Arrow of Time II
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Inertia still lying for Einstein
Next: Doctrine of need
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Jun 2010 11:31 On Jun 26, 11:34 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------- Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking and assessing degrees of indoctrination, perhaps you would like to comment on the following scientific arguments. (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle]. (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and everywhere else in the Universe. (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure untested speculation, and indicates an unscientific atitude. (4) Are there alternatives to (2)? Yes! And at least one very natural and promising new paradigm. It is called Discrete Scale Relativity and you can explore this completely different understanding of nature at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . The main idea is that gravitational coupling is not absolute, but has a discrete self-similar scaling. (5) So what does Discrete Scale Relativity offer to make the time spent studying it worthwhile? (a) Explains the meaning of Planck's constant. (b) Explains the meaning of the fine structure constant. (c) Retrodicts the correct radius for the hydrogen atom. (d) First correct Gravitational Bohr Radius. (e) Correct radius of the proton. (f) Correct mass of the proton with Kerr-Newman solution of GR+EM. (g) Resolution of the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis. (h) Range of galactic radii. (i) Correct galactic spin periods. (j) Correct binding energy for H atom. (k) Much improved Planck Scale that is self-consistent and sensible. (l) A reasonable quantum gravity theory (m) The key to reconciling GR and QM. Yours in science, RLO http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
From: Tom Roberts on 27 Jun 2010 11:42 Mitchell Jones wrote: > In article <Ou2dnSrelu1cer_RRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com>, > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >>> Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical >>> interaction that violates causality. >> I'm not sure what "violates causality" means. > > ***{The notion of an uncaused event violates causality. Hmmm. that of course presupposes a useful definition of "cause". My main point is that using the NAIVE notion of causality, this is not possible. You, and Oldershaw, have a rather vague notion of what you mean, but have not given any specific definition. Indeed, given the long history of the subject, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you, or anybody else, can do so. > The importance of the law of causality WHAT "law of causality" ???? >> Note that classical electrodynamics does indeed have causality in the modern >> sense > > ***{There is nothing "modern" about equating correlation, Go back and read what I wrote. This is not at all what causality means in modern physical theories like classical electrodynamics. The meaning is VERY different from what you are trying to discuss. > ***{There is nothing "naive" about the idea that no thing may come into > existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing (the principle of > continuity), That is known as conservation of energy and momentum, not "causality". This is indeed not naive. But if you confuse this with "causality" the discussion becomes hopeless.... Tom Roberts
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 11:55 On 6/27/10 10:31 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 26, 11:34 pm, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking and assessing degrees > of indoctrination, perhaps you would like to comment on the following > scientific arguments. > > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been > measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle]. Physics in free fall Dropping supercold atoms may prove useful for understanding general relativity http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60357/title/Physics_in_free_fall Condensate created in freefall http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42949 > > > (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain > that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and > everywhere else in the Universe. Gravitational constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#The_GM_product "The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 10−67 newtons, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles is approximately 10−28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1039) greater than the force of gravity — roughly the same ratio as the mass of the Sun compared to a microgram mass". > > > (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure > untested speculation, and indicates an unscientific atitude. Actually G appears to be a "universal constant" of nature and therefor is applicable at all scales and ranges. There is NO observational evidence that it is not valid at the atomic scale where it is overwhelmed by the strength of the electromagnetic force by 37-38 orders of magnitude.
From: Tom Roberts on 27 Jun 2010 12:36 Mitchell Jones wrote: > ***{Time is that which is measured by a standard clock and by every > other clock which has been designed to match the readings of a standard > clock. The acceptance of this definition is, for example, why a clock > intended to be used in a GPS satellite is designed to lose 38 > microseconds per day when at sea level: the goal is that it match the > readings of a standard clock on the ground, while it is in orbit. Since > it will speed up by 38 microseconds per day when placed in orbit, it has > to lose 38 microseconds per day while on the ground. Some of this is correct. But note that to an observer on a GPS satellite, the satellite's clock does not measure standard time; nor does a ground clock. You are implicitly assuming that earth is a VERY special place, in that only clocks on its surface correctly display "time" -- that's an OUTRAGEOUSLY parochial view. > The implication: time advances at the same rate throughout the universe, > by definition. You will find it impossible to follow through on that notion. In particular, there is no global notion of "time" in GR. All one can find is the proper times of individual objects, observers, and trajectories, or time coordinates of various coordinate charts. NONE of those can be extended to the "entire universe" [*]. NONE of those has any justification to claim to be "universal time" -- each is valid only LOCALLY. [*] Except in exceptionally simple manifolds that cannot possibly model the world we inhabit. Your notion of a "universal time" is also in conflict with an important observation about the world we inhabit: all physics is local. A "universal time" would be irrelevant -- physical phenomena would progress according to their usual rates in local conditions, ignoring any sort of "universal time". > Absolute time--time that advances at the same rate throughout the > universe--is the only concept of time that works in the real world. Not true. It may work in YOUR everyday life, and your rather simplistic notions of how that extends to the rest of the universe, but it does not work in GR. But then, GR has no need for any such global notions, because all physics is local. > If > the relativists don't like that, let 'em howl. It's not just "relativists" that "don't like" your attempt to do science by assertion, it is every scientist who ever lived. You must develop a theory, not just make disconnected statements about how you THINK the world works, or about how you HOPE it does. And you must then TEST that theory. Such armchair theorizing worked for Aristotle; nobody accepts it today.... > The reality is that their > precious GPS would not work, if clocks in the GPS satellites were not > designed to advance at the same rate as standard clocks on the ground. This is true (once stated properly, which you did not). Of course that's why the GPS was designed as it was, with rate offsets in the satellite clocks. But there is no notion of "absolute time" here, it's just that the GPS approach is the simplest and most straightforward way to construct locally-Minkowski coordinates in a region near earth, using atomic clocks both on the ground and in satellites. It is not the only way.... > Result: they are hoist by their own petard. No. The problems and inconsistencies are all yours. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 27 Jun 2010 14:46
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been > measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle]. Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms and anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but it has not been approved, and most likely will not be. > (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain > that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and > everywhere else in the Universe. Obviously you don't know very many physicists. I work daily with dozens of physicists, at a lab with hundreds on staff and thousands of visitors. I do not think that any of them would make such a statement -- "100% certain" is just not what we would say for something like this. Say, rather, that at present our best model of gravity is applicable at scales from centimeters to billions of kilometers; it might be applicable at larger scales, but the jury is still out (and will be until the puzzles of dark matter and energy are resolved). This model is, of course, General Relativity. It simply is not known whether it is valid at atomic scales (the issues of quantum gravity are quite different from this), though there appears to be no reason to expect it not to be valid there. Tom Roberts |