Time Machine
More props at the Worldcon, replica Time Machine from "Back to the Future." Remember Doc Brown imploring Marty to think four-dimensionally? Processes that are irreversible in time are called Arrows of Time. We already can answer the Cosmological Arrow with R = ct. Expansion of the Universe is indistinguishable from the forward flow of Time.
If we drop a cup and it shatters, the pieces will not re-assemble themselves. Entropy of the Universe always increases. This Thermodynamic Arrow is related to Planck value h. Since most measurements indicate that the product hc is constant, as c slows h increases. Uncertainties related to h increase with Time. This small link between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explains the Thermodynamic Arrow.
Steinn Sigurdsson has the latest dish on a Dark Energy Mission. We can wish them luck as they compete for funding with other projects. Queenslanders, a memorial for Steve Irwin will be held at his Australia Zoo on Wednesday.
I am not the sort who can ask for billion-dollar spacecraft to seek a dark energy equation of state. The Earth offers answers of her own. Evidence for a Theory involves the Hubble Space Telescope, our Subaru Telescope atop Mauna Kea, observations of the Sun, and even coral reefs. The Earth has made records of the speed of light, we need only look at them.
posted by L. Riofrio at 6:45 AM
19 Comments:
Gosh louise, you do get to sit on some hot seats.
Glad you are having fun!
Louise,
I won't bother asking if that particular delorean has a fully working flux capacitor inside it. Yes, I know, it just lights up and makes sound effects, right...
:-)
They should have used a Corvette for the time machine! ;-)
Louise,
On a serious note I've just found that your equation is EXACTLY the same thing (apart from the minor dimensionless factor of e^3 ~20) as my proof for Yang-Mills gravity mechanism!
This is exciting for me, although since I'm persona non gratis in science, I have limited means to publish at present. (However, I will blog about this!)
Some comments of mine regarding your relationship: GM = tc^3
Because the universe isn't slowing down due to gravity(contrary to mainstream theory up to 1998), the relationship between Hubble parameter H (measured in SI units, 1/seconds or reciprocal seconds; not measured in traditional cosmological units of kilometres per second per megaparsec) and the age of the universe t is
H = 1/t
whereas up to Perlmutter's discovery in 1998 the relationship for gravitational retardation was
H = 2/(3t)
(For benefit of readers who don't know, Perlmutter discovered that supernovae at half the age of the universe are not being slowed down from the empirical Hubble recession law v = Hr which should break down if long range gravity retardation is a fact. The 2/3 factor in the above relationship comes from the earlier GR-based theory based on a critical density with gravitational retardation and no cosmological constant.)
(Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law says "In a universe with a deceleration parameter equal to zero, it follows that H = 1/t, where t is the time since the Big Bang." NEXT: check out Nobel Laureate Phil Anderson's remark on Cosmic Variance - which pleased Sean to end - that "the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating" - http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901 )
SO, taking GM = tc^3 we get
GM = (c^3)/H.
I don't believe that this, if correct, implies that light velocity c varies with time, because G is more likely to be rising linearly with time:
The usual claim that G is not changing is rubbish from Edward Teller published in circa 1947 which claims that varying G would vary compression in the sun.
Teller is wrong on two scores. First, he only analyses the idea that G DECREASES with time, not that G increases.
Second - and far more important - Teller falsely claims that fusion rate only depends on gravitational pressure.
Nope! It also depends on the Coulomb force between approaching protons. It is the Coulomb force which counters gravity in so much that gravity is compressing the core of the sun, while the Coulomb law is causing protons to repel. Fusion only occurs when protons approach close enough that protons are within range of each other's strong nuclear force (which is very short ranged indeed!).
Therefore, if you increase gravity and electromagnetism with time by the same rate (ie. if there is some basis for unification of these forces as expected, so ratio of gravity/electromagnetism remains constant while the universe expands), then the fusion rate will be UNCHANGED in stars. This also applies to fusion in the first few minutes of the big bang.
I pointed this out to Sean over at Cosmic Variance after he got his students to write papers about the abundance of elements implying that G was the same at 1 minute as it is today.
This conclusion is wrong, because all you can say truly from that evidence is that the RATIO of gravity/electromagnetic force coupling constants was the same.
Obviously the absolute value of G could have been any value, provided that electromagnetism strength was increased or reduced in the same ratio.
As I recall, Sean raised no objection (or any comment at all), but didn't delete my comment.
Anyway, to get back to the issue,
GM = tc^3 = (c^3)/H
Predicts: G = (c^3)/(HM).
Now, I can compare that to my own work on QFT mechanism which proves (based on non-speculative, hard facts) that G = (3H^2)/(4.Pi.Rho_local.e^3) where Rho_local = M/[(4/3)Pi.R^3] and if we ignore inflation and so take the radius of the universe as simply R = ct = c/H, we get (entirely from my proof):
G = (c^3)/(HMe^3)
This is different to your equation G = (c^3)/(HM) by just the dimensionless factor of e^3 ~ 20 (note: e as used here is not electronic charge, but is the base of natural logs ~2.718, which comes into the gravity mechanism from the distance-integrated average effect of the higher density in the ancient, receding universe upon the exchange Yang-Mills radiation carried forces in the gravity mechanism).
Basically I'm saying that your equation GM = tc^3 should involve a dimensionless constant of e^3 or about 20 on the top of the left hand side, or as a denominator on the right hand side. Apart from that, and the fact that the "constant" G is increasing in direct proportion to time (while c remains constant), this corresponds to the model I've been working on since 1996.
Stanley Brown, editor or Physical Review Letters, rejected my paper see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4082 for his argument (that I'm not contributing to mainstream string theory and PRL simply isn't concerned with "alternatives to currently accepted theories".) I did get published in letters and papers from Oct 96 onward in Electronics World, including two major Electronics World articles in 2002-3.
I will just add that I'm not the only one who may have a duality of some sort to your basic equation (although I don't accept that c varies with time...). There was a guy in Huddersfield who placed an advert in the New Scientist around 2003, which contained his theory which conjectured that the gravitational potential energy of an electron with respect to the surrounding universe is equal to its rest mass energy:
E = mc^2 = mMG/R where he took M as mass of universe, m as electron mass, and R as radius of universe.
[This assumption that M is located at R is plain wrong, because he obviously was implicitly assuming that the average distance of the mass IN the universe is ALL somehow located at the actual radius of the universe! In fact the mass M is clearly distributed over intermediate distances. It is obvious that the average distance for the mass will be less than that radius, ie, somewhat closer to us. For a sphere of uniform density the average radius of the mass of the universe would obviously be at distance (0.5^1/3)ct ~ 0.7937ct, but this is false since it would be ignoring the complex effects of red-shifted gauge boson information coming from great distances where the density in the BB was higher, at earlier times after BB. To give one example, the correct effective radius taking account of both these factors is, as I've shown (see my blog/home page) equal to the radius corresponding to the time in the past where the density of universe was e^3 times greater than present. Since density = mass/volume, it falls in proportion to the recipirocal of the cube of time, so basically the effective radius of the universe for considering mass effects is (1 - 1/e)ct ~ 0.6321ct. This is the radius I use, in effect (I don't base my calculation around a radius, I just put in the corrected effective density factor of e^3 as calculated theoretically) to work out the gravity mechanism and the value of G.]
Anyway, the guy who published an ad in the New Scientist conjecturing E = mc^2 = mMG/R, is saying EXACTLY the same thing as you are stating!
He conjectured that the rest mass energy of the electron mc^2 equals the gravitational potential energy mMG/R.
This is false as I said because he gets the definition of R wrong. However, mc^2 = mMG/R is the same as c^2 = MG/R.
This is your equation when you take R = ct,
c^2 = MG/(ct)
Hence: tc^3 = MG.
So Louise, you are saying the same theory in a different form to the guy in Huddersfield who advertised in New Scientist, and when you add a dimensionless factor of about 20 (ie, e^3) in to the formula, it becomes MY formula!
Just watch out! When your efforts pay off and you get rich and famous like Einstein, you will probably have at least two other people in England claiming to have come up with an equivalent basic physical dynamics in two completely different ways.
So your problem will be like the problem of Einstein with other people (Larmor, Poincare, etc) saying they published the equations for time dilation, relativity, etc., first!
On the other hand, if your charm helps to get any interest going in physical theories outside of string, then you deserve the credit. Nobody listens to men!
Kind regards,
nc
(I meant I'm persona non GRATA not persona non gratis. Perhaps it's not sexism, just my weak Latin that is why I'm not taken seriously? ;-)
Welcome all!
Nigel, your thoughts are enough for a good paper, and I sympathise with the difficulty you have publishing. Editors don't exactly encourage people out of the mainstream. However, if it turns out that G is changing then you may be the rich and famous one.
I'm aware that Maguiejo has managed to publish a varying-c theory, and Moffatt before him. Way back in 1875 Lord Kelvin claimed that c was changing. Their theories are different from yours truly, so there is room for everybody. Remember, Lorentz DID publish the Special Relativity equations first. It's a big achievement that c change is a subject for discussion.
If you look at the August 31 post, you can see how c change fits Perlmutter's data. That is what I think about the "accelerating universe."
It's tough for us girls to get taken seriously too! Being young, female and carrying unusual ideas is three strikes. I hope to encourage women and those who feel shut out of the mainstream.
Coral reefs...
Ahh! So is that why you're spending time in Queensland? Please tell us about the coral.
Rae Ann, you're right. The movie was released in 1985. They could use the '84 Corvette, which was one of the most futuristic cars Detroit made. It was "ahead of its time" as Doc Brown said. There's also a big rear space for the time machine equipment and Mr. Fusion.
Kea, I did coral calculations this weekend and its very exciting! Will try to post soon.
Hi Louise,
Thanks for your response! I wonder if I can briefly clarify my thoughts? Changing G won't affect fusion in BB or stars (because the similar change in Coulomb's law and repulsion between protons offsets it), but it will affect long range gravity. Example:
The reason why the CBR is so smooth at 300,000 years after BB when it was emitted may be due to the fact that gravity "constant" G was 15,000,000,000/300,000 = 50,000 times weaker at 300,000 years than it is today.
This is "explained" officially by inflationary theory, which says c varies but only over a very brief period at force unification energies, when force symmetries break like the phase change in a condensing gas.
I think c may vary as well as G, because light we are seeing can't come back to us from a distance of 0.9ct where t is age of universe it it was emitted at 0.1t after the BB.
If you think about it, it is ridiculous for the BB scenario that at increasing distances, the universe is younger.
This seems to be saying that the universe was extremely big at extremely small times after the big bang, instead of being extremely small at extremely small times after the big bang!
Of course, inflation comes to the rescue here in the mainstream picture, because the universe is postulated to have accelerated to expansion rates far above c at a time of 10^-27 second or so. This would account for the fact that the early universe was big enough in all directions around us to appear as it does.
However, if inflation is wrong (the unification scheme it rests upon is speculative and has no empirical evidence, just ad hoc claims), then this explanation is bunk.
The true explanation is likely a time variation of c for light approaching us from galaxy clusters at different distances from us. The redshift is then due to the fact that light coming to us from far distant galaxies is slowed down, so we simply receive less wave peaks each second (because the radiation comes more slowly) and thus we see a reduced frequency, redshift!
My argument here is that c is not varying simply with t, but is varying because of the mechanism that light emitted by a receeding object is slowed down.
This contradicts the addition of velocities law in SR, however that not really a tested piece of SR but a religious dogma and the correct formulae of SR for time dilation, contraction, E=mc2 etc can be ontained from other principles, as can general relativity with its allowance that the velocity of light actually changes (contrary to SR) due to deflection by gravitational fields (GR uses general covariance to replace SR), and also the inflationary universe contradicts SR because of its faster than c epoch.
One more thing, in the comment above written late last night I said that someone anonymous who advertised in New Scientist in 2003 suggested
E = mc^2 = mMG/R
where mMG/R is the gravitational potential energy of mass m in a gravitational field due to mass M located at distance R from m.
This is the same as c^2 = MG/R.
This is your equation when you take R = ct,
c^2 = MG/(ct)
Hence:
MG = tc^3.
I said that the distance R is wrong here because the person assumed that the mass of the universe M is all located at the radius of the universe R.
The proper correction I claim is that the effective density of the universe rises in space time: when you look to greater distances, you see an earlier universe, with higher density.
This skews the effective mass you see in spacetime. Ultimately, there is nothing to be seen from distance R at all, because of redshift cancels it out.
The effective density at radius R (radius of universe R = ct, neglect inflation) is e^3 times the density of the universe at 15,000,000,000 light years after BB.
The idea of gravitational potential energy and being equated to the rest mass energy is the same as saying that there is a Yang-Mills exchange radiation mechanism for gravity (which is the stuff that was suppressed), because energy is exchanged between masses across spacetime.
Here's a brief summary of the suggested mechanism of gravity:
Electrons and positrons in bound states in the vacuum take up space, and are fermions; each space taken up by a fermion cannot be shared with another fermion as demonstrated by the experimental verification of the Pauli exclusion principle. Therefore, when a real fermion moves, it cannot move into a virtual fermion’s space. The vacuum charges are therefore displaced around the moving real charge according to the restraint of Pauli’s exclusion principle. We can make definite predictions from this because the net flow of the Dirac sea around a moving real fermion is (by Pauli’s exclusion principle) constrained have exactly equal charge and mass but oppositely directed motion (velocity, acceleration) to the real moving fermion. This prediction means that in the cosmological setting where real charges (matter) is observed to be receding at a rate proportional to radial spacetime, there is an outward force of matter given by Newton’s second law F = mdv/dt = mdc/dt = mcH where H is Hubble’s constant.
By Newton’s 3rd law, we then find that there is an equal inward reaction force carried by some aspect of the Dirac sea. This predicts the strength of gravity. The duality of this Dirac sea pressure gravity prediction is that the inward reaction force is carried via the Dirac sea specifically by the light speed gauge boson radiation of a Yang-Mills quantum field theory, which allows us to deduce the nature of matter from the quantitative shielding area associated with a quark or with a lepton such as an electron. This gives us the size of a fundamental particle as the black-hole radius, not the Planck length, so we obtain useful information from factual input without any speculations whatsoever.
CERN Doc Server deposited draft preprint paper “Solution to a problem with general relativity”, EXT-2004-007, 15/01/2004 (this is now obsolete and can’t be updated, so see the new calculations and the duality between Yang-Mills exchange radiation and the dynamics of the spacetime fabric of general relativity proved at http://feynman137.tripod.com/#a, http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h, http://feynman137.tripod.com/, etc.)
Best wishes,
Nigel
https://nige.wordpress.com/
Louise,
Just quickly I note that you already independently have done the gravitational potential energy analysis in your 6 September post here.
You might maybe consider presenting it as a possible derivation: set E = mc^2 = mMG/R so when R = ct, your equation arises naturally from this...
Gravitational potential energy is the energy of gauge bosons being exchanged between masses, if a Yang-Mills exchange radiation quantum field theory is the correct quantum gravity theory.
Your 31 August post is in agreement as I see it with the fact that receding bodies emit slower light towards us. This appears a possible mechanism. I think you might want to consider whether your c variation is physically as a change in light speed of light approaching us, due to velocity of recession of stars emitting the light? If so, that is different from a universal slowing down in light speed.
Nigel
09 19 06
Hello Louise:
Interesting interchange between you and Nigel. I came across some of John Baez's old notes and it seems as though he derived your equation for Planck scale physics. In that context, I don't think the equations are new, but I think your interpretation of them is. See what I mean below:
hbar=ML^2/T; where M is a mass, L is the Planck length and T is time
c=L/T; speed of light equals Planck length over time=>L=ct
G=((ML)/(T^2))*(L/M)^2=L^3/MT^2=C^3T
Same as your equation; G=C^3*T
So you have a linear equation in G, assuming G varies and is dependent upon the quantity C^3 or T varying or maybe the product of the two varying. I asked you about a varying G scheme before but from what Nigel says, there may be hope. This is out of my area of expertise, so I have enjoyed reading Nigel's comments.
09 19 06
You might maybe consider presenting it as a possible derivation: set E = mc^2 = mMG/R so when R = ct, your equation arises naturally from this...
1. Nigel,you are talking only about masses at rest with this expression for energy. What about when you have to use the equation E=sqrt[(Moc^2)^2 + (pc)^2], does the equation arise naturally for bodies that are moving? Since the alternate derivation was taken from using Planck lengths, I avoided these questions...
2. Secondly, are the small m's in your expression masses of particles? Then they would cancel out and the relation would be in terms of the mass of the universe, M right: c^2=MG/R
Good post.
Fascinating comments all! The level of intelligence and civility here is very high.
Mahndisa and Nigel, I also have been informed of Novikov using a similiar equation for Black Holes, and a paper by 2 Persian physicists where they came close to mc^2=GM/R.
If the Swiss Patent Office were to examine all this, they would find that GM=tc^3 is derived starting from Principle that R=ct. Principles make Relativity Special.
E+U=0 also works for moving particles and even particles with no mass, something I've not been able to publish yet. Right Mahndisa, little m is mass of test particle. More about varying G coming in my coral post.
Mahndisa
I think John Baez was just using the dimensions of G to write down the formula. Up to a factor of 4 pi^2 it's also Kepler's formula. Dimensionally, one doesn't have much choice.
Hi Mahndisa,
Thank you very much for these very good points about the energy formula change with relativistic velocity.
Yes, for mass "m" I'm assuming that v << c, so only non-relativistic energy equation is considered. I have not yet considered the case where v is a large proportion of c. I think this may link into quantum field theory, see some related ideas at http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/09/paper-for-discussion-quantum.html But I'm not sure.
However, the problem for moving objects lies with M, which is receding from us a relativistic speed due to the big bang. It is also difficult because all the effects (light and gravity field effects) are coming at speed c from the past at large distances, so you have to allow that the density effectively is higher for M by quite a large factor (e^3 = 20).
BTW, my blog entry on this is here:
http://nige.wordpress.com/2006/09/22/gravity-equation-discredits-lubos-motl/
Nigel's Blog Entry is one of the nicest things I've heard. I hope you don't mind if someone refers to you on CV and NEW. Thank you!
I am not the sort who can ask for billion-dollar
spacecraft to seek a dark energy equation of state.
moncler jackets
prada glasses
basketball shoes
roshe shoes
longchamp handbags
adidas tubular
westbrook shoes
oakley store
longchamp bags
adidas superstar
coach outlet online
canada goose outlet
michael kors outlet online
uggs outlet
moncler online
manolo blahnik
coach outlet
canada goose jackets
cheap jordans
oooo0822
Post a Comment
<< Home