Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX

Hayek schrieb:

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.

GR as a classical theory does not deal with uncertainty. This would
require a quantum theory of gravitation.

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

No, they don't. [unsubstantiated, unphysical claim]

Yes, they do. By definition.

[...]
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.

"GR" and "Einstein's mind" are two different things. Formulae are not
"concocted" but derived from first principles, with which they
eventually form a theory.

Of course they were deduced from his understandibg of physics...

No, they were deduced from some first principles (principle of
relativity, equivalence principle).

...but they
were never intended to replace any understanding of physics.

Formulae don't replace but render an understanding of physics.

That is
what you do, the results of the efe's did become physics for you.

They *are* physics. Could it be that you don't know what physics is?

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

Your answer : the efe's

No. My answer: the gravitational field. The field equations describe its
geometry.

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

Nebulous statement. In physics you have to provide some tool with which
you can precisely calculate how many time elapses for a clock if it
travels on a certain worldline through spacetime. This tool is provided
by Einstein's field equations.

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

You snip the previous discussion, it was about Maxwell.

I snipped it because Maxwell does not deal with photons.

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.

You need some calculations to check if a theory is correct. You cannot
understand nature if your theories aren't correct.

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

The electromagnetic field is not quantized.

Any text on quantum theory will show you how it is 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.

They don't go wrong. In Einstein's field equations the "matter" is
plugged into the stress-energy tensor, yielding the gravitational field
(Einstein tensor) on the left side of the equations. Quantum physics
tells us that "matter" is described by quantum fields, thus the
gravitational field has to be a quantum field too, for simple
mathematical reasons.

[...]
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.

You should substantiate your claim without misusing terms such as "inertia".

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 !

Unsubstantiated claim, misusing the term "inertia".

GR does not say that...

Of course it doesn't ;-).

...but you use
gravitating mass to create a world line...

No. Worldlines are not "created". Gravitating masses determine the
geometry of spacetime, which can be described with the aid of geodesics.
A worldline just tells you at which time a test object is in which place.

...then say clocks count the
"time" of the world line.

They measure the length of the worldline, being the time elapsed.

Then GR has obfuscate the fact that the
inertial field generated by this mass actually imfluenced the clock. [...]

There is no "fact" which GR could obfuscate, because there is no such
thing as an "inertial field". Stop misusing terms.

[...]
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.

Mach's principle doesn't tell you the origin of inertia either. You have
to find out what causes mass. In Geneva they're just doing that.

[...]
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.

First, you did not substantiate Mach's principle, you only referred to
it. Second, I told you how Mach's principle is accounted for in GR.

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.

Then try to be comprehensible. Don't fantasize about "inertiameters",
misusing the term "inertia".

[...]
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 refer to worldlines as a mathematical tool to describe what goes on,
and what nature does. That's a bit different.

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

You are misusing the term "inertia" for something you have invented.
Your invention would require a sort of "imaginary time", which cannot
measured by clocks because all clocks are affected by something you call
"inertial field". Don't you see how arbitrary it is first to invent
something invisible and then "explain" why it cannot be seen? Physics
has to be simple, and for the sake of simplicity "time" is just what
clocks measure. No time which cannot be measured, and no corresponding
physical effect which prevents unmeasurable time from being measured.

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

Time on itself, does not exist.

There's no place in physics for things which do not exist.

It comes from motion, in a three
dimensional world. Stop the motion, and you stop time.

How could this be if "motion" can only be stated with reference to some
system of coordinates? A change of the coordinates will cause a change
of the "state of motion", but physics must not depend on coordinates.

[...]
Our biological processes are relatively good clocks, because we keep a
constant body temperature and metabolism. [...]

What you discuss here are effects that could *disturb* your clock. If
you want to measure time accurately, you have to exclude disturbances as
good as possible.

I agreed with mass being *equivalent* to inertia.

Surrounding mass or test mass ?

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 ?

You should try to understand what Wheeler means: The distribution of
masses determines the geometry of spacetime, i.e. the course of
geodesics. A test particle will follow a geodesic path as long as it is
not influenced by external forces. By applying such forces, you can show
the "inertia" of the test particle according to Newton's second law,
being equivalent to the mass of the test particle as the proportionality
factor between the force applied and the "acceleration" of the test
particle (where "acceleration" means "deviation from the geodesic path").

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...

I guess you simply did not understand them. Read my passage above and
then tell me where inertia is "created".

MfG,
Juergen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Virtual Particle confusion
    ... physics, you're talking out of your hat. ... Taking your mind off quantum mechanics for a bit, ... > so as to constrain the result to positive values of mass. ... particle A. However, it is quite likely that the particle will instead ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The Way of the KOOK Was: Looking like wwIII
    ... knowledge of physics? ... Did you miss where even your dictionary definition said inertia was "a ... Momentum we have along ... Momentum always exists for a mass or a photon just as 3D space & time ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: The Way of the KOOK Was: Looking like wwIII
    ... knowledge of physics? ... Did you miss where even your dictionary definition said inertia was "a ... Yes, the meaning IS clear, it's an intrinsic property of matter. ... We use the term mass as a quantitative measure of inertia. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... Why is Newton's "First Law" about motion? ... Or are you afraid that the inclusion of credible physics ... Inertia is not measured directly; ... Mass is mass. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Lorentz factor of 400
    ... And what does this mean for the mass of the ... more inertia, thus it would move 400 times slower. ... the pendulum of a clock would be impossible to move back ... then it becomes a "law" in physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)