Re: So you want to falsify Einstein's Relativity, eh? then you must run faster than light

On Jan 15, 12:01 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Albertito wrote on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:05:34 -0800:





On Jan 14, 9:06 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Albertito wrote on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:34:44 -0800:

But, that means any photon a star emits will be eventually absorbed,
sooner or later

Some people as Davies or Feynman believed that all photons if observed
over a sufficiently long time scale are *virtual* (aka finally
absorbed). This future perfect absorber constraints cosmological models
as showed by Hoyle and Narlikar in recent paper [1].

So, such recipient can't be supplanted by a different one or avoided,
if the photon was already emitted.

Is that related to "time paradox" ? :-)

Partially, they start from a time symmetric correction to Maxwell
electrodynamics (the Fock, Dirac, Wheeler, & Feynman electrodynamics)
and then add an irreversible absorber theory of radiation that selects
an arrow of radiation compatible with thermodynamics.

The model is inconsistent because mixes reversibility with
irreversibility and mixes aspects of field theory with aspects of
action- at-a-distance theories but is less inconsistent than Maxwell
electrodynamics.

A better model arises in canonical science. Radiation and photons may
be understood as follow. Split universe into Star more the rest. A
process is

Star* + Environment --> Star + Environment*

This is the real process, any isolated star cannot emit radiation.

The real process is studied in canonical science [2]. But if you want
study only the surface of the process you can substract the environment
from both sides

Star* ==> Star + {Environment* - Environment}

And you can define a photon like shorthand for the right side

Star* ==> Star + photon

The photon is not real (already Dirac, Wheeler or Feynman considered
that photons do not exists before but do not advanced much in this
research).

Photons are only valid as approximation. From a model of this kind you
can obtain not only QED or Maxwell electrodynamics but also corrections
to both [2].

Another advantage is that fromt he definition of photon

photon = {Environment* - Environment}

You can go beyond the standard model of particle physics and *compute*
their photon properties as spin, mass, and charge from first principles
:-) Neither string theory nor any other pompous 'unified' theory does
that.

Yes, photons are not real particles. Again Einstein was very confused
about Nature...

[1]
Cosmology and action-at-a-distance electrodynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys.
1995 67(1), 113. Hoyle F.; Narlikar, J.V.

[2]http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencereports/20083.html

--http://www.canonicalscience.org/

Usenet
Guidelines:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/
guidelines.html

Thanks for your comments and refs, Juan

BTW, if photons are not real, what is real? :-)

In relativistic action-at-a-distance theories [*] particles of matter are
real. Only the particles of 'force': photons, gravitons... are not real.

[*] Famous Fokker, Dirac, Wheeler & Feynman electrodynamics or my
extension via canonical science are two relevant examples.

--http://www.canonicalscience.org/

Usenet Guidelines:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html

Hi Juan,

I've quickly read about the Action-At-A-Distance Electrodynamics
in the following paper

NUMERICAL METHODS FOR THE 3-DIMENSIONAL 2-BODY PROBLEM
IN THE ACTION-AT-A-DISTANCE ELECTRODYNAMICS
arXiv:hep-th/0105285v1
By I.N.NIKITIN and J. DE LUCA

They use the light-ladder parametrization. But, I think that's
the cause of all those computational difficulties. IMHO, Relativistic
Action-At-A-Distance Electrodynamics of Wheeler and Feynman is
bull***, because they use Minkowski spacetime. Special Relativity
seems to be the root of all evil. If you use bull***, you
attain bull*** :-)


.

Quantcast