloon - the universe).  The explosion inflates the balloon but ultimately gravity/entropy allows the balloon to deflate.

« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 12:14:10 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #34 on: 02/02/2012 13:58:16 »
part the last

As a side issue, I believe the ground state of the Universe is as described above.  If, as believed by many the Universe is doomed to expand forever and ultimately die through lack of fuel.  It will never reach its ground state despite the ground state being more stable.  This is one reason that makes me believe it is not doomed to expand forever.

Is it truly a ground state if it will never reach it?  It is a stable end-state - and there are many stable end-states to the universe that have been postulated; but we do have to make a passing acquaintance with experimental observation, and things are not slowing, stopping and reversing

I did say that as many believe the Universe to expand forever then it would never (under those conditions) reach its ground state.  That is one reason why I think they are wrong.

There may be many (postulated) stable end states to the Universe but the one I have mentioned is the ultimate ground state as it is the only one that is Totally stable.  It carries the arrow of time but the clock never ticks.  It is also probably the closest to the start conditions of the Universe. 

If, matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive, as I believe, then it is the end condition of our universe and the start condition of the next universe cycle but that's another story.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 12:05:56 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #35 on: 05/02/2012 10:19:45 »
imatfaal?

Anyone?
« Last Edit: 06/02/2012 08:05:34 by MikeS »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #36 on: 06/02/2012 16:05:47 »
Quote
The law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time. 
your implication - not necessarily true
Quote
In what way does time have a clear direction without gravity?  Please give examples.
Clearly done in other thread.
Quote
Fact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration
  No - not clearly true that everything is affected by gravity and acceleration
Quote
I agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?”
  Yes it does - but it is very involved and not understandable in hand-wavy terms.
Quote
Different people interpret 4d space-time in different ways. It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it.
  Space time - for most stuff and models to work must be able to be transformed and related mathematically with each other.  Maths is all that is needed to describe spacetime in these cases - the model is not less good because it is not transcribable into a language that is insufficient to convey its complexities (ie it is english that is lacking not the model)
Quote
Einsteins theory on gravity only goes so far
Barring the quantum level it is amazingly accurate and few feel it has many holes.
Quote
In a nutshell....
How does it do on the precession of mercury?
Quote
I believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe.  The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do.
Understand now - but again this is not what is observed or calculated.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2012 16:21:26 by imatfaal »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #37 on: 07/02/2012 10:56:16 »
Quote
The law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time. 
your implication - not necessarily true
Yes it is true.  The Laws of  Nature or Physics apply to the Universe.  Therefore, anything that happens has to happen within time.  Time is a measure of change and for something to ‘happen’ it does so within time.  If you have any examples of anything ‘happening’ (changing) outside of time I would be very interested to see them.
Quote
In what way does time have a clear direction without gravity?  Please give examples.
Clearly done in other thread.
I do not agree the issue has been resolved to show that time has a clear direction without gravity.
Quote
Fact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration
  No - not clearly true that everything is affected by gravity and acceleration
In the sense that SR applies in a special case to the Universe and everywhere in the Universe is affected by gravity then SR itself must be affected by gravity.  Likewise, everywhere, therefore everything in the Universe is affected by gravity, as everywhere in the Universe has a gravitational potential.
Quote
I agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?”
  Yes it does - but it is very involved and not understandable in hand-wavy terms.
That does not explain it. Mathematics is only a language that is sometimes more applicable than normal language.  Initially the thoughts to be expressed have to be formulated in words prior to being transcribed into the language of maths.   Therefore, it should be relatively easy to describe in terms of Relativity why a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity). 
My relativistic explanation is quite simply that the object is accelerating in time as explained in detail elsewhere in this thread.

Quote
Different people interpret 4d space-time in different ways. It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it.
  Space time - for most stuff and models to work must be able to be transformed and related mathematically with each other.  Maths is all that is needed to describe spacetime in these cases - the model is not less good because it is not transcribable into a language that is insufficient to convey its complexities (ie it is english that is lacking not the model)
How can you be sure that you have accurately transcribed something into mathematics if you cannot visualize it in the first place?  If you can visualize something then you can describe it in language.  I do however agree that certain subjects are difficult to adequately describe in language.
Quote
Einsteins theory on gravity only goes so far
Barring the quantum level it is amazingly accurate and few feel it has many holes.
I did not say it was not accurate.  I only said “Einstein’s theory on gravity only goes so far”.  This is true, as you say it does not include quantum gravity.
Quote
In a nutshell....
How does it do on the precession of mercury?
Fine thanks.  All I have attempted to do is explain what I believe to be, further detail or consequences of Relativity.  I am in no way denying the underlying truths contained therein
Quote
I believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe.  The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do.
Understand now - but again this is not what is observed or calculated.
This is true but I am sometimes less than convinced that what we think we are observing is necessarily being interpreted in the correct manner.  The cosmological red-shift for example.   Our knowledge is still very limited and I suspect that the Universe will ultimately find a way of reaching its true ground state.  It still has many billions of years to go.
MikeS replies in green.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #38 on: 07/02/2012 11:24:44 »
Without quotes cos it would get too long
1.  Which law of physics are you talking about? 
2.  It has to mine.  A box of two gases in the intergalactic void will mix and will almost certainly not unmix. 
3.  The explanation of the box of gases will not include gravity
4.  Sorry - but Maths isn't just helpful, it is essential.  English is merely useful and maths is necessary when it comes to physical laws.  Much of modern physics is not visualizable - everything from complex numbers, thru length contraction, to wave/particle duality are completely non-instintive and non-realizable in the human brain;  we overcome this using maths.  Now matter how many wordy handwaving popularisations of science are produced the crux of the matter is that science in the last century is mathematical first and heuristic later.
5.  Because the mathematical model is tight, self-referential, constrained, and doesn't contradict itself.  You will have seen me defending SR on many occasions from accusations that "something is wrong within it", "it doesn't work out", "this thought-experiment shows it to be false" etc.  Because SR is so constrained - it has only two axiomata and the model is simple - the only way to show that SR is incorrect is experimentally, which will show one of the two axiomata to be false.  SR cannot be wrong in any other way.  GR is much more complicated and the maths is so much more involved that it is possible for faults to be found and improvements made.  Some of the extreme parts of QM rely on maths that is sometimes quite unusual and thus the theory holds only as long as the maths does - at present the experimental proof shows that the maths is correct.  And at the far end of the spectrum String Theory has created maths to further the search for physical laws.
6. So it doesn't.  GR does not concern itself with underlying truths - that is the problem of philosophy and pop science, it concerns itself with modelling and predicting.
7. But your knowledge of the means of interpretation is so biased by the fact that you cannot do the actual sums and are relying on gut instinct which does not work.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #39 on: 07/02/2012 13:12:14 »
Without quotes cos it would get too long
1.  Which law of physics are you talking about? 
Thermodynamics, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
2.  It has to mine.  A box of two gases in the intergalactic void will mix and will almost certainly not unmix.
True
3.  The explanation of the box of gases will not include gravity
False.  If the same experiment is done in a high gravitational potential more energy will be required to mix the gases.  This may manifest itself as the gasses mixing at a different speed. Even if they mix at the same speed in their own local time frames they will be seen to mix at different speeds according to a distant observer.  The experiment will show that gravity does play a part and that part defines the arrow of time.
4.  Sorry - but Maths isn't just helpful, it is essential.  English is merely useful and maths is necessary when it comes to physical laws.  Much of modern physics is not visualizable - everything from complex numbers, thru length contraction, to wave/particle duality are completely non-instintive and non-realizable in the human brain;  we overcome this using maths.  Now matter how many wordy handwaving popularisations of science are produced the crux of the matter is that science in the last century is mathematical first and heuristic later.
I agree with most of what you say but still have difficulty in imagining how you can mathematically model what you can't visualise in some manner.
5.  Because the mathematical model is tight, self-referential, constrained, and doesn't contradict itself.  You will have seen me defending SR on many occasions from accusations that "something is wrong within it", "it doesn't work out", "this thought-experiment shows it to be false" etc.  Because SR is so constrained - it has only two axiomata and the model is simple - the only way to show that SR is incorrect is experimentally, which will show one of the two axiomata to be false.  SR cannot be wrong in any other way.  GR is much more complicated and the maths is so much more involved that it is possible for faults to be found and improvements made.  Some of the extreme parts of QM rely on maths that is sometimes quite unusual and thus the theory holds only as long as the maths does - at present the experimental proof shows that the maths is correct.  And at the far end of the spectrum String Theory has created maths to further the search for physical laws.
I agree
6. So it doesn't. ? GR does not concern itself with underlying truths - that is the problem of philosophy and pop science, it concerns itself with modelling and predicting.
But you mentioned the precession of mercury which is a SR affect and it was therefore SR and not GR that I commented upon.
7. But your knowledge of the means of interpretation is so biased by the fact that you cannot do the actual sums and are relying on gut instinct which does not work.
It is true that I can't do the maths I wish I could.  I am relying on far more than gut instinct and most of what I have said in this thread is only building upon what we think we know a little. This model is very simple, consistent, based upon what we think we know and easily explained even without maths.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2012 16:13:04 by MikeS »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #40 on: 07/02/2012 18:10:43 »
Mike - sorry but you are out of your depth.  you aren't even getting the bits about grav potential correct and you are failing to understand the relative bit of relativity.  you just need to go and read up on this rather than wading blindly on.

Physics is awesome and will provide endless entertainment for the enlightened mind - but what you are doing is not physics. 
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #41 on: 27/02/2012 08:40:39 »
Mike - sorry but you are out of your depth.  you aren't even getting the bits about grav potential correct and you are failing to understand the relative bit of relativity.  you just need to go and read up on this rather than wading blindly on.

Physics is awesome and will provide endless entertainment for the enlightened mind - but what you are doing is not physics. 

This kind of comment is just not helpful, being specific would be. Where you have been specific, I have answered your queries.
I really cannot agree.  I have answered all of your queries which is far more than you have done.  At no time do I feel that you have come up with any argument to make me believe that I could be wrong.  I am a reasonable person with an open mind and open to new ideas.  Yes, my knowledge, like everyone's, is limited but I always try to work with what is generally believed to be known.  I never offer ideas, models or theories that are outside of what is certainly possible, indeed even probable.  Although this is in the new theories section it is still physics.

I would have replied earlier but my PC demonstrated the arrow or time by dying and I have only just got it back.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Mike's side topic on the photon and time
« Reply #41 on: 27/02/2012 08:40:39 »

 

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