Consistency of Einstein's Spacetime and Newton's Absolute Time
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2018-01-06 14:36:35 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein's universe:

"...Lorenzo Maccone, of the University of Pavia in Italy, Seth Lloyd at MIT in Cambridge, USA, and Vittorio Giovannetti at the Scuola Normale Superiore, in Pisa, Italy. With support from a grant of almost $50,000 from FQXi, the three physicists are reviving a long-abandoned approach to quantum mechanics. They hope their strategy may make it possible to solve one of the biggest problems in physics: the apparent incompatibility of quantum mechanics, which governs the physics of the very small, and general relativity, which describes the motion of stars and planets. [...] In general relativity, space and time are woven together into a pliable thing called spacetime, but quantum mechanics runs on quaintly separate, classical notions of space and time. And when physicists try to apply the equations of general relativity to the realm of quantum mechanics, those equations spit out nonsense." http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/224

There is a similar problem in Bib Brother's universe. There scientists unite 2+2=5 (gloriously discovered by Big Brother) and 2+2=4, and likewise the equations spit out nonsense.

Needless to say, either universe is absolutely consistent:

Brian Greene: "String theory is the most developed theory with the capacity to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics in a consistent manner. I do believe the universe is consistent, and therefore I do believe that general relativity and quantum mechanics should be put together in a manner that makes sense. That's what string theory does, and to me, that's pretty convincing." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/conversation-with-brian-greene.html

"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/

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?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-01-07 09:38:22 UTC
Raw Message
Scientists repudiate Einstein's spacetime but it is a deductive consequence of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate. Accordingly, the postulate must be false - logic forbids the combination "true postulate, repudiated consequence". Nevertheless, scientists worship the postulate. They also worship the ripples in the repudiated spacetime "discovered" by LIGO conspirators:

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "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."

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

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.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. It was a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics."

"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.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe-ebook/dp/B00AEGQPFE

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick

Pentcho Valev