Archive for the ‘Physics’ Category

Quantum Measurements with a Time Bias

Posted: November 25, 2013 in Physics

Two very interesting articles, “Gotcha! Photons Seen Without Being Destroyed in a First” (“http://www.livescience.com/41465-photons-seen-without-being-destroyed.html”), “Physicist Disentangles ‘Schrodinger’s Cat’ Debate”(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826123037.htm)

Both of these make me think even more about how our possible bias to measure all things from our observation of our own world line’s Planck Second. I do not believe Quantum level objects exist within the same world line as we do therefore their world line’s version of a Planck second should be much smaller than ours. So when we observe them with our world line’s time bias we wrongly assume results that could be explained through a time transformation.

from (http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/the-secret-to-the-universe-is-at-the-bottom-of-a-hole-in-south-dakota)

I believe that e=mc2 is just an equation for the transformation of mass to energy and energy into mass. I am not so sure about assuming all the energy and mass in the universe came from one singularity. e=mc2 is a transformation process that has always been occurring both ways since the beginning of time. Whenever that was. The Higgs boson does not give us anything more than an ingredient or byproduct of the transformation of energy to mass. No one has provided that dark matter exists and I for one hope it stays that way. Things that exist in the quantum world do not need to have one to one manifestations in the larger dimension. So for me the cat is either dead or alive and it is not both. No matter what the spooky world of quantum mechanics comes up with.

If e=mc2 is just a transformation equation then the speed of light may not be a barrier as previously thought. Anyway this goes it is fun learning more. I would hope Occam’s good ole razor would come out from the tool box and be sharpened now and again.

I agree that e=mc2 has been proven, I do not believe “c” should be read as a velocity as opposed to the transformation that is described which is actually an acceleration. So the real problem is now taking that to the cosmic level of E=Mc2 that implies there was just one transformation of all Energy to Mass at the Big Bang. e=mc2 is a transformation that is going on in both ways all across the universe. Stars are created and black holes are converting mass back to energy.

Read more: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/#ixzz2j45YhV9S

Over the last few years I have been doing my own research and I believe a fundamental error occurred when Einstein’s e=mc2 was accepted as the gospel truth. I have short paper that describes an error created by allowing a Lorentz Transformation to have a zero value throughout the entire transformation. This in effect creates an optical illusion of something moving backwards. I believe the transformation of matter to energy would be time based making c not a velocity but an acceleration. But if we go back and read about Minkowski world lines, for each world line all rules of physics apply. But I content that each world line can be independent of another. For me if we can only observe light based on our interpretation of its speed there should be nothing stopping mass from that big bang that is moving away from us to be further away than light could travel over the existence of the universe. It doesn’t have to be “Dark” within our observable constraints. It can be normal Standard model stuff but to far away to observe. With an ever-expanding Universe plus the fact that new stars and galaxies are continuously being formed to me it only makes sense there must be some part of the Universe we can not observe.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236212521_There_is_a_Fundamental_Error_in_Limiting_Travel_to_c

Best,
Rick

I respectfully would like to state that I believe the current understanding of the theory of relativity contains a mistake, albeit to me not that big of one. It concerns a logical fallacy which uses a Lorentz Transformation(LT) to state nothing can go faster than the speed of light. To really make it simple to understand what they based their “axiom” on is no more than an optical illusion similar to the way car’s wheel seems to move backwards when shown in movies. It is not entirely the same thing but basically the wheels are moving faster than the observer’s frames speed so they appear to be moving backwards. This is what they are saying when they use a Lorentz Transformation with fixed observation frame. In effect they are saying you could not have multiple revolutions per a given time span or multiple hertz. We all know this to be wrong. I blame Lorentz and it was his paper that used velocity instead of acceleration and he even uses the term “boost” in velocity which in the old days when I was taking college physics we called that acceleration. All examples of this LT show a static frame that doesn’t move forward in time. This is wrong.

To further my point I believe that the use of displacement mathematics in its application to define velocity is incorrect. I am not taking the credit for this just agreeing with web post “Velocity Addition Mystery Solved” by Joseph A. Rybczyk. (http://www.mrelativity.net/VBForum/showthread.php?247-Velocity-Addition-Mystery-Solved)
The use of displacement only makes sense for acceleration not a constant velocity. But this math is what current proponents of limiting objects to the speed of light fall back on.

It would make sense that since an accelerating body’s displacement would be a curve that you would need calculus to determine the displacement. But computing two object’s relative velocity within a time frame of both of them moving at the same “CONSTANT” velocity away from each other would not required anything more than simple math. If they are traveling at the same velocity, time is the same.

To date the error has been carried forward by what I think is Proof by Verbosity.

As Einstein stated “ALL OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same for every inertial observer.” In particular,”The speed of light is the SAME for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source.” “no physical experiment (mechanical, electromagnetic, optical—or any physical law whatsoever) can distinguish between a state of absolute rest and a state of constant velocity.” And the definition of inertia is for “Physics .a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”

So light is a constant in “each” Minkowski World/Universal Line. If an Observer A from an inertial World line A was observing light from another moving World line B the light observed would always be viewed depending on no change in median as a constant. But no matter what velocity World Line B is traveling, light would be observed by an Observer IN World Line B the same as it would for an Observer viewing light from World line A. So if there are objects traveling at a relative constant velocity to earth near the speed of light, As long as the object is traveling at a constant velocity Observers on that object would experience light the same way as we do. So we really need to define the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant relates directly to its inertial World line. No speed limit just a physical constant of how light is observed in a specific World line. So the particles CERN accelerate are traveling at a constant velocity of 98% the speed of light and as a result they would be on their own World Line. If from our World Line we measured light generated from their collision it would and could not be faster than what we observe light to be. But since I state that solving for c in E=mc2 is an acceleration and not a velocity. The energy created could easily accelerate byproducts of the collision to speeds faster than what their constant velocity was at the point of impact. As stated earlier it is impossible to distinguish between a state of rest and a constant velocity.

To believe relativity states nothing can go faster than the speed of light is to state that our world line, meaning our own measurement of space and time, dictates everything else’s world line is to plainly mistake its true meaning.  In my paper on Research Gate I restate what I have here in many posts that you can NOT have a Lorentz Transformation with no movement in time.  A Planck second as observed by our world line would not be the same measurement as a Planck second from the moving projectile. I believe that you can not accelerate faster than the speed of light but nothing is stopping an object from moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236212521_There_is_a_Fundamental_Error_in_Limiting_Travel_to_c

Just because everyone thinks there is a floor or lower boundary to time doesn’t mean it is true. Time is both infinitely small as well as large. A Planck second is not the smallest amount of time. BUT IF SOMETHING IS SMALLER THAN THE SMALLEST WE CAN MEASURE OR UNDERSTAND THEN EVERYTHING IS SPOOKY.

When we allow time to be unbounded the whole universe just seems to make so much more sense.

To me a Lorentz Transformation describing motion over time for a single measurable observed event must and only can occur in one World Line.( x,y,z,t ) And it has been proven that these coordinates are not absolute and they can vary from one World Line to the next. But is it possible the real universe consists of one absolute X,Y,Z, and T that contains an infinite number of relative world lines. On the popular show “Looking Through the Worm Hole” they showed a couple of physicists that have a somewhat similar theory.  But I do not believe they have fully described their views. What if there was an absolute Time and what is the relationship between ours and it?

I really wish we could see more advanced visuals that would simulate a 4 dimension world. I know it is hard to comprehend since we can not really visualize anything greater than a 3d world.  If you can imagine a 1 dimensional world of a line, I would state motion within it is actually x,t. And a two dimensional world is not just x,y but x,y,t. And three dimensions is and always will be x,y,z,t.

But to start to visualize multiple World Lines including our own within a larger Universal Cube were there exists an Absolute Time (T) that our relative time (t) and all other world line’s t share. And if this is the case, can any measurement that we make to map the entire universe be based on our WL’s x,y,z,t that may have altered over time based on our velocity and or acceleration relative to the true Original Singularity’s Universal Time? Is it possible to understand what the true absolute values of X,Y,Z,T are?