Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX

Hayek schrieb:

Why? Until now there is not one single observation known which is not
in accord with GR. This is really a great success.

Now explain uncertainty and QM.

I don't know what you expect as an explanation, but uncertainty is a
natural phenomenon which is as it is. QM describes a quantum object
using a wave function and calculates its properties using operators on
the Hilbert space. In this formalism, you will find pairs of operators
which do not commute, which means that there is no wave function which
is eigenfunction of both operators at the same time (the Schrödinger
equations with which you could calculate the corresponding properties of
the quantum object are not solved both using only one wave function).
The physical interpretation is that the properties which correspond to
the two operators are not determined exactly at the same time, but only
to a degree of delta(A)*delta(B) >= h/2pi.

[...]
I don't know what you mean with "temporal mist", but physics tells
you what a clock does: it measures the length of the worldline on
which it is travelling through spacetime.

Yes, but by your own admission, you cannot tell if a clock runs faster
or slower when it is separated from another clock.

I told you that it doesn't. Clocks always run at a speed of one second
per second.

This theory seriously
lacks predictive power. It will only tell what a clock HAS DONE, and it
will only tell you when they are reunited.

I told you that the clock has measured the length of the worldline
section it has travelled.

GR does not describe everything, so we must keep working on our
understanding of nature.

GR describes gravitation. Nobody claims that it describes "everything".

[...]
*Physics* is nothing else than a "mathematical model of nature". The
division into different theories (quantum theory, GR) is made only
because we don't have a TOE yet. GR is the section of physics dealing
with gravitation.

And inertia. But you keep omitting that.

GR describes how test particles move due to the gravitational field and
to their inertia, but it does not tell us where the inertia comes from.
Hopefully we will learn the latter from particle physics.

[...]
How could it be "horribly wrong" while it's in accurate agreement
with all the experiments and observations in this field?

Because it describes photons as waves, what they are definitely not.

Who describes photons as waves? Photons are the quanta of the
electromagnetic field.

Again, you look at it as an engineer...

How could I, being a scientist and not an engineer?

if you can use it to calculate,
you are happy. I understand that.

Mother nature does not ask for my condition. Using theories as tools for
calculations is all we can do.

But physics was originally intended to
understand nature, and eventually, because of this understanding,
produce some calculating tool for engineers.

I don't know what you expect from physics. In physics, "understanding"
means describing coherently as many phenomena as possible. For example,
electricity (as can be experienced e.g. by rubbing a glass rod with a
woolen cloth), magnetism (as can be experienced e.g. with a compass) and
light once were considered as being completely different phenomena. From
physicists like Faraday, Maxwell and Hertz we have learned (and do now
"understand") that these phenomena are interconnected to each other, and
now there is a nice coherent description of them all, which is called
"electrodynamics".

Maxwell does not say anything about photons, for instance

Because photons are objects of quantum theory. If you extend
classical electrodynamics (dealing with macroscopic electrical,
magnetic and optical phenomena) to the realm of atoms and particles,
you will get photons as the quanta of the electromagnetic field.

Pardon my French, but that last one is not even wrong.

No, it's correct. Check this up from any quantum theory text.

nor does GR say what time is.

That's wrong. GR says what time is, namely the length of worldline
sections.

Again, not even wrong.

You should substantiate your claim.

And since both GR and QM do not, or barely take into account
inertia

Of course GR accounts for inertia!

Maybe, but it ignores the most obvious manifestion.

Sounds esoteric. Could you be somewhat more explicit with what you mean
with "manifestation"?

And, where does it come from in the Schwarzschild metric ?
Does the latter allow for keplerian orbits ?

Of course it does. It's even possible to *derive* the Schwarzschild
metric from Kepler's laws. But inertia does not "come from" any kind of
metric. The metric just tells test particles that *have* inertia how to
move.

[...]
The problem with the unification is that until now nobody knows
exactly how to quantize the gravitational field, thus obtaining a
quantum theory of gravitation which could be united with the other
quantum theories.

Nobody knows where quantization originates. Nobody or very little
people, except me and them of course, but then again then I could be
wrong. Quantum gravity is an oxymoron.

I don't know what you mean with quantization "originating". Quantization
is a mathematical process you apply to a theory. Nature just consists of
"quantum objects" that behave as "classical continua" if they are
arranged in huge interacting ensembles. Thus, you can apply a classical
theory as an approximation for macroscopic phenomena, but you will need
a quantum theory for microscopic phenomena.

[...]
You see the calculaing tool as reality of nature. This leads to a dead end.

No, I see it as a tool to describe the reality of nature.

[...]
I can predict your answer. That is not the goal of any discussion.
If I want to recant GR, I can read Gravitation.

In a discussion, you should provide *substantiated arguments*. Otherwise
you will not convince your opponent.

[...]
World lines are a result of gravitation and inertia, as I said before,
it is not the mathematical model that gives rise to nature, it is nature
that give rise to mathematical models of some parts of nature.

Correct. Furthermore, I cannot imagine what could be meant with "giving
rise to nature".

That is why Einstein connected clocks with his time. He knew that
otherwise his theory would not work.

Nope. Einstein defined "time" as what is measured by clocks because
this is the only useful definition for "time" in physics.

I beg to differ.

Then you should give a definition for "time" which is even more useful.

I connect clocks with inertia, and manage to unify GR and QM.

Show how you manage this. A reference to a corresponding paper in the
scientific literature will be sufficient.

I am searching for an endorser.

Why? Just send your manuscript to Physical Review Letters, for example:

http://authors.aps.org/ESUB/

[...]
There I already hesitate. I don't know what you mean with "room with
inertia".

You agreed with Mach's principle, you agreed with mass creating inertia...

I agreed with mass being *equivalent* to inertia.

...you agreed with more mass creating more inertia, the latter mass NOT
being the test mass, but the mass "over there", around the test mass.

I didn't agree with this.

One room thus surrounded by enough mass to create inertia for an
arbitrary gamma we define as 1. And the second room surrounded with
enough mass to create enough inertia to have gamma 2 in room 2.

And this doesn't make sense.

[...]
Before you can see further, you have to learn.
I knew your ramblings about geodesics and worldlines long before you
rattled them of again for the nth time here.

If you never had the intention to learn, why didn't you say that outright?

My goal was to try to convince "a true believer" in GR of the
implications of the fact that inertia is external.

You could only convince me by providing *substantiated arguments*.

[...]
As long as you don't know what the term "inertia" means I don't think
that you really have arguments.

After all my efforts, you still do not consider inertia as an external
phenomenon...

....because you didn't provide any substantiated argument in favour of
your view.

[...]
And so I conclude, since inertia is a field, this field is stronger in
some parts, nearby gravitating mass, and it must in some way be measurable.

You will not convince me by just expressing nebulous claims. Already
Aristoteles failed in comprehending nature using this "method".

[...]
The same thing for a rocket at light speed : why can't it accelerate any
further ?

It's rather easy to show that a rocket has to convert its *total* mass
into "exhaust photons" (which will yield maximum acceleration) before it
will reach light speed. You will find the calculation e.g. in
Sexl/Schmidt, "Raum Zeit Relativität" (I don't know whether this book is
also available in English).

[...]
It's the *gravitational* field of the rotating Earth that does the
frame dragging. You cannot "do" time dilation, and what do you mean
with "volume contraction"?

And you are you saying that I should "learn" GR , and that I am "not
educated" ?

When your rocket approaches light speed, it undergoes length
contraction...

It undergoes length contraction when it is observed from its initial
rest frame. As observed from its momentarily comoving frame, it
undergoes nothing at all. That's why you cannot "do" length contraction,
because this is only a question of "perspective".

[...]
Not a fantasy but a tool. A tool useful to describe the paths of test
particles in gravitational fields.

But it does not tell you how, that was in the mind of Einstein.

I don't know what was "in the mind of Einstein", nor do I know what you
mean by "how". GR tells you very well "how" test particles move in
gravitational fields.

[...]
Maybe the head-banging makes me forget the meaning of terms such as
"inertia", but I think that I shouldn't do this. I need my brain in
its current healthy state.

I think it should remind you of the omnipresence of inertia.

I know about the inertia of my brain, being the equivalent of about 1.5
kg. I don't need to bang my head against a wall for that.

Everybody thinks that it is gravitation that kills a person falling from
the Eiffel tower. But is it ?

Who thinks that? Gravitation makes you falling from the Eiffel tower,
but what kills you is the elasticity of the ground you hit, the latter
being caused by the electromagnetic properties of matter. Freely falling
is not lethal (not even dangerous); astronauts spend months while freely
falling.

[...]
And my interpretation fits uncertainty and QM , with a mechanistic
interpretation, which no one has done before.

Show how it does this - a reference to a corresponding paper in the
scientific literature will be sufficient.

First I have to get this accepted, and I need some mentoring how it
should be done according to the standards of the academe.

Just send your manuscript to PRL, and then meet the arguments of the
referees. If you succeed, your paper will be published. That's how the
scientific literature works.

[...]
If we use Newtons terms, the gravitational force depends not only on
the gravitating mass but also on its distance. Even the sun is so far
away that we don't really "feel" its gravitational force, although
the sun is much more massive than the Earth. For our everyday
purposes it is sufficient to take into account the gravitation of the
Earth alone.

Beware : the inverse square law is NOT applicable here.

That only works for point to point masses, m*m/r2

Who says this? It works for any spherical symmetric mass distribution,
and the Earth is spherical in a good approximation.

[...]
Look at the document I made you read to start with, a billion times
stronger than the gravitational/inertial field of the Earth.

If the sun's gravitational pull is so much stronger, why don't we just
lift up and hurl towards the sun?

[...]
And I also calculated the shrinkage of the universe with this...

Why do you think the universe shrinks? The observations show that it's
quite to the opposite: the universe expands.

[...]
If you did once understand that, why do you think that geodesics are
a result of "various" fields?

Because Einstein made them so. [...]

He didn't, because the gravitational field is not "various fields".

[...]
You can neglect sufficiently small "disturbing" influences.

You call a field that is _*A BILLION*_ times stronger than the Earth's
gravitation a _*sufficiently small "disturbing" influence*_ ?????
That can be neglected ?

A field which is sufficiently small *at the point where we are* can be
neglected by calculating *what happens to us*. On my way to the office
every morning I cannot feel any gravitational pull from the huge black
hole in the center of our galaxy.

You is WEIRD, and you should read that text by Wheeler, Thorne and
Misner again. The 0.44cm/6.0EE+8cm =0.7 parts in a billion.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp548.html

This is on the Thirring-Lense effect. I can't see what this has to do
with "a field that is _*A BILLION*_ times stronger than the Earth's
gravitation". The frame dragging discussed in this paragraph is caused
*exclusively* by the gravitational field of the Earth, the "0.7 parts in
a billion" being the fraction caused by the Earth's rotation.

[...]
Every clock runs at a speed of one second per second (trivial).
Too trivial. This is what you get when you use the wrong model. You
get confused.

Which "wrong model", and why is it "wrong" (substantiation required)?

You always consider the clocks locally...

Of course, because one clock can only be in one place at a given time.

...and refuse to jump frames...

How could a clock "jump frames"?

...what
I would call "God perspective"...

How should a clock know about my perspective?

...suppose we instantly could compare
frames, or look at frames simulteanously.

How could this influence what happens to a clock? Physics does not
depend on reference frames.

[...]
Light is an imperfect transmission medium, and that does not mean that
the real events have not yet taken place.

?

[...]
What is real is the length of the worldline sections as measured
by the respective times elapsed. There is no need for a physical
influence affecting the clock mechanisms.

Yes, there is. If you want to understand what time really is.

I think I know what time really is (see above).

If it is not physical, then it is magical.

What's "unphysical" with the lengths of worldline sections? What's
"unphysical" with clock readings?

[...]

MfG,
Juergen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... Thus, inertia is not a property of mass an sich, but an external ... I would express it somewhat different: "Inertia" means that a test ... You don't feel gravitation as long as you move along a geodesic. ... But the clock runs SLOWEST there! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... or slower when it is separated from another clock. ... problems dealing with gravitation. ... Of course GR accounts for inertia! ... You agreed with Mach's principle, you agreed with mass creating inertia, you agreed with more mass creating more inertia, the latter mass NOT being the test mass, but the mass "over there", around the test mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Albert Einstein Replies to Arindam Banerjee
    ... and inertia is a condition. ... If now gravitation is the cause of the acceleration, ... THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ... To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a hook with ...
    (rec.arts.books)
  • Re: =?UTF-8?B?TEVU4oCZUyBESVNDVVNTIFNQQUNFVElNRSBBTkQgR1JBVklUQVQ=?= =?UTF-8?B?SU9OLCBCQVNJT
    ... A clock is an inertiameter. ... distribution, compare their readings by ftl radio, and ... Inertia makes objects shrink. ... discuss space, time and gravitation, as they logically follow. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why does Physics have two different theories: Classic and Quanntum (+SRT)?
    ... You are no doubt familiar with Newton's inertia and Newton's gravitation. ... From GR we now that a clock slows down in a gravitational field. ... It would be very easy for any particle to behave as a wave, to be in many places at the same time, it would nicely explain the collapse of the wave function. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading