The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?  (Read 2470 times)

Offline Alohascope

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« on: 29/01/2016 22:40:45 »
  http://www.britannica.com/biography/Pascual-Jordan

Jordan was perhaps the true founder and developer of Quantum Mechanics, and also developed the Zero Energy Universe theory which says matter can be made from nothing, so no singularity is needed to create the universe .. so while Jordan was almost removed from history 'because he had been a member of the Nazi Party' it is MORE likely he was nearly erased from history because he proved the Big Bang was not essential.  I expect we will hear more about Jordan as the Big Bang is discredited fully, especially now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dust.  Is it time for Penzias and Wilson to return their Nobel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe


 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #1 on: 30/01/2016 02:41:00 »
now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dust
You have mentioned this on several occasions now.
What proof are you referring to?
 

Offline Alohascope

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #2 on: 02/02/2016 01:12:52 »
now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dust
You have mentioned this on several occasions now.
What proof are you referring to?

I posted it here somewhere but have about two minutes left on the public access computer so can't find it right now.
 


Offline Alohascope

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #4 on: 02/02/2016 01:14:07 »
now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dust
You have mentioned this on several occasions now.
What proof are you referring to?
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-inflation-b-modes-signal-just-dust-0203201523/
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #5 on: 02/02/2016 05:43:12 »
Quote from: Space Flow on 30 January 2016, 13:41:00
Quote from: Alohascope on 30 January 2016, 09:40:45
now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dust
You have mentioned this on several occasions now.
What proof are you referring to?
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-inflation-b-modes-signal-just-dust-0203201523/
I see.
OK, how do I put this?
That was a claim for the detection of Primordial Gravitational Waves, within the light of the CMB. If it was true, it would have gone a long way into confirming "Inflation Theory".
As you see it wasn't a feature of the CMB at all but very rapidly spinning dust grains in our own Galaxy producing those B-Mode polarization signals.
That means that it wasn't a part of the CMB.
Not that that accounts for the CMB.
Two totally separate and different things.

Hope that helps.
 

Offline Alohascope

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #6 on: 05/02/2016 02:24:52 »
Quote from: Space Flow on 30 January 2016, 13:41:00
Quote from: Alohascope on 30 January 2016, 09:40:45
now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dust
You have mentioned this on several occasions now.
What proof are you referring to?
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-inflation-b-modes-signal-just-dust-0203201523/
I see.
OK, how do I put this?
That was a claim for the detection of Primordial Gravitational Waves, within the light of the CMB. If it was true, it would have gone a long way into confirming "Inflation Theory".
As you see it wasn't a feature of the CMB at all but very rapidly spinning dust grains in our own Galaxy producing those B-Mode polarization signals.
That means that it wasn't a part of the CMB.
Not that that accounts for the CMB.
Two totally separate and different things.

Hope that helps.

Of course it doesn't account for the CMB becasue there isn't a CMB and that's what the article says.  No CMB no Big Bang.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #7 on: 05/02/2016 03:42:40 »
Of course it doesn't account for the CMB becasue there isn't a CMB and that's what the article says.  No CMB no Big Bang.
Even though we are reading the same article, and I personally am extremely biassed when I claim that I understand what I read, we are getting a totally different understanding of what is being communicated here.
I have read that and all other reports pertaining to that story, and not once have I seen anything that even remotely suggests that there is no CMB.
In fact the B-Mode polarisation signals coming from spinning dust grains is part of the proof I use in one of my hypothesis, so I consider myself well aware of its characteristics and implications.
The claim that it was coming from the CMB was totally mistaken. As has been proven. It is in no way connected to the CMB.
There has never been a claim by anyone that this signal is the CMB.
The CMB is still there, and always will be. We have just not detected any B-Mode polarisation in it.

I strongly suggest you reread your posted article.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #8 on: 05/02/2016 03:52:16 »
What is probably causing your misconception is the fact that if we fail do detect B-Mode polarisation in the CMB, as that is a major prediction of Inflation theory, it casts major doubt on our current Big Bang/Inflation model of Cosmology.
It does not cast any doubt on the existence of the CMB, as that is a direct observation.
It is real. The theory built to explain what we see may not be.
 

Offline henrycalvin

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #9 on: 08/04/2016 08:34:50 »
Jordan joined the Nazi party, like Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, and, moreover, an SA unit. But at the same time, he remained "a defender of Einstein" and other Jewish scientists.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #10 on: 21/04/2016 13:13:48 »
I have a theory for inflation that does not need any assumption we can't prove in the lab.

Firstly, we know energy moves at the speed of light. While mass cannot move at speed of light; special relativity.

At the speed of light, of an energy reference, the universe will appear contracted to a point-instant; singularity. While since mass can't move at C,  a mass reference will always need to be a reference below C. Therefore a simple condensation of energy into mass, will require the point reference of C, to inflate. During the BB there is only one reference to worry about, with energy to mass changing that one reference; inflate.

As a visual analogy, if we could turn our body into pure energy, so we could exist at the speed of light, the universe would appear contracted to a point. If we wanted to put on the brakes and slow to below C, we would need to condense into matter. Light always moves at C, so that reference would always see a point universe. While since mass has to move slower than C, it will always see a universe reference larger than a point. Therefore a condensation of energy into matter will cause a universe point; reference singularity, to inflate to something finite.

The question becomes, which of the two references is the ground state? Most models assume matter is the ground state, because it is easier to observe from the earth and call this zero; made of matter.  However, if you look at our universe, there is a net conversion of matter to energy. In other words, more matter is going to energy, than energy is forming into matter in our observed universe. This means C is the ground state; state of lower potential.

In my model, the inflation; condensation of energy into matter, would be endothermic. You will not see much in the way of this energy signal, since all the energy is being absorbed into the higher potential of mass and reference inflation.

Since entropy requires energy, for the entropy to increase, the absorption of energy; endothermic inflation, if used for entropy, will cause rapid changes of state and disorder within the mass of the C- reference; big boom! The entropy increase adds disorder, discontinuities, forces and new states of particle matter, based on the absorbed energy and the entropy profile. The forces by being exothermic result in a return to the ground state; C.

I don't think we are looking for the correct energy profile. What is being called the inflation, is really what is happening right after the endothermic inflation; entropy inflation that introduces forces/photons. 
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #11 on: 24/04/2016 13:21:09 »
Using the speed of light, as the ground state of the universe, simplifies modeling the universe. The only assumption you need is the universe is lowering potential,net moving back to the C ground state.

For example, gravity causes local space-time to contract. In the limit of gravity; black hole, the space-time reference approaches that of the speed of light reference; singularity. Gravity is one way for mass to lower potential back to C. 

All the forces of nature give off energy as they lower potential. The forces output energy; generating C reference.

The expansion of the universe and red shift also connected to a movement back to C reference. At the speed of light, the universe will appear like a point-instant. This mean, at the speed of light reference, we will not be able to see any wavelength of energy less than infinite wavelength. The reason is, shorter wavelengths will be less than a point in size, which is not mathematically possible, by definition. The red shift of energy; expansion, is a movement of universal energy in the general direction of infinite wavelength; back toward C reference.

Gravity and expansion are two roads to the same place; gravity for mass and expansion for energy.

There are many path back to C, with some paths competing with others. For example, EM repulsion; matter gains potential, can inhibit gravity from contracting matter toward C reference. Both EM and gravity will try to go back to C, but in this case, they compete and will need to find ways to work together; phase changes that allow EM matter to release energy for red shift. This may occur by introducing fusion, and the nuclear forces, so electrons can drop energy levels; higher atoms. The release of energy adds to the C reference.


« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 13:24:34 by puppypower »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #12 on: 26/04/2016 13:46:59 »
Hypothetically, say we begin with a universe of pure energy. The question becomes, would a pure energy universe have gravity? One way to look at this is, if we only had pure energy, the only reference every single photons would see, would be the speed of light reference, since all the photons move at the speed of light.

For the pure energy to generate gravity, a secondary finite space-time reference will need to appear. This implies a secondary reference needs to appear that is less than C, using only photons which all move at C. There is a paradox.

If we assume C is the ground state of the universe; state of lowest potential, to form gravity and therefore a finite space-time reference less than C, the photons need to be induced into a state of higher potential, since they will need to depart from the ground state and gain potential with the ground state.

Since gravity will define a reference less than C, the appearance of gravity will generate a reference, less than C. This reference will make universe appear to expand. This expansion means that wavelengths shorter than infinite wavelength can now be seen.

The potential increase needed, will show up as a universal blue shift. It is sort of the chicken to the egg, where we get an affect that looks like gravity; blue shift, but it is not gravity, per se, since we only have photons and a pure C reference. We have not yet formed mass for this affect to stick as space-time. However, we have created a potential with the C ground state, by making shorter wavelength visible as reflected by the blue shift away from infinite wavelength.

Let me change directions to help explain the potential with the C ground state, that still retains a speed of light.

If you look the Doppler shift, things approaching will appear to blue shift, while things that move away appear to red shift. This is true of trains, galaxies and as well as the coming and going edges of rotations. These changes can all can be correlated to entropy. When things approach, they will get more compacted and ordered; entropy lowers. When things spread out; move away, they become less ordered so entropy will increase.

In the case of the Doppler shift, there is a n aspect of entropy that is relative to our observation reference. There is universal entropy changes such as fusion into atoms and phase change. There is also reference entropy; Doppler shift.

If I expand a gas it will cool; red shift. If I compress a gas it will get warming and blue shift. The expansion of the gas is based on the entropy increasing and absorbing energy; red shift.  The compression of the gas will lower the entropy and cause energy to be released; blue shift.

If we go back to our pure energy field, what appears to be gravity, as inferred by the blue shift of the energy, is due to the entropy of the energy decreasing. The exothermic output, from the lowering of the entropy, adds energy for the blue shift. The loss of entropy needed to make the pure energy appear to contract; blue shift, sets a potential with the ground state, while remaining at the speed of light. This  implies the speed of light reference has maximum entropy when the C reference is in the ground state.

I will explain this next time. Suffice to say, at the speed of light space-time breaks down. As a helpful analogy, the fabric of space-time will break down, at the speed of light, into separated threads of time and threads of space; see below. As separate threads, we can follow a time line, independent of space. Or follow a space line independent of time. This maximizes entropy at C.

Pure energy forming what appears to be a gravity field, as inferred by a blueshift, implies a local loss of entropy. The separate threads of time and threads of space begin to tangible, but have not yet formed into the weave of the fabric of space-time. I will explain this better next time.




« Last Edit: 26/04/2016 13:51:09 by puppypower »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #13 on: 27/04/2016 13:48:28 »
At the speed of light, the fabric of space-time will breaks down into separate threads of space and separate threads of time. If one followed a time thread, that was independent of space, one could know the history of the universe; simultaneously, at any point in space. This is called omniscience. If you could follow a space thread, that is independent of time, one can anywhere in the universe in zero time. This is called omni-presence. The reason this is possible is, since the speed of light reference makes the universe appear like a point-instant, one is already everywhere in the finite universe at the same time, with time all bunched into an instant. There is no violation of C.

The ability to follow separated time and/or space threads maximizes entropy, since endless combinations of movement in time without space restrictions and movement in space without time restrictions become possible. One can hop from thread to thread, both space and time; infinite entropy. To lower entropy, so we can increase the potential of infinite wavelength energy; blue shift, we will need to bunch or pile some of the time and space threads. Bunching places restrictions on infinite entropy.

If we look at gravity, gravity is an acceleration. Even the curving of space-time implies an acceleration. Acceleration has the units of d/t/t. In terms of the bunching of space and time threads, to get the acceleration of gravity, we will need to bunch one part space threads and two parts time threads. The bunching of the threads lowers entropy, with the potential causing energy to blue shift. The extra time threads curve; accelerate, the energy, with the composite affect appearing to be gravity.

Since mass, via GR, can fix and regulate local space-time, with space-time one part time and one part space, mass has a connection to the extra time threads.

One way to see this is via an analogy example. Say we have two references, side-by-side. One reference (a) is running faster in time than the other (b). I will begin reference (a) dribbling a basketball. What I want to do is continue dribbling the ball while placing my hand in the slow reference (b).  Since runs slower in (b) the ball will slow down, even though I am apply the same force to the ball. To get the ball to behave properly; same dribble pace as (a), I will need to push harder and exert more force.

After the ball hits the ground and rebounds in (b), the ball looks to be going at the same speed as (a).However, when I attempt to slow the ball for another push, I notice the inertia is higher for the velocity, as though the ball had gained mass. Changes in time reference, can alter inertia. Or extra time potential, embroidered into space-time creates mass, wth the amount of mass based on the amount of time potential that is embroidered into local space-time.

In terms of a creation of the universe visual; the bunching of one part distance and two parts time threads, is lowering infinite entropy with the potential difference appearing as a blue shift in infinite wavelength energy. Since this combination is also an acceleration, the energy appears within curving space-time. This is not gravity; per se. The energy needs to blue shifted to a high enough energy level where mass can appear from energy; inflation. Inflation, which creates a reference different from C, implies the pile of space and time threads becomes more ordered than a pile. It begin to form a more permanent weave for space-time.
« Last Edit: 27/04/2016 13:51:13 by puppypower »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #14 on: 29/04/2016 14:06:50 »
Let me add three more things to complete the model. These variables are special relativity, why a quantum universe, and distance potential for expansion.

Special Relativity affects, which are relative to reference, can violate energy conservation. Say we had two rockets moving in empty space, without a normalizing reference, with relative velocity V. One rocket has mass M and the other with mass 2M. If each rocket assumes the other is moving with relative velocity V, one rocket will see a total kinetic energy of MV2, while the other rocket will see a total kinetic energy of 1/2MV2. This is not possible, because one of the two reference will be creating or destroying energy in violation of energy conservation. To maintain energy conservation, only one reference scenario is possible. The motion of the two rockets can't be relative or arbitrary if energy conservation matter. There needs to be an absolute hierarchy or energy conservation will violated by one of the two references.

When dealing with special relativity for this model, which is centered on velocity, the hierarchy of reference needs to be based on energy conservation, which in this case is based on kinetic energy. One cannot just use relative velocity and ignore energy and assumed the energy balance will add up.

In kinetic energy, velocity is squared. It has the units of d-d/t-t which has the same units as a space-time reference within a space-time reference; space-time(space-time). Special relativity affects, which are consistent with energy conservation, will follow a reference in reference affect. The reference that has kinetic energy, creates a secondary reference in the main reference. In the twin paradox, only the moving twin has the reference in reference. He come back younger, consistent with energy conservation. The twin without energy; stays on earth, may see relativity, but he has only one reference, not reference in reference, due to insufficient kinetic energy; ages the same.

In this model, when mass condenses from energy (subset) from the C-ground state (set), we have inertial reference appearing in the speed of light reference. A reference in reference affect appear, with the secondary reference operating to the beat of its own drum; ages faster. An endothermic expansion can appear to exceed the speed of light, however,  it is a reference in reference affect, based on slowing from the speed of light. It never exceeds the speed of light, but slows from C. 

As a helpful analogy, say we have two rockets moving at the same velocity, side-by side. One rockets puts on the space brakes and begins to slow, creating relative motion. If you just woke up and looked outside, it may appear like the other rocket is moving away due to added thruster energy. But reality, the other rocket is losing energy, while gaining velocity. The lost energy is conserved, as brake heat, which heats up the rocket. There is zero change in energy in the rocket, however, kinetic energy is converted to brake heat energy.

Let me change direction and pose the question, why do we have a quantum universe? We know nature is quantized, but why is this the case? If we compare a continuous universe to a quantum universe, a quantum universe saves time. One way to look at this is to compare an infinite sided dice, with a dice with only six sides. The six sided dice has 1 in 6 odds for any given side coming up. While the infinite sided dice has odds of 1 in ∞. Therefore, if we needed to roll two 5's, the six sided dice allows this to occur faster. I saved time with the quantum dice.

If A and B needs to happen before C can occur, a quantum universe allows this to happen faster compared to a continuous function universe. Our quantum universe is connected to the fastest path back to the C-ground state. The lack of a quantum universe, would benefit inertial reference, and would make it persist forever.

The saving and conservation of time, induced by a quantum universe, versus a continuous universe, is not wasted. This  has a related use. When an electron drops an energy level, it can move in distance in zero time; quantum step. The saved time, appears as potential in distance. The saved time allows movement in distance via a discontinuity in time.

This affect; time to distance potential conversion, has been recorded since about 1826, with the invention of photography. The recorded affect is called motion blur. This is shown below. Motion blur occurs when the speed of the action is faster than the shutter speed. Since the photo stops time, the difference in speed (shutter and action) d/t, with time stopped, is conserved and shows up as uncertainty in distance. In the case of the universe, the action speed is at the speed of light, while the shutter speed is based on inertial reference, which can vary shutter speed.  Action is based on energy which travels at the speed of light.

In the case of the endothermic expansion, and the institution of the quantum universe, the saved time; gaps, appears as uncertainty in distance. This introduces distance potential; expansion. In the photo below, we get the impression of motion even with the dancer stopped in time. She appears spread out over distance in sequence; time is conserved as uncertainty in distance. Space-time is an artifact of a quantum universe, with space connected to the gaps in time. The makes space-time a wave function, cycling between time and distance, with distance forming in the quantum gaps of time.

If we go back, to form mass, we needed two parts time threads and one part distance treads. This is space-time embroidered with extra threads of time. This governed by the laws of GR. The quantum universe saves and conserves time, allowing time to distance potential conversion. This adds  to (time-space), within (space-time) or the reference n reference of SR. The result is the big boom!

I called the second reference of SR, time-space instead of space-time because quantum gaps in time come before the uncertainty in distance. This has practical use, which will try to develop the next time. Sufficient to say, in the twin paradox, the reference in reference  twin ages slower, but he comes back the same in size. There is no such things as permanent distance contraction once he loses reference in reference. Only the time change will persist. Time-space allows us to address persistencies in a very simple way, based on 0-D to 3-D time-space. Since this is connected to reference in reference, this superimposed on space-time; mass and GR.

 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #15 on: 30/04/2016 14:08:28 »
In terms of time-space; just as space-time has three dimensions of space  and one dimension of time;(x,y,z, t) time-space has three dimensions of time and one dimension of space; (t1, t2, t3, r).  The one dimension of space was chosen for reflected simplicity. In reality, both space-time and time-space are superimposed; reference in reference, allowing a more complete analysis in both space and time.

It is actually quite simple. T1 is 1-D time. This is connected to physical phenomena that contain one unit of time such as velocity; d/t. This can also include momentum; m d/t. T2 is 2-D time or expressions in nature, that contain two units of time, like accelerators; d/t/t. T2 will include all the forces. T3 is 3-D time and is an acceleration of an acceleration. One example is the accelerated expansion of the universe, which accelerates gravity, which itself is an acceleration.

Time-space is connected to a quantum universe and the saving of time in the gaps. The time saved, with time stopped between quantum states, is converted to distance potential; uncertainty in distance. This creates time-space.

The MDT Theory;

Let me change directions. About 12 years ago, I developed a model called the MDT theory. The MDT Theory, was a way to model/catalog all of physics and chemistry in terms of only three variables; mass, distance and time. The model allowed the predictions of dozens on new states of matter, and could catalog six universe creation scenarios. It allowed a way to catalog all the mainstream theories for cosmology; open and closed, as well as infer a few new theories.

The model was very flexible, and not just one way, which is why I tend to think it catalogs. I am considering developing the theory again, from scratch, as a new topic in new theories. I have placed this on the back burner, because its scope became overwhelming in terms of predicted states.

For now, I would like to present the foundation of the theory, with my original thinking.

If you look at the twin paradox, often used as an example for explaining Special Relativity, the twin in motion ages slower than the twin who remains on earth. If you look at the twin who aged less, due to motion, what this suggested to me was, all the laws of physics and chemistry, were simultaneously tweaked; simply by being in motion.

If we tried to make the twin age slower in the lab (without motion), we would need to somehow alter the very properties of energy and matter. We would need to tweak the EM force or maybe add mass to the electron, etc.Yet, according to Einstein and Special relativity, this complex set of changes, at the very foundations of physics and chemistry, could be equated;done, by changes in relativistic mass, distance and time.

Theoretically, I thought, it should be possible to model all of physics and chemistry, in terms of just those three variables; MDT. It took a few months to find the seam, but I was able to figure out how model/catalog all of physics and chemistry in terms of three variables; relativistic mass, distance and time. I call the three variables mass potential, distance potential and time potential.

The model was reduced to about a dozen diagrams; circular slide rules, where any change be can extrapolated to everything. It was well received when I first developed the model. I had a large following of physicists at a physics forum, but nobody knew how to comment. What I lacked was a bridge point, which took ten years to find and build. 


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Why is Pascual Jordan not as famous as Einstein?
« Reply #15 on: 30/04/2016 14:08:28 »

 

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