Researcher Investigates the Basis of Einstein's First Approximation in the Theory of Relativity
July 15, 2009(PhysOrg.com) -- In his discussion of accelerated motion on page 60 of The Meaning of Relativity, Albert Einstein made an approximation that allowed him to develop the theory of relativity further. Einstein apparently never had the opportunity to check his original approximation. Now, a University of Missouri physicist has uncovered some clues about the basis of Einstein's theories and presented a more general approximation, which may better link quantum physics with classical physics.
"Einstein's assumption agreed beautifully with everything else and allowed him to discover a number of great things so that nobody ever questioned it," said Bahram Mashhoon, professor of physics in the MU College of Arts and Science. "All forces need to be of quantum origin, but Einstein's general relativity theory, which is the modern theory of gravitation, has not yet been brought into conformity with quantum theory. The modern theories of special and general relativity have their origins in the problems associated with the way electromagnetic waves appear to observers in motion."
In the special theory of relativity, Einstein assumed the principle of locality. The principle of locality is that an object is affected only by its immediate surroundings and not by variables in the past. Yet, this principle is an approximation and is generally limited to motions with sufficiently low accelerations. Nonlocality is introduced if, in addition, the past history of the object also is taken into consideration. Mashhoon examined the implications of nonlocal special relativity by studying how a spinning observer, such as an observer on a merry-go-round, interacts with light. Mashhoon proposes acceleration-induced nonlocality plays a part in relativity theory.
"Some sort of average of variables in its past influences an object as well, making optics of rotating systems nonlocal," Mashhoon said. "When you take the variables in the past into account, it opens new doors but in most ordinary cases is negligible. The goal of my research is to develop a nonlocal theory that goes beyond general relativity. Hopefully, these considerations of nonlocal theory in the optics of rotating systems will lead to ideas for experiments that could help verify or disprove the nonlocal theory."
In his latest publication, Mashhoon urges experimental physicists to examine the difficulties that exist in modern theories of general and special relativity by considering nonlocality in the optics of rotating systems. The "Optics of Rotating Systems" will be published in Physical Review A.
Source: University of Missouri-Columbia (news : web)
Feb 22, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
Such utter nonsense is typical for non-Aquarians.
Try Nikola Tesla ... a Cancer (water sign)
When asked for my star-sign, I reply 'Sky@Night'...
1- The events in A and B are simultaneous?
2- If Yes, then ¿how can be simultaneous to observers moving at different speeds? (In the sense of Einstein relativity)
I only can guess that for most observers -in practical terms, anybody- the events cannot be simultaneous, or it should exist a fundamental limitation on our capability of measuring simultaneity.
Nope.
Somebody can tell me what I need to look for?
No? Descartes would disagree. You sound pretty smart though. Please explain to me how "linear" motion is not torsion in the closed universe model where spacetime is curved.
First, Decartes would tell you all motion is linear regardless of the medium and independent of rotation.
Secondly, rotation in a closed system is rotation, movement from point a to point b is linear motion independent of rotaion.
So no, in a closed system, all motion is not rotation, but, all rotation is motion, and all revolution is motion in a straight line acted upon by an external force.
Must've been easy considering your inability to remember basic tenets of closed system interaction.
Neither physorg nor commenters even mention.
for most observers -in practical terms, anybody- the events cannot be simultaneous
AFAIU relativity shows that you can't speak of simultaneity outside of a localized event.
Bell's theorem proved nonlocality in quantum measurements. Einstein was wrong about his local beliefs.
AFAIU it didn't. It showed that when you have entanglement you have to choose between nonlocality or quantum mechanics. (I.e. the concept of observables, which simply doesn't exist before you measure them.) Most physicists choose QM what I can see (well, no surprise there), and describes this as Einstein was wrong in his views of QM.
no one has even read the paper, speaking volumes about these commenters,
No. As Matthias mentioned, non-locality isn't shown. Extra-ordinary claims needs extra-ordinary evidence, yet reading the press release we can see that there isn't any evidence at all in the paper but a mere proposal. There is then no need to read it. (Unless you think it is a viable option to research, a _very_ unlikely proposition considering all the evidence for locality. Bell test experiments have been mentioned, which was as hard a test of locality that you can wish for - IIRC some loopholes have been tested to 25 sigma or so(!), probably the strongest physics experiment around, yet locality and so relativity survived.)
Bedbugs.
All static and all motion -IS- rotation. Rotation - as all the math is based on vectoral summing in electromagnetics..which is patently absurd, etc..but Maxwell's original works were based in Quarternion equations..which is rotational vortex calculation. Thus, when Heaviside modified Maxwell's original works down into 4 equations, he threw the baby out with the bathwater..and we lost the proper math to figure out time, space and multi-dimensionality in it's entirety.
And we are still lost today, unless you go back to the original equations.
The missing part is that it is not a vectoral sum to zero as Heaviside and Lorentz would have you think.....but a vortex spin of two opposing dimensional fields..that sum to 'near zero' (which is why Heaviside and Lorentz took it out- they thought the rotation {to the near same point!} was useless...but it is VITAL TO KNOW!!!)...but encompassed a full extreme energy rotation..before coming back to the near same spot.
Thus the truth was buried - but even Maxwell had it exactly right.
--THIS--... is what Tesla knew.
It was after contrary observation he began t support the ideas that would evolve into Spin field theory, and even then, he still used point particle mechanics as his basis.
Forget spin field theory, start looking at all things as components of a single wave function under chaotic turbulence.
Only under the assumption of no hidden variables. The notion that state doesn't exist until it is measured, is equivalent to saying that an unobserved tree falling in the forest, never fell and never made a sound. In other words, utterly absurd. But hey, never let absurdity get in the way of quantum mysticism...
Yes, and it is the correct assumption too. AFAIU it explains why QM minimizes transfered information, or conversely why some algorithms are speed up by a square root factor.
"The notion that state doesn't exist until it is measured, is equivalent to saying that an unobserved tree falling in the forest, never fell and never made a sound. In other words, utterly absurd."
Um, states aren't observables, that is the whole point here as I understand it. The quantum states exist _and can be acted on to get observables at some time_, and decoherence is AFAIU indeed measured, so I go with that.
Btw, that tree is an absurd notion however, since the vacuum is your observer, copenhagen or decoherence.
That's not quite the same idea as nonlocality, which basically postulates that quantum states are random until measured, and that therefore any correlation between previously "entangled" particles subsequently measured far apart from each other, would be due to _instantaneous_ (MUCH faster-than-light!) communication between these "entangled" bits of energy. It's what Einstein disparaged as "spooky action at a distance", and I intuitively agree with Einstein. There's something very unphysical and magical about the concept of quantum nonlocality. I tend to view the Universe as fundamentally computational (along the lines of Wolfram's "new kind of science"); and nonlocality quite simply does not compute -- it doesn't look like anything that might have any sort of a mechanism behind it.
As far as 'spooky action at a distance' is concerned this too is not only predictable but if it didn't actually happen then QM would be in trouble - QM predicted it!. It may offend your intuitive feel for how the world works, but if you can accept the absurd Second Postulate of the Theory of Special Relativity you should be used to that by now.
QM states are randomly sampled from a probability distribution. Yes, the PDF itself cannot be called "random" in the vernacular (mathematically, that's a misuse of terminology), as it has a rather well-defined shape. However, the _sampling_ is completely random. That is, there is no concept of internal (even if non-measurable in practice/so far) state that would DETERMINE (deterministically) a particular outcome for a given measurement. Rather, it's basically a toss of the dice; the particular sample from the PDF just magically materializes out of nothingness, and just magically happens to follow the prescribed PDF in terms of frequency of various magically materialized outcomes. It's all magical. And it's all ridiculous.
That's a self-contradicting assertion. Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the theory of computation (i.e. Turing machines), would know that computation is inherently deterministic. And yes, 100% so. Else, it could no longer be called computation; a more appropriate euphemism might be 'deus ex machina', or in more vernacular terms, 'voodoo'.
I see absolutely nothing absurd about it. Light is a propagating disturbance within a medium. In fact, all matter and all energy are just propagating disturbances within a medium. Relative to that medium, the speed is constant just like the speed of sound is constant in air, regardless of how fast or in what direction the source of that sound is moving. Of course, since literally _everything_ is constructed along these lines, we cannot actually detect our absolute motion against that medium (any more so than software running on a computer is fundamentally capable of detecting the transistors executing it.) To us it appears as if there is no medium, and no absolute point of reference. But regardless of what we are incapable of detecting, fundamentally, there has to be such an absolute frame, and in fact it can be no other way if the universe is indeed to be construed as computational.
i love you
Of course you mean that the universe can be construed as computable, meaning that a mathematical model of the universe can be developed. But a deterministic model is only one kind of model. A stochastic model could be employed to pick up the probablility function of QM. The stochastic model should be reducible to an algorithm, and therefore, input into a Turing machine and therefore computable. To insist on a model which is inclusive of all aspects of all the universe seems to be a philosophical ideal.
The idea that individual photons cannot currently be tracked by a deterministic model just represents a lack of knowledge about what exactly does determine the photon's trajectory. That a group of photons should fall into a well-defined pattern strongly suggests determination going on somewhere, even if we cannot specify exactly what. It seems a bit strong to call a gap in knowledge voodoo. No one is saying that QM is complete, or even logically self-consistent.
The medium, or aether as it used to be known, is one thing that makes the the second postulate absurd. Because the aether is required for the constancy of the speed of light to make sense, as you say, but has resisted all intensive and persistent efforts to reveal it empirically, most famously by the Michelsson-Morley experiment. But the fact that it doesn't apparently exist is not the main reason why the second postulate is absurd.
A comparison with sound can only go so far. While the speed of sound is constant with reference to the medium in which it's propagating, it's not constant with respect to observers who are moving relative to the medium. But the 2nd postulate has it that light is constant regardless of relative motion between source and observer. That's what makes light absurd - it's unique. Its very uniqueness in this respect means that it must necessarily go against all intuition.