Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX

Jürgen Clade wrote:
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.

From the GR viewpoint, it was retorical.

[...]
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.

No, they don't. They measure inertia, which is included in your world
line formula.

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.

From the mind of Einstein, he concocted the formulae.
Of course they were deduced from his understandibg of physics, but they
were never intended to replace any understanding of physics. That is
what you do, the results of the efe's did become physics for you.

Why does the clock follow the geodesic and the clock time passes at this
specific rate?

Your answer : the efe's

My answer : because it is influenced by gravitation and inertia.

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.

You snip the previous discussion, it was about Maxwell.

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

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

Because you prefer calculability instead of understanding.

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.

The electromagnetic field is not quantized.
Oh, now I see where they go wrong. Of course.
That is why they think gravity can be quantized too.
It will be an even greater revolution than I thought.

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.

They define this world line
sections as related to the mass creating them. So actually, they
sneak in inertia, but then say it is a world line.

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"?

That a clock is an inertiameter ! GR does not say that, but you use gravitating mass to create a world line, then say clocks count the "time" of the world line. Then GR has obfuscate the fact that the inertial field generated by this mass actually imfluenced the clock.

It replaced the physical cause by a mathematical surrogate. It works, but it blocks you from understanding what is really going on, as you repeatedly show here. You repeat always that the wordline is the cause, but the wordline is composed of the mass surrounding the test particle and some efe's, that take this inertia into account.

So it does not contradict my claim.

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.

So, we are back to square one, inertia comes from nowhere, it is a property of the particle itself. Then Mach's principle is not valid.


[...]
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.

Well I substantiated Mach's principle, which you first accepted, and then in all your counterarguments, reject, or not accept the consequences. This makes any substantiating fruitless.

It is like starting a mathematical proof by saying a=3, and then later on changing the value because you do not like were the proof is going.


[...]
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".

But you constantly refer to worldlines as an explication of what goes on and how nature does it.

I say : it is the inertial field, that influences clocks, you say it is their travel along their wordlines.

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.

Time on itself, does not exist. It comes from motion, in a three dimensional world. Stop the motion, and you stop time.

Inertia is only one way to stop motion, cooling down atoms and molecules also work.

Our biological processes are relatively good clocks, because we keep a constant body temperature and metabolism. Therefore the speed at which our moelcules move stays roughly the same. Compared to cold blooded animals or animals that can change the rate of their metabolism wildly.

We can do this too, adrenaline accelerates our metabolism, for people in an adrenaline rush, time seems to be standing still.

The definition of temperature is : the average speed of the molecules.
If you define time on motion, then tempertature influences motion, and thus time. Every fridge is a time machine.

Now inertia, in my view, is just another way to influence motion, thus stopping time. Or if one would be able to remove it, accelerating time.
Like heating up a chemical process to make it faster.

But you can never travel back in time, as this in my view would require
moving everything back as it was, at that particular moment.

That is why Einstein adamantly expressed that his GR time would be read excluvisely on a clock. This is one aspect of time totally controlled by inertia.

How do you make your steak survive to the next three days without going smelly ? I rekon that it goes bad in three hours at room temp.

- you cool it
- You put it under gamma factor 24.

Actually they are both the same thing : in the first method you cooled down the steak, resulting in slower motion of the molecules.
With the second method, You slowed down the motion by increasing inertia.

In each case, you slowed down the motion, and thus slowed down time, as time was derived from motion.

Now it is easy to make time stop : step into a deepfreezer, or step into an infinite inertial field, in either case, your molecules cannot move anymore and your time stops.

Please do not pull the radioactive decay argument *against* me, as it is actually an argument in *favor* of my view. Cold does not influence radioactive decay, so there motion continues, and thus time continues.
But now we have in one steak, to sorts of time, so I suggest we stop this silly notion of time, and see what it really is : a simple and silly mathematical construct based on motion.

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/

Good.
[...]
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.

Surrounding mass or test mass ?

...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.

So what wheeler writes in Gravitation, is NOT correct ?


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.

Then Wheeler, Thorne and Misner, Einstein and Mach do not make sense, you should conclude that the efe's do not make sense, since they are build upon this principle, and that makes them produce correct results,
which you no longer realize, you use a computer program that someone else has written, an realize that the program always gives correct results, but you admit that you do not havr a clue how it does this ?

And then you say, that I should learn to use this computer program, and because I say that this iis not the way to do physics, you call me uneducated.

I will snip the rest so far, since it is pointless to go on, because you have rejected the original premises of this discussion, Mach's principle, that mass over there creates inertia over here.

Uwe Hayek.
.

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
    ... The geodesics confuse more than anything else. ... Mass does not only create gravitation but also inertia. ... If, after some time, you reunite the clock from the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock, ... while being affected by motion, ... it is NOT the acceleration itself that causes the ... Seacrh for "inertia" and see for yourself: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time dilatation and a space referential
    ... If a mass affects ... > a clock, then lots of mass will also affect a clock, ... >> a property of the general relativity. ... it meanse inertia has varied. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... The geodesics confuse more than anything else. ... And since both GR and QM do not, or barely take into account inertia, they are unable to explain what goes on and refuse any attempt at unification. ... Mass does not only create gravitation but also inertia. ... Bang your head against the wall and feel the inertia, watch the parts of your clock extracting the value of the inertial field, or the-inertia-causing-field, if that says it better. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)