Jorrie wrote:...physicists tend to think of 'real' as the result of measurements ...
Jorrie wrote:...your idea of renormalization is very different from the mainstream meaning.
Faradave » 23 Oct 2016, 09:09 wrote:hyksos wrote:By "model gravitation fundamentally", I assume he means he thinks he is deriving a model of Quantum Gravity.
Yes, in that the field is modeled as arising from personally characterized quantum spin (i.e. chronaxial). But I don't adhere to string theory or extra dimensions and I do unify G & EM simply (as a Personal Theory). So, there are distinctions from what's found in the literature.
Faradave » 23 Oct 2016, 08:59 wrote:They [Taylor & Wheeler] consider the 4vector a unifying idea between invariant spacetime intervals (I) and invariant rest mass (m0). In natural units (c = 1) we see:
ΔI2 = ΔX2 – ΔT2 and Δm02 = ΔE2 – Δp2.
I also find this agreeable, though I prefer their Euclidean representation.
QED sees the field as a far more convoluted swarm of selfinteracting virtual particles. This seems to apply to electric charge but it neglects mass charge (thus "quantum electrodynamics"). Either way, an instance of a field (G or EM) corresponds to a particle's future light cone at that moment.
In the limit, as that region goes to zero, we're left with a single, lightlike field element, from which generation of a particle's field may be imagined with "chronaxial" spin.
I believe "relativistic mass" should be as simply derived. Not finding that, I attempt it below.
But moving clocks run slow. Why should a moving object have more instances of its field?
Jorrie wrote:false arguments
Jorrie wrote:The problem is that spacetime is not Euclidean.
Jorrie wrote:[Your] confusing terms like "radiant energy (p)" and "light interval (I)" ...are creating complete confusion. Neither ... have the meanings in physics that you attempt to attach
Jorrie wrote:Never heard of "mass charge"  what's that?
Jorrie wrote:Please also define "instance of a field (G or EM)" in standard terms (or at least provide a reliable reference).
Jorrie wrote:What is a "lightlike field element"?
Jorrie wrote:And "chronaxial spin" has been refuted by Lincoln, myself and others in the past. Why are you persisting with it?
Jorrie wrote:["relativistic mass"] has been simplistically derived by Einstein, in its energy form.
Jorrie wrote:I think your next diagrams really an Epstein spacepropertime diagram, which never caught on due to its confusing mixing of "my space" and "your time".
Jorrie wrote:...you are talking inertial movement here, there are no "moving clocks" ... each clock 'run's slow' according to the others perspective. It is just an observational perspective.
Jorrie wrote:no clock has "more instances of its field". It is only the perception of the "other guy".
Richard Feynman wrote:No machinery has ever been invented that "explains"” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist.
"Finally, let us compare gravitation with other theories. In recent years we have discovered that all mass is made of tiny particles and that there are several kinds of interactions, such as nuclear forces, etc. None of these nuclear or electrical forces has yet been found to explain gravitation. The quantummechanical aspects of nature have not yet been carried over to gravitation. When the scale is so small that we need the quantum effects, the gravitational effects are so weak that the need for a quantum theory of gravitation has not yet developed. On the other hand, for consistency in our physical theories it would be important to see whether Newton’s law modified to Einstein’s law can be further modified to be consistent with the uncertainty principle. This last modification has not yet been completed."

Faradave » 28 Oct 2016, 07:35 wrote:Jorrie wrote:false arguments
The numbers work! The interval equation (X² = I² + T²) and energy equation (E² = m² + p²) are analogous.
FD wrote:Jorrie wrote:[Your] confusing terms like "radiant energy (p)" and "light interval (I)" ...are creating complete confusion. Neither ... have the meanings in physics that you attempt to attach
I'm sorry about any confusion. "Radiant energy" is nothing special. Taylor & Wheeler use it for kinetic energy, particularly in the case where a "particle" has zero rest mass. Such radiant energy transmits via lightlike intervals.
Jorrie wrote:[The interval equation (X² = T² + I²) and energy equation (E² = m_{0}² + p²)] ... may look the same, but they represent totally different concepts. ... The energy equation has the rest mass taking the position of [the spacetime interval] in the interval equation, but they are not related to each other.
Jorrie wrote:The spacetime interval equation embodies the hyperbolic nature of spacetime.
Jorrie wrote:If we solve the [conventional] equations, we get a [hyperbolic] spacetime diagram
Jorrie wrote:...to insinuate that one can use ["radiant energy"] for a massive particle's kinetic energy seems quite absurd.
Faradave wrote:OK. But it's just as well to say that rearranged, the equation represents the Euclidean nature of Times Square (time & light coordinates). It's not unusual for science to get things a bit suboptimal the first time. Spacetime coordinates have their use but lack a justification so robust as to preempt all others.

hyksos wrote:Wikipedia links The mathematics is very erudite.
hyksos wrote:Claiming that you have a theory of quantum gravity, and then presenting the theory with triangle diagrams (that look like repeated derivations of the Lorentz factor), ...will only lead to pain.
Jorrie wrote:FD, ... whether you recognize it or not, [Times Square] mixes reference frame values in a confusing way.
Jorrie wrote:Minkowski offers a whole bunch of things that your "spacepropertime" does not, like half of Minkowski spacetime is spacelike  a quite important domain!
Jorrie wrote:I will leave you ... There is an immense amount of accepted science that I still have to read...
Jorrie wrote:If and when your ideas become mainstream, I'll surely pick up on it again. ;)
hyksos wrote:Are you claiming to this forum that you have been doing mathematical work in the topic of dualities in string theory?
Or are you claiming that you are working on a conformal field theory?
hyksos wrote: I watched almost all [Faradave's] videos in one sitting.
hyksos wrote:Minkowski spacetime is not a literal description of the world. It is a toy model of Special Relativity where space is squashed to 2 dimensions.
hyksos wrote:there is no "cone" in the actual spacetime we are sitting within now. That spacetime is a 4dimensional subject
hyksos wrote:3 Ds of space and another D that marks off local duration in a reference frame. The D=4 is not "time" per se, (because visavis ronjanec, the word "time" is fraught with semantic potholes.
hyksos wrote:you cannot use Ockham to simply remove actual dimensions of space that are actually there.
hyksos wrote:You must learn everything about 4vectors and how they are multiplied by matrices.
hyksos wrote:There is nothing here that needs simplifying. This is the raw depiction of the theory of SR in the simplest terms.
hyksos wrote:another piece of homework : find out what orthochronous means.
Spacetime is clearly a welldeveloped legacy with much to offer but that's no reason to neglect the simpler, Euclidean perspective I provide with intervaltime coordinates.
I like toys! So did Feynman, with spacetime the coordinate choice for his ubiquitous Feynman diagrams. As this toy finds extensive utility in both Relativity and QM, it's worth playing with.
==
The literature is replete with references to "light cones" so, I find the model unavoidable. Of course, you and I know that being a structure in 4D, the referenced "cone" is better described as a 3cone, incorporating 3D rather than the depicted surface. Any rim (3conic section) is thus understood to be a surface (e.g. a sphere) rather than just a loop.
Agreed! Dimensions quintessentially provide the potential for separation, three offer bidirectional translational freedom, while one (typically referred to as "time") is unidirectional. This can be modeled from a unique, central, Big Bang event, from which a 4D temporal field emanates and "space" is an enclosing 3surface.
I can blabber the above points at you and you will read them, then forget them as if I were writing poetry. I can tell you things like "It is an emotional attachment to classical time that must be abandoned." You will think this is a pretty flower to be enjoyed temporarily and moved on.
hyksos wrote:You will gain the world if you study the full 4D version.
hyksos wrote:Nobody is neglecting you.
.hyksos wrote:Nobody is neglecting Euclidean coordinates. You've been posting ... for years.
hyksos wrote:You are neglecting the way SR is taught in the full 4 dimensional versions.
hyksos wrote:you are missing some crucial conceptual points by neglecting the full 4D version
hyksos wrote:In particular what [4vectors say] about "time" and "energy" and how they relate to each other.
hyksos wrote:Special Relativity …You will never correct the theory, nor extend upon it, until that time in which you capture its fundamental claims. To abandon a theory, you must first authentically state it.
hyksos wrote: You clearly believe [a curvedspace, radialtime model] is what Special Relativity is saying and I'm telling you … you have it wrong.
hyksos wrote:"time" is very wobbly in SR. It is far better to begin to conceptualize the 4th dimension as representing energy. Without this conception, you risk rotting away in a culdesac where the theory only makes predictions about a single observer's frame.
Length contraction, time dilation and relativistic massenergy are all part of Phyxed and entirely consistent with Relativity, QM and the Standard Model. Phyxed is just simpler, more complete and more explicit.
hyksos wrote:I am skeptical of its applicability.
hyksos wrote:lack of any expressions for energy is suspicious.
As valuable as General Relativity has been, the Standard Model still lacks a fundamental explanation of gravity. Massenergy is associated with spacetime "curvature" but there hasn't been a hint as to how massenergy does that.
hyksos wrote:Our universe does not have 2 dimensions of space with a 3rd dimension of time going up. Our universe appears as a 3Ds of space and 1D of time.
hyksos wrote: dot product in Minkowski space, with a minus sign on the "temporal" component.
hyksos wrote:find out whether 4D rotations are as simple as they are in the 3D diagrams we have all used up to now. This link below suggests the answer is no.
hyksos wrote:So what does a rotation look like in 4D?
Though I can't claim to understand either, the language of your reference seems very much the same as that for spinors, which exists as a abstract description (but not an explanation) of fermion spin.
Interesting but they seem to be suffering under the impression that rotation can only occur in a classical 2plane (e.g. XY, YZ, XZ, etc.) with as many pairs as the dimension allows. By contrast, Phyxed is perfectly comfortable with solidangular rotation in an XYZ 3plane (about time). That's how fields are generated and it's why "independent" spin components of a single fermion are entangled.
hyksos wrote:I talked to some mathematicians in a chat room. … In 4D you must stop thinking about rotations "around an axis"
hyksos wrote:"Rotate around the t axis, <x,y,z> points move." This is impossible. It makes no sense, geometrically speaking.
hyksos wrote:consider the case in which ω = φ
hyksos wrote:It seemed to me something murky was hiding in "solidangular rotation in an XYZ 3plane".
Faradave » September 28th, 2018, 9:44 pm wrote:hyksos wrote:I talked to some mathematicians in a chat room. … In 4D you must stop thinking about rotations "around an axis"
That's an absurd restriction by surprisingly narrow minds, which defies the very notion of rotation. Be careful what you listen to. (You'd be doing them a favor by referring them to: Spin½ "Plane" & Simple: https://youtu.be/oGdXt2gZI1Ihyksos wrote:"Rotate around the t axis, <x,y,z> points move." This is impossible. It makes no sense, geometrically speaking.
That's the result of their absurd presumption. Rotation about the taxis is solid angular rotation in the XYZ 3plane. It's perfectly reasonable, geometrically speaking.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests