The Simple Idea Behind Einstein’s Greatest Discoveries

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

The Simple Idea Behind Einstein’s Greatest Discoveries

Postby socrat44 on June 26th, 2019, 5:33 pm 

The Simple Idea Behind Einstein’s Greatest Discoveries
K.C. Cole
Contributing Writer
June 26, 2019
===
The relationship that eventually mattered most to Einstein’s legacy was symmetry.
Scientists often describe symmetries as changes that don’t really change anything,
differences that don’t make a difference,
variations that leave deep relationships invariant.

Examples are easy to find in everyday life.
You can rotate a snowflake by 60 degrees and it will look the same.
You can switch places on a teeter-totter and not upset the balance.

More complicated symmetries have led physicists to the discovery
of everything from neutrinos to quarks — they even led to Einstein’s
own discovery that gravitation is the curvature of space-time,
which, we now know, can curl in on itself, pinching off into black holes.
#
Over the past several decades, some physicists have begun
to question whether focusing on symmetry is still as
productive as it used to be.
New particles predicted by theories based on symmetries
haven’t appeared in experiments as hoped, and the
Higgs boson that was detected was far too light to fit
into any known symmetrical scheme.
Symmetry hasn’t yet helped to explain why gravity is so weak,
why the vacuum energy is so small, or
why dark matter remains transparent.
#
“There has been, in particle physics, this prejudice
that symmetry is at the root of our description of nature,”
said the physicist Justin Khoury of the University
of Pennsylvania. “That idea has been extremely powerful.
But who knows?
Maybe we really have to give up on these beautiful and
cherished principles that have worked so well.
So it’s a very interesting time right now.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/einstein ... -20190626/

===
Attachments
Question.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Hailing T-axis

Postby Faradave on June 27th, 2019, 12:49 pm 

Nice reference, socrat44.

I don't however think we have exhausted symmetry until we have addressed that available about a temporal axis. Physics has somehow turned a blind eye to this glaring omission despite Einstein's overwhelming success in treating time as a geometrically valid dimension (i.e. separator of events). The blindness is evident as a blatant asymmetry in this "symmetry table".

Image
In physics, conservation laws are each associated with a symmetry (by Noether's theorem). While translation is recognized in 4D, rotation is inexplicably recognized in only 3D! The symmetries are thus, incomplete. I have elsewhere modeled gravity arising from chronaxial spin, the missing rotation.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Hailing T-axis

Postby socrat44 on June 27th, 2019, 4:28 pm 

Faradave » June 27th, 2019, 12:49 pm wrote:Nice reference, socrat44.

In physics, conservation laws are each associated
with a symmetry (by Noether's theorem).
While translation is recognized in 4D, rotation is inexplicably recognized in only 3D!


Sorry, i don't understand
Is Noether's theorem about
''conservation laws associated with a symmetry'' belongs to 4-D or also to 3-D ?
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby Faradave on June 28th, 2019, 12:09 am 

Noether's theorem can be a little complicated.

The table lists [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law#Exact_laws
=]exact conservation laws[/url] (those never expected to change) in the first column. Each one has an associated symmetry listed in the second column. As you noted, a symmetry reveals an aspect which does not change under a particular kind of transformation. An equilateral triangle is invariant under 60° rotational transformation in its plane.

My point is that there are conservation laws associated with translation (a kind of transformation) in all four dimensions (x, y, z & t), while conservation laws are only associated with rotation (another kind of transformation) in three dimensions (x, y, & z). It seems ironic that rotation about time is absent, creating an imbalance (or asymmetry) in the laws associated with symmetry.

Exact Laws 4.png
Bottom Line: If a valid geometric dimension can support separation and translation (as x, y, z, & t do), they all ought to support rotation as well (but t has been omitted without explicit explanation).
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby Positor on June 28th, 2019, 9:42 am 

Faradave » June 28th, 2019, 5:09 am wrote:If a valid geometric dimension can support separation and translation (as x, y, z, & t do), they all ought to support rotation as well (but t has been omitted without explicit explanation).

As a layman, I find it difficult to conceptualize rotation about a time axis. In particular:

1. Does the fact that time is uni-directional create an inherent asymmetry with the spatial dimensions, which are bi-directional?

2. Any rotation, it seems, is a process taking place in time. It is temporally extended; it has a 'before', a 'during', and an 'after'. We therefore need a (unidirectional) time dimension to express its duration and its velocity (distance/time). This time dimension needs to be independent of any 'time axis' about which a rotation takes place. It seems, therefore, that we need two time dimensions, orthogonal to each other.

3. In a spatial rotation, the axis of rotation can be visualized as static, while the motion takes place in the other two spatial dimensions. If a rotation is about the time dimension, can time be visualized as 'static' in the same way? And are all three spatial dimensions involved in the rotation?

I wonder if I have an oversimplified mental picture of this. Is your idea merely hard to visualize, or is there perhaps some more serious objection to it?
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Timely Considerations

Postby Faradave on June 28th, 2019, 12:13 pm 

Excellent questions, Positor. I'm afraid they're the reason physicists have avoided any consideration of "chronaxial spin" thus far. We're currently in the Physics section, so I'll try to keep my answers to a minimum, with two caveats:

A. They're examples of answers, without asserting that they are THE answers.

B. With apologies to socrate44, we understand if the mods move this thread to Personal Theories.

That said, recall that physics currently lacks any explanation or even a definite spin axis for fermion spin despite the fact that this spin has real angular momentum (a conserved quantity) and exhibits real magnetic moments on its spatial component axes.

"It turns out that the spin vector is not very useful in actual quantum mechanical calculations, because it cannot be measured directly: sx, sy and sz cannot possess simultaneous definite values"

"…spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles ..."

It thus behooves physics to consider the only non-spatial axis, time.

Positor wrote:1. Does the fact that time is uni-directional create an inherent asymmetry with the spatial dimensions, which are bi-directional?

I would argue that a unidirectional temporal axis provides additional symmetries and associated conservation law. But to your point, spin around time is inherently different than around a spatial spin axis, specifically because of their different directionalities.

Begin by admittting that spin around any spatial axis has no direction! That is, spatial spin is inherently bidirectional - both "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" at once. Which spin any observer perceives depends on perspective. That perspective imposes a unidirectional axis pointing "toward me" from which spin direction is applied by convention. The falsehood of this impression is revealed by placing observers on both sides of the spin at the same time.

Image
A glass clock reveals that it's hands always move bidirectionally around a bidirectional spatial axis.

Because a temporal axis offers one absolute translational direction (forward only), it offers two absolute spin directions. We observers receive information only from the past (we thus, can't "see" the future). An associated conservation law might be: conservation of freedoms.

Conserve Freedom.png
Simple particles have degrees of freedom to translate and rotate, which are conserved in total.

Two absolute spin directions about time are useful in explaining two electric charge types (e.g. that of an electron and positron) which annihilate on contact. It also explains the Wheeler & Feynman description of a positron.

"Feynman, and earlier Stueckelberg, proposed an interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time…would have a positive electric charge."

Image
An electron and positron from opposite chronaxial spins. A positron is equivalent to an electron traveling backward in time (i.e. with reverse chronaxial spin.)

Positor wrote:Any rotation, it seems, is a process taking place in time.

This is certainly true for classical (i.e. spatial) rotation. Thus, a moon in "circular" orbit, actually describes a helix in 4D, coiling forward in time.

Chronaxial spin is generally circular around time, thus it would be inherently instantaneous. Physicists are revulsed by such a notion, yet it forms the only basis for their beloved superposition (which occurs necessarily "at the same time".

What instantaneous spin actually does is restrict those objects which can participate to those unlimited by speed c. Point objects and projections are among them. Being lightlike (i.e. having zero interval radius) comes with non-classical freedom - to spin chronaxially).

Positor wrote:3.If a rotation is about the time dimension, can time be visualized as 'static' in the same way? And are all three spatial dimensions involved in the rotation?

When I draw a temporal axis, it is just as static as any spatial axis. Rotation about time is, as you suspect, somehow more than rotation about a spatial axis. Chronaxial spin (about time) occurs in a 3-plane (i.e. an XYZ-plane) rather than a classical 2-plane (XY, YZ, or XZ). That means chronaxial spin is solid angular, entailing 4pi steradians (yes, it's part of solid geometry) rather than 2pi radians.

Image
A dimensional spin progression.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Timely Considerations

Postby socrat44 on June 28th, 2019, 5:02 pm 

Faradave » June 28th, 2019, 12:13 pm wrote:
"…spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles ..."


Spin (physics)
''In quantum mechanics and particle physics, spin is an intrinsic form
of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, . . . ''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
#
Today quantum particles carry two kinds of SPIN : linear h and angular h* (bar)
but quantum particles don't have SPATIAL axis.
Why quantum particles don't have SPATIAL axis ?
Because in Quantum Mechanics quantum particle doesn't have Geometrical FORM.
Every object in Classical Mechanics has geometrical form.
Objects in Quantum Mechanics don't have geometrical form.
What kind of MECHANICS is it?
Therefore speculations about Quantum Mechanics don't have end.
======

TIME is relative concept.
TIME is always something ''from ---------------> to ''
Relativistic concept TIME has many different ways;
a) can go forward
b) can go back (maybe)
c) can stop (frozen as photon showed at speed - c)
#
TIME itself doesn't work.
Always SOMETHING works in TIME. (for example: Planck's spin)
============
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby bangstrom on June 29th, 2019, 4:52 am 

Positor » June 28th, 2019, 8:42 am wrote:
1. Does the fact that time is uni-directional create an inherent asymmetry with the spatial dimensions, which are bi-directional?

Yes, a uni-directional passage through time would be an asymmetry. This is a problem when considering a chronaxial spin (spin about a time axis) or passage through a wormhole, “spinhole”, E-R bridge, or whatever else you choose to call it. If an object disappears into a wormhole, it simultaneously emerges at the other end. The timing of the two events is observer dependent with an observer saying the closest of the two events happened first.
Positor » June 28th, 2019, 8:42 am wrote:
2. Any rotation, it seems, is a process taking place in time. It is temporally extended; it has a 'before', a 'during', and an 'after'. We therefore need a (unidirectional) time dimension to express its duration and its velocity (distance/time). This time dimension needs to be independent of any 'time axis' about which a rotation takes place. It seems, therefore, that we need two time dimensions, orthogonal to each other.


Time is expressed as bi-directional with the thought of time as a movie that can run either forward or backwards. Motion about a time axis is spacial and orthogonal to the time axis. Even the z axis is a third spacial axis orthogonal to the time axis and this is hard to visualize in the diagrams. The two necessary time dimensions are a linear world line and a moving clock time.

Positor » June 28th, 2019, 8:42 am wrote:
3. In a spatial rotation, the axis of rotation can be visualized as static, while the motion takes place in the other two spatial dimensions. If a rotation is about the time dimension, can time be visualized as 'static' in the same way? And are all three spatial dimensions involved in the rotation?

Any motion necessarily takes place in time and space with neither one ever being truly static. A spacial rotation can be visualized as static when the axis of rotation remains the same relative to the location of the observer and a rotation about about a time axis can be considered static when the time axis and observer share the same clock time.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 690
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby Positor on June 29th, 2019, 8:36 am 

Faradave and bangstrom,

Thanks for the replies. I will contemplate them further.
bangstrom » June 29th, 2019, 9:52 am wrote:The two necessary time dimensions are a linear world line and a moving clock time.

Yes, I think this is a crucial point.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby socrat44 on June 29th, 2019, 8:45 am 

bangstrom » June 29th, 2019, 4:52 am wrote:
Positor » June 28th, 2019, 8:42 am wrote: when the time axis and observer share the same clock time.


Hmm, . . . ha, ha, ha
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby socrat44 on June 29th, 2019, 9:42 am 

socrat44 » June 29th, 2019, 8:45 am wrote:
bangstrom » June 29th, 2019, 4:52 am wrote:
Positor » June 28th, 2019, 8:42 am wrote: when the time axis and observer share the same clock time.


Hmm, . . . ha, ha, ha


Sorry, what is time now?
According to the time axis (of Earth) and us (as observers) the clock time is 10 a.m.
====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby Positor on June 29th, 2019, 11:55 am 

socrat44 » June 29th, 2019, 1:45 pm wrote:
bangstrom » June 29th, 2019, 4:52 am wrote:
Positor » June 28th, 2019, 8:42 am wrote: when the time axis and observer share the same clock time.

Hmm, . . . ha, ha, ha

The above statement attributed to me is actually by bangstrom.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: The Simple Idea Behind Einstein’s Greatest Discoveries

Postby socrat44 on June 29th, 2019, 1:32 pm 

@Positor
Sorry, i was not attentive
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Just in Time

Postby Faradave on June 29th, 2019, 2:07 pm 

Clocks measure aging. Aging is time experienced on the way to the future. The "future" refers to the future of the cosmos, which serves well as a "universal" reference from which all observers may calibrate their relative motion, aging etc. The cosmos is always at rest with respect to itself. Nothing in the cosmos is older than the cosmos.

socrat44 wrote:Today quantum particles carry two kinds of SPIN : linear h and angular h* (bar) but quantum particles don't have SPATIAL axis.

" spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles …
Spin is one of two types of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, the other being orbital angular momentum.
" Spin (physics)

I argue both of these are chronaxial because they are associated with volume distributions as would result from rotations in a 3-plane (an XYZ-plane).

In addition, particles may have classical spin (about a spatial axis), which for example, is the source of magnetism. This is no stranger than allowing an electron to be in a classical orbit (e.g. part of an object orbiting the earth), while also occupying an orbital around an atomic nucleus.

socrat44 wrote:in Quantum Mechanics quantum particle doesn't have Geometrical FORM.

I consider a point to be a geometric form available in any dimensionality. This is frequently invoked by the term "center" (e.g. center of a circle, center of mass, etc.).

I view a "particle" as the "center" of chronaxial spin (in a 3-plane). That QM asserts uncertainty of a particle's precise location is equivalent to saying the center is distributed (or "smeared") probabilistically over a region. That's indicative of instantaneous motion (allowed for faster-than-light phenomena).

socrat44 wrote:TIME is relative concept. TIME … can stop (frozen as photon showed at speed - c)

Nope. Aging is avoided by a light quantum, but light absorbers are always in the future of the emitter. It makes no sense to say that time "stops" or there would be no future.

Non-aging of light indicates that there are geometrically independent aging and non-aging paths to the future. The cosmos provides a maximally aging frame since nothing in the cosmos is older than the cosmos. A lightlike interval represents an orthogonal (thus non-aging) path. The thing that connects them is space (i.e. simultaneities), the 3-surface described by the balloon analogy of cosmic expansion.

ImageSean Carroll's depiction of a temporal field emerging from the Big Bang (t0). I added lines AB as cosmic aging, AC as an interval coordinate, representing light's non-aging path to the future (t2) and AD as an instantaneous entanglement connection between the current simultaneity "now" (t1) and itself.

bangstrom wrote:Yes, a uni-directional passage through time would be an asymmetry.

I was referring to symmetry in the sense of Emmy Noether. Unidirectional time and bidirectional space provide conservation of freedoms (translation + rotation = 3) which is invariance under axis transformation.

Positor wrote:Yes, I think this [two time dimensions] is a crucial point.

Carroll's temporal 4-field comprises all 4 dimensions! Independent aging and non-aging paths are essential in view of light. Non-aging X, Y & Z interval coordinates supply this orthogonally with any temporal radius and tangent to curved space (see AC above).

socrat44 wrote:ha, ha, ha … Sorry, what is time now?

Current cosmic age serves as a universal reference for "now".

bangstrom wrote:...time as a movie that can run either forward or backwards

A nice thought. Of course, this is never observed. Cause always precedes effect.
Unidirectional time can provide geometric symmetry as Carroll's radial 4-field emerging from the big bang event.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Just in Time

Postby socrat44 on June 29th, 2019, 2:57 pm 

Faradave » June 29th, 2019, 2:07 pm wrote:
socrat44 wrote:ha, ha, ha … Sorry, what is time now?

Current cosmic age serves as a universal reference for "now".


According to the time axis (of Earth) and us (as observers)
the clock time is 10 a.m now, of course, from the beginning
of the cosmic age 14 billions years ago.
#
The beginning of ''Current cosmic age'' didn't have time axis and
after big-bang where TIME-AXIS was.
=====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: A Symmetry Asymmetry

Postby bangstrom on June 29th, 2019, 8:53 pm 

socrat44 » June 29th, 2019, 8:42 am wrote:
Sorry, what is time now?

Someone once asked Yogi Berra, an American baseball player, "What time is it,Yogi?"
Yogi asked back, "You mean now?"
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 690
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Faradave liked this post


Re: Just in Time

Postby bangstrom on June 29th, 2019, 9:06 pm 

Faradave » June 29th, 2019, 1:07 pm wrote:
bangstrom wrote:...time as a movie that can run either forward or backwards

A nice thought. Of course, this is never observed. Cause always precedes effect.
Unidirectional time can provide geometric symmetry as Carroll's radial 4-field emerging from the big bang event.


If time is moving backwards, how could we tell the difference from what we observe now? Cause and effect are relative to the direction of time.

Or (same question) if time is a static "Block" time, how could we tell if we are moving forward or backwards through time.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 690
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Powers of Observation

Postby Faradave on June 29th, 2019, 11:30 pm 

bangstrom wrote:If time is moving backwards, how could we tell the difference from what we observe now?

Fair enough! I admit that if we all wake up "tomorrow" and absolutely everything has been reset to 5 years ago, we couldn't tell. But that notion adds nothing but unproductive complexity to the model. Occam says we can proceed just as well with the simpler notion of unidirectional time.

Remember that science is based on what we observe.

A trickier proposition would be a small subsystem (i.e. a time machine) going backward in time. That is prohibited in Relativity by speed limit c. I find it much more satisfying to instead explain a finite, universal, constant and invariant speed limit c as a result of the curved-space, radial time structure of the universe. In that model, unidirectional time as an outward radial field limits speeds (seen a worldline's angular departure from the cosmic rest frame) to the tangent of any spatial simultaneity (as in diagram above).
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)



Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron