PHILIP BALL: Why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics AreIncompatible

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0503...s050328-8.html
Philip Ball: "In general relativity, there is no such thing as a
'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere.
Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different
places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at
infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal;
if not, its equations make no sense."

Bravo Philip Ball! Note that the so-called "gravitational time
dilation" is an incomparable idiocy: the two clocks could experience
the same gravitational fields, that is, they are placed in identical
environments, and yet, if there is gravitational potential difference
between them, Divine Albert teaches that they run at different rates.
Divine Albert had to introduce the idiocy in order to camouflage his
own 1907 discovery that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential. He knew that, through the application of the
equivalence principle, "varies with the gravitational potential"
easily becomes "varies with the speed of the light source".

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev a écrit :

Divine Albert had to introduce the idiocy in order to camouflage his
own 1907 discovery that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential.





1907 ? Something new. What is it ? Are you sure that, in fine, it is
not related to questions 3 or 3' ?

1. Let us suppose two persons, far away from all gravitational fields.
We assume the first person to move at a constant speed with respect to
the other. If they both observe a same object, will their
observations be related by a Lorentz transformation ?
2. Why did you refer to string theory as the "21 century physics" ?
3. What is your "simple derivation" of Enstein-1911 ?
3'. Where is the mistake in my derivation of anti-Einstein-1911 ?
4. Are equations (11.73) of http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/ic...les/chap11.pdf
correct, for any value of $V$ ?


http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...41aed26491b359
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...4ee0e291b1760d
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...4a7c7121f36f7c
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...f6b375a7904ef2
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...6423478f76386b
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...e59ce951a53d5f
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...1433c9a676ebda

Have a good afternoon
Laurent

On Aug 2, 10:18*pm, moky wrote:
Pentcho Valev a écrit :

Divine Albert had to introduce the idiocy in order to camouflage his
own 1907 discovery that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential.

1907 ? Something new. What is it ?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 2, 11:18*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0503...s050328-8.html
Philip Ball: "In general relativity, there is no such thing as a
'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere.
Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different
places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at
infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal;
if not, its equations make no sense."

Bravo Philip Ball! Note that the so-called "gravitational time
dilation" is an incomparable idiocy: the two clocks could experience
the same gravitational fields, that is, they are placed in identical
environments, and yet, if there is gravitational potential difference
between them, Divine Albert teaches that they run at different rates.
Divine Albert had to introduce the idiocy in order to camouflage his
own 1907 discovery that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential. He knew that, through the application of the
equivalence principle, "varies with the gravitational potential"
easily becomes "varies with the speed of the light source".

Pentcho Valev


There is a kind of fastest time from which time begins to dilate.

Acceleration and gravity slows time down from this fastest point.

Mitch Raemsch

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
On Aug 2, 10:18�pm, moky wrote:
Pentcho Valev a �crit :

Divine Albert had to introduce the idiocy in order to camouflage his
own 1907 discovery that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential.

1907 ? Something new. What is it ?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
[snip]

I do not ask to quote thousand of lines.
Just let me know what it is about.

Is it related to questions 3/3' ? (yes/no)

If "no" --- We'll discuss later
It "yes" --- Give a precise statement of Einstein-1907 and a link to
a proof. How can I have any opinion on the subjetc without these
informations ?

Thanks
Laurent

On Aug 2, 11:29*pm, moky wrote:
Pentcho Valev a écrit : On Aug 2, 10:18 pm, moky wrote:
Pentcho Valev a crit :

Divine Albert had to introduce the idiocy in order to camouflage his
own 1907 discovery that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential.

1907 ? Something new. What is it ?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf"What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of

[snip]

I do not ask to quote thousand of lines.
Just let me know what it is about.

Always about the variability of the speed of light - it varies with
the gravitational potential and, equivalently, with the speed of the
light source. Divine Albert even wanted to use the variable speed of
light as a gravitational potential but then abandoned the idea.

I suspect that your brothers are rather embarrassed - brother Moortel
even rebuked you. Some topics are absolutely forbidden to ordinary
Einsteinians and the variability of the speed of light is one of them.
Don't mention it anymore or your career may suffer.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 3, 3:18 am, moky wrote:
[snip]

I do not ask to quote thousand of lines.
Just let me know what it is about.

You badly quoted me; my concern was :

Is it related to questions 3/3' ? (yes/no)
If "no" --- We'll discuss later
It "yes" --- Give a precise statement of Einstein-1907 and a link to
a proof. How can I have any opinion on the subjetc without these informations ?

We seem to be in case "yes". Thus, in order to make me able to say
something : precise statement, and a proof.

I suspect that your brothers are rather embarrassed

Yes, I'm embarrassed : for (anti)-Einstein-1911, I have a proof of my
formula and no proof of yours. Thus, I'm embarrassed : I cannot
comment what you say, because you say nothing (for me, a statement
without proof is equivalent to nothing; your Einstein-1911 is in that
case).

The proof that, in cases where we have gravitational redshift or
Doppler effect, the speed of light is variable (not constant) while
the wavelength is constant (not variable), involves resorting to
physical intuition and that makes it unsatisfactory to you but quite
satisfactory to many other people, both relativists and anti-
relativists (relativists would not admit it of course). I tried to
fill the gap in your thinking but failed. Why don't you try yourself?

Pentcho Valev

The proof that, in cases where we have gravitational redshift or
Doppler effect, the speed of light is variable (not constant) while
the wavelength is constant (not variable), involves resorting to
physical intuition and that makes it unsatisfactory to you but quite
satisfactory to many other people, both relativists and anti-
relativists (relativists would not admit it of course). I tried to
fill the gap in your thinking but failed.

You never tried : you only repeated and repeated and repeated and
repeated and repeated that the opposite solution would be idiotic.
You never explained why.

Why don't you try yourself?

I tried, and I reached the conclusion anti-Einstein-1911, and I gave
the reasoning.


When a student ask me why a function which has a positive derivative
is increasing, I can repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and
repeat and repeat and repeat that a decreasing function with positive
derivative would be idiotic because of basics geometrical intuition.
But the fact is that someone who just learned what is a derivative do
not have the full intuition (and, even with, a proof is necessary[1]).
In the same way, I never worked a lot on general relativity (I know
much better quantum mechanics), so I have no deep physical intuition
on it.

Anyway, a definitive proof should not be too complicated. It would
take you less time to write it than to read this message. So, why
not ?

Laurent


[1] Very basic intuitive notion of derivative shows that a smooth
function which vanishes on an interval must vanish everywhere ... try
to find a proof ... it is in fact wrong.

On Aug 3, 4:57*pm, moky wrote:
The proof that, in cases where we have gravitational redshift or
Doppler effect, the speed of light is variable (not constant) while
the wavelength is constant (not variable), involves resorting to
physical intuition and that makes it unsatisfactory to you but quite
satisfactory to many other people, both relativists and anti-
relativists (relativists would not admit it of course). I tried to
fill the gap in your thinking but failed.

You never tried : you only repeated and repeated and repeated and
repeated and repeated *that the opposite solution would be idiotic.
You never explained why.

Why don't you try yourself?

I tried, and I reached the conclusion anti-Einstein-1911, and I gave
the reasoning.

When a student ask me why a function which has a positive derivative
is increasing, I can repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and
repeat and repeat and repeat that a decreasing function with positive
derivative would be idiotic because of basics geometrical intuition.
But the fact is that someone who just learned what is a derivative do
not have the full intuition (and, even with, a proof is necessary[1]).
In the same way, I never worked a lot on general relativity (I know
much better quantum mechanics), so I have no deep physical intuition
on it.

Anyway, a definitive proof should not be too complicated. It would
take you less time to write it than to read this message. So, why
not ?

Laurent

But, Laurent, when you ask for "proof" you expect something similar to
mathematical proof and you are wrong in this expectation. People who
think in physical terms somehow imagine the travelling light and say
to themselves something of the sort: "Well, is it reasonable to assume
that the speed of light varies with position and obeys the equations
c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v? Yes it is: the particle model of light is
legitimate and it does give the two equations (bullets obey analogous
equations). Now is it resonable to assume that the speed of light
remains constant but the wavelength varies with position so as to
mislead Einstein, in 1911, into obtaining exactly the equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2), as if the particle model were correct? Is Nature so
mean? And how can I imagine this gradual increase/decrease of the
wavelength with distance? What is the physical mechanism? No, the idea
of variable wavelength is absurd!"

You see, this is not as rigorous as mathematical proof but still, at
least for me, it is convincing. Besides, I referred you to an argument
by John Kennaugh which is almost as rigorous as mathematical reductio
ad absurdum. What else should I do? Finally: The fact that half of
your masters have explicitly confirmed the variability of the speed of
light in a gravitational field should make you suspect that your
questions are at least naive. Why should I prove what your masters
accept but do not wish to discuss? Cicero would say: "O tempora o
mores!"

Pentcho Valev

But, Laurent, when you ask for "proof" you expect something similar to
mathematical proof and you are wrong in this expectation. People who
think in physical terms somehow imagine the travelling light and say
to themselves something of the sort: "Well, is it reasonable to assume
that the speed of light varies with position and obeys the equations
c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v? Yes it is: the particle model of light is
legitimate and it does give the two equations (bullets obey analogous
equations). Now is it resonable to assume that the speed of light
remains constant but the wavelength varies with position so as to
mislead Einstein, in 1911, into obtaining exactly the equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2), as if the particle model were correct? Is Nature so
mean? And how can I imagine this gradual increase/decrease of the
wavelength with distance? What is the physical mechanism? No, the idea
of variable wavelength is absurd!"

Sorry, but you are deeply wrong about what is physics. What you
described is the way to GUESS a result. Physicist actually do like
that, and sometimes the guessed result turns out to be true ...
sometimes not.
At a certain point, you have to sit down, take a sheet of paper, a
pencil and say "ok. I'm in the general relativity framework; I have
that and that and that axioms; now I have to *prove* the result."

Look at the Yang-Mills theory of 1950. That was extremely powerful and
deducting (everybody would say "Nature HAS to behave like that"), but
totally useless because of a small mathematical detail : we are not
able renormalise it.
One had to wait 10 years to get QED, which is essentially a proof of
renormalization of Yang-Mills in the Abelian case.
And then, 10 years more to get a full proof of renormalisability,
which gave rise to electroweak unification and QCD.

In that part of the work, there are no "can I imagine ?", "that idea
is absurd", "this is reasonable". There are axioms, proofs and
results. At most, physicists allow themselves to permute sums and
integrals, to invert unbounded operators. But sometimes, there are
REAL phenomenons hidden under a deep mathematics subtlety.

++++ example 1 ++++

An example. In electromagnetism, the Maxwell's equations are given in
terms of the electric and magnetic fields. But we can also express
them in terms of potentials. Indeed, there is the equation dB=0
(divergence of the magnetic field is zero), but there is a theorem
which says that if the divergence of a vector field B is zero, then
there exists a vector field A such that B=rot(A). The same can be done
for the electric field, and one get a function $\phi$ as potential.

From there, one can express the Maxwell's equations in terms of the
potentials : we have equations satisfied by the potentials, we can
solve them and find back the electric and magnetic field using
$B=rot(A)$. So our description of nature in terms of the potentials (A,
\phi) or the fields (E,B) are equivalent.

Equivalent ? Sure ? Not. Because the theorem "dB=0 = B=rot(A)" has
an hypothesis : the domain must be stared. If one look at a non stared
domain (a tokamak, for example), will the nature behave like (A,\phi),
or like (E,B) ?

That question is the result of a very subtle hypothesis in a theorem,
but its answer has an impact on the actual behaviour of
electromagnetism

Thus, yes, you need a full mathematical proof of your statements, and
keep trace of all the hypothesis of all the theorems you are using.

This is done p. 119
http://student.ulb.ac.be/~lclaesse/lectures.pdf


++++ end of example 1 ++++++


Your misunderstanding comes from the fact that you never deeply
studied physics; you never went deeper than some general culture.

Even in classical mechanics, it is already like that. When Noether
says that a symmetry of the system gives rise to a conserved charge,
it is intuitively correct. But, there is a proof and a precise
statement. If a lagrangian is invariant under some group of
transformation of the phase space, then the solutions of the
corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations have a conserved charge. This
is a theorem, not an intuition, not a "seems to be reasonable", this
is a theorem, with a proof.

Thus, if you claim "in general relativity, we have c'=c(1+gh/c^2)",
you have to write down the axioms, and deduce that formula. I deduced
anti-Einstein-1911 from axioms. I *proved* that "If axioms are
correct, then anti-Einstein-1911 is correct".
Now, if you think that Einstein-1911 is correct, you have to change
the axioms, because in the framework of the general relativity,
Einstein-1911 is wrong ... or my derivation is wrong.
Now, the aim of a discussion on a forum is, precisely, to point out
mistakes of others. Consider that I wrote
"hello, I have an homework : I have to proof that in general
relativity, we have c1 = c2(1+gh/c^2) ; L1 = L2. I tried, but I
obtained c1 = c2 ; L1 = L2/(1+gh/c^2). I do not see my mistake. can
someone help me ?".
In that case, would you answer and repeat and repeat and repeat and
repeat and repeat and repeat "your result is physically absurd, then
it is wrong" ? No. What you do is to read the proposed proof, and
point out a mistake : a misinterpretation of the equivalence
principle, a fault in a calculation, or something. And, in the same
time, you explain why it is physically absurd.


You see, this is not as rigorous as mathematical proof but still, at
least for me, it is convincing.

Convincing for you, because you are a simple person, interested in
physics; not a physicist. In order to *do* physics, you need more. How
can you predicts 20 correct digits of an experiment just on reasoning
by "seems reasonable" ?
If you want to predict correct accurate numbers (which is the aim of a
physical theory), you need correct accurate mathematics.

Besides, I referred you to an argument
by John Kennaugh which is almost as rigorous as mathematical reductio
ad absurdum.

ah. I did not remember to have seen any equations. Can you give me the
link again please ?


Good afternoon
Laurent