A New Look at Relativity, just a few thoughts

a reply to: Kashai

Precisely, what is the underlying mechanism?

a reply to: GetHyped

My evidence is quite simple really. We don't entirely understand how quantum physics works do we? And that's because we don't understand how gravitation works on the micro scale. If I recall correctly, gravity hasn't been measured past a space smaller than a millimeter. So I think it's entirely fair to say, there is still room for alterations and or additions. I'm not attacking relativity, I just want to get to the bottom of this "universe" thing.

A reply to IAmTheRumble

I just want to get to the bottom of what ever this "universe" really is.

If you really mean what you say, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Your posts show that you're not knowledgeable about these topics -- your level of knowledge and grasp of the concepts involved are at junior high school level. You have a long way to go before you even really understand what questions to ask.

So start with what you do know, and work from there. It's the only way. Right now you're starting from where you don't know.

I recommend starting with some college-level mathematics, because you haven't a hope of understanding or discussing physics intelligently without it.

But -- I am going to be unkind but honest -- from your approach and your responses I am not convinced that you really want to 'get to the bottom of what the universe really is.' That is the impulse that motivates physicists, mystics, mathematicians and philosophers. They are passionate folk, and highly knowledgeable about their field of interest. I don't get that vibe from you at all. You're just dabbling, entertaining the thought, because you reckon anybody can be as clever and Einstein. Regrettably, they can't.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: chr0naut

What is spacetime? Surely there is more to it than stretching. I have no doubt that Mr.Wheeler is correct but, does he know what lies behind the mechanism?

There are field equations that seem to describe spacetime adequately. Unfortunately, they are horrendously complex (IMHO) and usually that means we haven't understood the underlying principles enough (a true understanding usually has a 'beauty' and simplicity that becomes self-evident).

But any metaphorical explanation would pale at the power of the math to describe such tangible intangibles.

originally posted by: Astyanax
A reply to IAmTheRumble

I just want to get to the bottom of what ever this "universe" really is.

If you really mean what you say, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Your posts show that you're not knowledgeable about these topics -- your level of knowledge and grasp of the concepts involved are at junior high school level. You have a long way to go before you even really understand what questions to ask.

So start with what you do know, and work from there. It's the only way. Right now you're starting from where you don't know.

I recommend starting with some college-level mathematics, because you haven't a hope of understanding or discussing physics intelligently without it.

But -- I am going to be unkind but honest -- from your approach and your responses I am not convinced that you really want to 'get to the bottom of what the universe really is.' That is the impulse that motivates physicists, mystics, mathematicians and philosophers. They are passionate folk, and highly knowledgeable about their field of interest. I don't get that vibe from you at all. You're just dabbling, entertaining the thought, because you reckon anybody can be as clever and Einstein. Regrettably, they can't.

IAmTheRumble, don't listen to the old dudes who know it all and who tell you to conform.

They (and I) are sometimes so stuck in their ways that a different perspective gets put down before it gets a good hearing.

I would suggest that you read up a bit on the math and have a look at Relativity 4 Engineers and Minute Physics on YouTube

Cheers and keep learning.

a reply to: chr0naut

I will certainly listen to what he has to say, but i'm not going to take his reactionary response to heart. I understand people get slightly defensive when their ideas are approached in a different manner. I do appreciate your comment chr0naut, i'm just getting out of high school going to college soon. I want to be a theoretical physicist working on the top ideas, but it's not easy when i'm always shot down. Thanks man for appreciating my thoughts.

Although, my original statement was suppose to be somewhat of a different look at relativity. I never intended for people to think I don't understand the current theories. I certainly look into them more than some of the newer ideas and or alternatives. But, all responses are welcomed!

Lol its the annual summer holidays 'i can out think Einstein post'. Every year at this time without fail.

Hmmm... Better not go all topsy turvy cos GR is all bunk imo.
Read the thread in my sig.
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

a reply to: Shiloh7

I heard a talk recently about a number of scientists who are claiming that Einstein was wrong and that his theory could not be reproduced. They seem to be considered as outcasts because of not towing the official Einstein line. If these men are right, they are Professors from a number of different areas of physics, then isn't it time to re-evaluate our basic understanding of relativity? I don't know as physics has never really interested me as a separate subject, but bothers me that we may be going about this half-kilter from the start.

No Physicist worthy of calling himself that would object to other Physicists challenging Einsteins work. Indeed, that is exactly the point of Science - to challenge authority, to ask questions that can lead to new answers, new understandings.

However, when someone just says "Einstein cannot be reproduced", then it is obvious that that someone is NOT a serious Physicist. It has nothing to do with 'insider/outsider' politics, it has to do with understanding the world. If someone said to you that Copernicus was wrong and Newton was wrong and their work "could not be reproduced" you would consider them a crank or a attention seeking performance artist (like flat-earthers, say) and continue setting your alarm to wake you up at dawn.

Einsteins theories have been tested and tested and tested and tested and tested and tested. It has been demonstrated correct so often that people justifiably call it the most tested theory in the history of science. There is simply no justification for dismissing it out of hand with "it cannot be reproduced" with the idea that anyone is going to pay you any attention.

That is not to say that no one will ever find fault with Einstein's work. Relativity seems to break down at a singularity's event horizon for example.

If for example, someone has to come up with a completely 'new Physics' to understand black holes, that 'new Physics' will not 'destroy' Einstein any more that Einstein 'destroyed' Newton. Newton is still applicable in its context, Einstein expanded the bounds of how to talk about gravity and motion. This hypothetical 'new Physics' would just do the same... let us talk about new stuff that we don't know how to talk about now.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

There are a few things Einstein's theories did not account for (dark matter and dark energy), that of which make up 95% of the universe. It still remains a mystery.

There are lots of things that Einstein's theories do not account for and no one ever said he did. That is no big deal, that is why physicists still have fascinating problems to work on.

You say that Einstein's theories do not account for dark matter or dark energy. That may be true, but physicists using Einstein's theories to examine the universe discovered the 'necessity' for them to exist. In other words, the universe could not exist as it is observed to exist if there was not some kind of matter and some kind of energy that we have not witnessed with our eyeballs and our senses here on earth. They called this unknown matter and energy 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy'. I suppose they could have called it 'zombie matter' and 'zombie energy' and we could have had more interesting cultural memes incorporating it, but hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

Anyway, Dark Matter and Dark Energy would never have been noticed were it not for Einstein's work. So even though it may not specifically predict it, GR results certainly require it.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: chr0naut

I will certainly listen to what he has to say, but i'm not going to take his reactionary response to heart. I understand people get slightly defensive when their ideas are approached in a different manner. I do appreciate your comment chr0naut, i'm just getting out of high school going to college soon. I want to be a theoretical physicist working on the top ideas, but it's not easy when i'm always shot down. Thanks man for appreciating my thoughts.

Although, my original statement was suppose to be somewhat of a different look at relativity. I never intended for people to think I don't understand the current theories. I certainly look into them more than some of the newer ideas and or alternatives. But, all responses are welcomed!

There's a really good book that might help you. It's all in fairly approachable style and doesn't assume that you have done university math. It's called "Spacetime Physics" by John Archibald Wheeler (who I quoted in a previous post) and by Edwin F. Taylor. Probably the best textbook on the subject ever written.

Its an older book now but it'd be worth while looking around in second hand bookstores for (the new ones on Amazon cost a bomb!).

If you can find it as an e-book online somewhere then snap it up!

a reply to: rnaa

General Relativity also allows singularities, where as quantum mechanics does not. Oh, another thing I thought was interesting is how the math is the reality rather than the reality being the math. The math basically tells us what we "think" we're seeing rather than reality telling us what we see in a mathematical format. Kinda weird if you think about it!

Anyhow, what's the point of debating Einstein's theories if he can't be wrong. What's the point of further exploring the universe we live in, if we already have a theory that is so flawless it can only describe part of what we see! Funny how the perfect theory does't faultlessly sync with our other theories that are also "flawless". Funny how we continue to look for the right answers if we already have them...

By now i'm just ranting, you get the point of what i'm trying to get across by now I hope.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

I do appreciate your comment chr0naut, i'm just getting out of high school going to college soon. I want to be a theoretical physicist working on the top ideas, but it's not easy when i'm always shot down.

If that's where you are educationally and you mean to study physics, you are already well behind the pack. People who are really interested in physics already know a lot more about it than you do by the time they're ready to leave high school.

I hope I'm wrong about you; if I am, good luck.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

The math basically tells us what we "think" we're seeing rather than reality telling us what we see in a mathematical format.

Not really. The mathematics DESCRIBES what we have observed, it does not tell us what we think we are seeing. If that description is 'good enough' it allows us to make predictions about what we will observe when we can make the experiment.

Anyhow, what's the point of debating Einstein's theories if he can't be wrong.

Certainly Einstein can be wrong. He was wrong about a lot of things, for instance the computer you are using proves beyond a doubt that "God DOES play dice with the universe". Even Relativity could be demonstrated to be wrong about some particular result SOME DAY. That it hasn't been, just demonstrates how good his insights were.

What's the point of further exploring the universe we live in, if we already have a theory that is so flawless it can only describe part of what we see!

That is not a very thoughtful question. The point of further exploring the universe is to find the answers to the questions we have about the universe. The fact that current thinking can only "describe part of what we see" is EXACTLY the reason we keep exploring. No one has ever pretended that Einstein had all the answers (least of all Einstein himself), and that 'flaw' as you make it out to be is precisely the motivation for the quest for knowledge that we humans like to imagine makes us unique in the animal kingdom.

Any theory, no matter how 'comprehensive' it is addresses what it addresses and nothing more. I go back to the comparison with Newton. Newton's theory was 'so flawless it can only describe part of what we see" for hundreds of years. Indeed it was flawless until people started thinking about things that involved the speed of light and then Newton broke down. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton, he added understanding about the world that Newton didn't address. Quantum Physics adds more.

Just as Newtonian physics breaks down as one approaches the speed of light, so Relativity and Quantum have problems with event horizons and what is behind them.

By now i'm just ranting, you get the point of what i'm trying to get across by now I hope.

I doubt it, no. The only idea I got from your post was that you think that it is pointless to look for better answers because the answers we already have may be imperfect. That is not a human attitude, and, I hope, not your actual one.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

I'm not sure what to think about your theory at all, though I think you created an extra dimension... The ether...


As someone who wholeheartedly believes we are living inside a giant computer simulation of the universe, I did read somewhere on ATS about what another person believes in regards to black holes.
That person believed we were living in a computer simulation too and put the time dilation effect down to processing power.

The more mass/bigger something is the more interactions they have and must be made in that generalized local area and just like any computer when calculating large things, it slows down as there is so much to compute in that area, and that is why time is slower in the area of large objects of mass.

The question I always ask, is this:

"Is there any meaningful difference between 'reality' and a perfect simulation?

I mean, a lot of folks in the quantum information field would call the universe
a giant quantum computer.

So let's say that the Universe is a giant quantum computer.. that would make
all those quantum waveforms just evidence of it's 'code' so to speak..

(unless of course you don't think 'quantum waveforms' are real and are just
mathematical constructs. I've seen both sides argued equally. But even
then, that we understand the mathematical constructs and they work has
also been used in Bostroms simulation argument).

Kev

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Kashai

Precisely, what is the underlying mechanism?

The idea that matter, due to gravity has something to do with the activities of a Clock is counter intuitive. With respect to when it was originally introduced, I can assure you that it was quite controversial at the time.

One way for looking at it in "Theory" is in relation to Chaos theory where space-time upon some other scale functions the same as matter and energy, in the context, perhaps of that of a fractal.

I had a very good friend who was like a brother to me that debated an issue that I supported against me. To the bitter end [so to speak] we argued the issue . The fact of the matter is he did that because of how close we really were.

Do not let issues like that bother you.

In Science the only real person you are competing with is yourself.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

That was very well put, you're exactly right about who you are competing with, yourself. Listening to people say you can't do something is not going to help. That leaves only yourself to overcome. Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith and hope it works.

My overall goal is to achieve a faster than light propulsion system. Whether it be through quantum entanglement, warp drive, or a wormhole. Who knows, I just want to know why we're here and what else is here with us.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: chr0naut

I will certainly listen to what he has to say, but i'm not going to take his reactionary response to heart. I understand people get slightly defensive when their ideas are approached in a different manner. I do appreciate your comment chr0naut, i'm just getting out of high school going to college soon. I want to be a theoretical physicist working on the top ideas, but it's not easy when i'm always shot down. Thanks man for appreciating my thoughts.

Hi there, you say you are interested in being a theoretical physicist. What exactly motivates you in doing this type of work? Did you watch some space documentary about some "theoretical physicist" pontificating on black holes and thought, "wow, I want to be like that guy!"? Also, do you realize theoretical physics is not some monolithic field dealing only with abstract and esoteric particle theories and cosmological field theories? Believe it or not, but there are theoretical physicists working in hospitals that conduct research along with clinical duties, as well as theoretical physicists doing classified work in defense or the materials/semiconductor industry. You also have a much better chance of working as a theoretical physicist when you specialize in these areas than specializing in the "sexy" fields of cosmology/astrophysics or high energy physics. That naturally leads us to the next question: Have you thought about future employment? Say you have your newly minted PhD in high energy theory specializing in either phenomenology of the standard model, or superstrings, or whatever is the fad 8-10 years from now (assuming you're entering a physics program now). Do you realize that such fields have little to no industrial applications, and hence you're only employment option for the most part is in academia? Do you realize you are often competing with upwards of 400+ application for any permanent academic position in these fields (astrophysics and high energy)? Many of these people have an impressive list of publications and did incredible work with Nobel prize winner at a top 10 school. That's who you'll be going up against. Otherwise, does being paid around 35K/year in a temporary postdoctoral fellowship, that expires every couple of years and has you looking for the next one and moving to the other side of the country or even the world, appeal to you? Where you must work on the ideas of the principal investigator you are working with and essentially do most of the grunt work (in terms of training students, research, etc)? Just some food for thought. What actually happens is once someone gets their PhD in these fields, does a couple of postdocs and becomes disillusioned with research and the fact they will never get a permanent position, and then leave the science field altogether.

Also, consider where fundamental physics research is heading. Right now, it's at a great impasse. Strings still rules the roost, and is producing insightful mathematical results. But, it has produced little by way of experiment. Supersymmetry (SUSY) was practically expected to manifest in some way at the LHC, but absolutely nothing. It's a very real possibility and perhaps even likely that the next accelerator to succeed the LHC will not be built, given the lack of any truly great scientific motivation to build it along with the given tightening of science budgets worldwide (especially fundamental science such as this). The LHC has failed to find any significant deviations from the standard model, which is a problem for those hoping to see new physics that is beyond the standard model. Standard particle physics will still be something to consider, though, as there are many mysteries that still need to be understood and experimental evidence is forthcoming to confirm or refute proposed models.

Lastly, if you want to know physics, start with as much mathematics. Please make sure you are absolutely comfortable with algebra, trigonometry, and basic calculus. Then start studying mechanics. Pulleys, friction, mechanical work, torque, inclined planes, rotations, and all that 'fun' stuff. It will be hard and depressing, but it is absolutely crucial to have this basis for any understanding of higher level physics. You can't understand general relativity (GR) at a fundamental level without Lagrangian mechanics, and you will have a tough understanding the principle of least action (which is what the Lagrangian is based) without some solid grounding in Newtonian mechanics. Also, since you want to specialize in theory, pick up as much math as you can once you have the basic calculus down. That means the truly esoteric mathematics such as real analysis, topology, differential geometry, group theory, complex and functional analysis, etc. as much of the research in cutting-edge theoretical physics is based on a graduate level understanding of these topics.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

I'd like to endorse Diabolo's post and add that we are currently (in the case of string theories) trying to do 23rd century physics, with 19th century math and we are at an impasse.

In the way that calculus took the complexities of solving very long winded mathematical descriptions and made things cleaner and easier, we need new mathematical tools to push past where we are now.

Computers are expected to be part of the solution now but even quantum computing alone is insufficient. We need a new 'trick'.

So if you really want to be useful in theoretical physics, look at giving us new tools!

originally posted by: [post=19660573]IAmTheRumble
My overall goal is to achieve a faster than light propulsion system. Whether it be through quantum entanglement, warp drive, or a wormhole. Who knows, I just want to know why we're here and what else is here with us.

Lol. And you are starting on GR is it?
Good luk with warp drive.