Philosophy Now Forum

Occam's Razor and the Special Theory of Relativity.
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in a negative 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) is relative. (!)
4.
One postulate of SRT says the speed of quantum
of light is going in a vacuum.
Minkowski, trying to understand Einstein’s idea, decided to take
time as a fourth coordinate and created his negative spacetime
4D continuum.
What is negative 4D spacetime continuum really?
Really the negative spacetime 4D continuum is vacuum.
Why?
Because only vacuum has negative parameter ( negative temperature )
and only in vacuum the space and time tied together in unrequited continuum.
===.
My conclusion.
Einstein’s SRT explains the behavior of light quanta in vacuum.
=====.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================..
P.S.
"Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /

===.

The question is:
Can quantum of light change its constant speed ?
===.
Faster-than-light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

etc . . .
===.

Once again.
My opinion about SRT.
1.
One of Einstein’s postulate says that quantum of light moves
in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
2.
The other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that even the speed
of quantum of light is relative.
3.
It means that quantum of light can change its constant speed.
=.
The book: Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order.
/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos / The lecture № 3 /
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos (served as assistant to Einstein during
the period 1928–29 ) wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate – there isn’t absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate – the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of viewit seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . . It was be done. (!)
Einstein made it. (!)
. . It was needed the Einstein’s courage to do this unity. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
And they can be united in negative spacetime - 4D.
==.
Very well ! !
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is the negative 4D spacetime ?
Nobody knows. ( ! )
===.

The only important question of STR is why (the mechanism?) is c (some electro-magnetic property of physical space) limiting for speeds of everything. All others aspects of STR are useless or even obscure

I do not trust TR at all. But I have been rather uncertain about the Dirac formalism, that seems to be useful and that somehow (!!!) follows from STR. But your (Socratus) link to
ftp://210.45.114.81/physics/%CA%E9%BC%A ... lik%20.pdf
(see page 103 for example) explains that equations (like Dirac one) can be derived from Maxwell equations only extended by Pauli matrix (without STR). It causes that TR has even lower power and impact to the real physics for me then I originally admitted

Some care is required in applying Occam's Razor. A simple and extreme example is that God speaks everything into existence, from nothing. Thus the universe and how it behaves come from a great Magician. I don't agree with this explanation, but examples like it are, to me, warnings against over-simplification. Perhaps there are better examples -- such as ether as the medium for electromagnetic waves.

Do we need Theory of relativity at all?

- The trace of Mercury was exactly computed by Paul Gerber several years before Einstein
- Quantum Electrodynamics (Dirac) equations can be derived from Maxwell and Pauli (without STR)
- The motion of stars in galaxies differs from GTR result by many tens percent
- GTR is impossible to quantize (: due to its "emptiness" :)

Hi, cerveny!

With reference to the motion of stars in galaxies differing from GTR by many tens of percent: The topic "Open Question on Quantization of Gravity" in this forum presents a possible explanation, summarized below:

Even if gravity and hence acceleration at the middle of the galaxy theoretically (according to GRT) can be infinite, the observed (measured) motion (magnitude of acceleration) is bounded above, due to the fact that we cannot measure instantaneous motion -- it has to be averaged over a finite length of time. And the longer the time over which it is averaged, the lower the bound. This could explain at least part of the discrepancy between theory and observation.

And if distance and time are quantum entities, acceleration is physically bounded above, not just because of our limitations in measuring it, which would make the existence of singularities in GTR impossible.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this explanation. It depends on velocity being bounded above by c (light velocity).

Ah yes, Relativity:

So then, how fast does a ball travel being thrown from a passenger walking forward on a train going backward to a man walking west near the side of the tracks on a planet rotating clockwise and at the sametime orbiting the Sun whilst rotating in a galaxie that is moving away from all the rest?

I think it best to know the speed the ball is traveling before we move on to photons and other particles that we can only imagine, don't you?

=

Mike Strand wrote:Hi, cerveny!

With reference to the motion of stars in galaxies differing from GTR by many tens of percent: The topic "Open Question on Quantization of Gravity" in this forum presents a possible explanation, summarized below:

Even if gravity and hence acceleration at the middle of the galaxy theoretically (according to GRT) can be infinite, the observed (measured) motion (magnitude of acceleration) is bounded above, due to the fact that we cannot measure instantaneous motion -- it has to be averaged over a finite length of time. And the longer the time over which it is averaged, the lower the bound. This could explain at least part of the discrepancy between theory and observation.

And if distance and time are quantum entities, acceleration is physically bounded above, not just because of our limitations in measuring it, which would make the existence of singularities in GTR impossible.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this explanation. It depends on velocity being bounded above by c (light velocity).

Hi Mike,

I am always sad reading such things ;) There is something that should be permanently repeated: No real physical property can be infinite and GTR has (nearly) no semantic contents. Only substantial message from GTR is The gravity spreads by limited speed. For eighty years enchanted physicists are trying to find something behind GTR. But after endless mathematical interpretations, transformations and representations of nothing they are finding nothing. Or nonsense: Singularities, empty, “expanded” space, metrics that does not meet triangular inequality… Useless, absurd findings, missing physical and health sense.

The “dark matter effect” is simple catching, carrying, rubbing of physical space by massive matter movement in galaxies. I can see the galaxies as whirls of space (with stars) toward the future :). We need something similar Maxwell equations system for gravity and inertia. The motion of matter is (more) coupled with gravity, the motion somehow influences, raises (negative) gravity, the inertia is to the gravity by similar way as the magnetism is to the electricity. Inertial motion is equivalent to the electromagnetic wave - I believe. I believe next, that applying of mentioned relations by similar way as Dirac did (calculating of electron/positron) can produce the proton/antiproton theory too…

It is my opinion (expressed rather ungainly way) concerning this topic :)

Cerveny, sorry for the late reply, and I'm sorry such reading sometimes makes you sad. Maybe much will remain beyond our understanding, but we can take advantage of what we do know. You express your thoughts as well as most folks in this forum, I think.

Einstein was wrong about C, light or nature ourselves is truly immeasurable.
The flaw is measure.

=