The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics

BlackHoley said:
But if you knew any of this, you wouldn't be wasting your time. I've told you plenty times now, any information that claims that time is intrinsic to general relativity are blatently wrong. You keep posting this one paper... I can post several even more papers all confirming what I am trying to get through your arrogant little mind.
Click to expand...



Sure I do. Because it's correct, despite your rantings.
Space/time is the framework against which GR and the universe itself is depended on.
Space. time, space/time/Universe/gravity/matter/energy all depend on one another, with space/time being the foundation.

I also see calling me arrogant as highly hypocritical considering, I'm not the one claiming 100% certainty in some pseudoscientific crap, and of course as others have noted, your record under other handles, speaks for itself.

Now you take it easy.
 
BlackHoley said:
... sigh.

You're so out your depth, you just don't know. A large percentage of the papers submitted are from top names in the field.
Click to expand...

So???
Fred Hoyle an otherwise great astronomer/physicist, promoted Steady State until his grave. He was also wrong.
 
paddoboy said:
Sure I do. Because it's correct, despite your rantings.
Space/time is the framework against which GR and the universe itself is depended on.
Space. time, space/time/Universe/gravity/matter/energy all depend on one another, with space/time being the foundation.
....
Click to expand...

I've decided you are no better than the troll Cav.

After all, you keep posting the same stuff, over and over again, as though it somehow ''confirms it more.'' I'm sorry to inform you, but there are important technical issues about time and general relativity you don't understand... not because your view ''is wrong per se'' but because you won't even listen to facts when they are given to you.

The only definition of this behaviour is a troll.
 
You view of relativity in four dimensions is true, in the nice mathematical sense in a Minkowski metric. It doesn't hold true in general for the universe, because the time derivative which governs the evolution of systems are not a true time evolution, they are in fact a symmetry of the theory. Hence, a much more complicated, but far more accurate view of how time implements into relativity in general, than what you are offering. You are showing us all the over-popularized and fashionable view of space and that is to think of it with a time dimension. But this is inconsistent with relativity...
 
And best yet... if you want to extend the Minkowski metric to relativity, is still spits back static time because of the relativity of simultaneity; which makes it difficult to say there is any agreement of when things happen. This is why Einstein knew that the past and future where somehow illusions in his theory.
 
BlackHoley said:
That's a clock... it's a machine. That's not measuring an external time, it's measuring a mechanical change. Obviously.

It's actually crank land if you think a clock measures a true external time.

edit: if you like, you can say a clock measures subjective time - as in, the time we all experience passing us by, as though it were a classical Newtonian time.
Click to expand...
You're recently banned member "undefined" right? I just like to know who I am speaking to.

As always, the distinction you are trying to make has no value. If time is just a measure of change, so be it. It is still time and it is still a valuable component of modern physics.
Time is not an observable, it cannot be measured as we define measuring things in physics.
Click to expand...
So what is that definition?
 
Russ_Watters said:
If time is just a measure of change, so be it. It is still time and it is still a valuable component of modern physics.

So what is that definition?
Click to expand...

I have no idea who undefined is...

And no... it's not ''just still time.'' The view of time adopted still in error by some scientists is that time flows relative to the human being, that time is extrinsic. This is the Newtonian view of time and it couldn't be more wrong. We can't just project of our sense of time like this on the world, when we know fine well it actually has no evidence to support it in any way. External time was, and still is a hypothesis of physics. The fact it isn't an observable, just highlights how applying it as a physical or real parameter is incorrect.
 
BlackHoley said:
I have no idea who undefined is...

And no... it's not ''just still time.'' The view of time adopted still in error by some scientists is that time flows relative to the human being, that time is extrinsic. This is the Newtonian view of time and it couldn't be more wrong. We can't just project of our sense of time like this on the world, when we know fine well it actually has no evidence to support it in any way. External time was, and still is a hypothesis of physics. The fact it isn't an observable, just highlights how applying it as a physical or real parameter is incorrect.
Click to expand...
You said "...as we define measuring things in physics.": I asked you to provide that definition. Can you do that?

From a previous post:
There is no time in general relativity. There is only space.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain a little more of what you mean, given that here is an article titled "Gravitational Time Dilation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

How can there be time dilation without time?
 
Russ_Watters said:
You said "...as we define measuring things in physics.": I asked you to provide that definition. Can you do that?
Click to expand...

You must have missed my several posts explaining this then. I said an observable in physics, is something represented by Hermitian matrix. That's the definition of something we can observe in physics.
 
paddoboy said:
Yes it is speculative...very speculative.
Just because a Nobel Laureate has an opinion does not make it Gospel...
The same applies to your own opinion of course.
Click to expand...

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment when particles are particles and waves are waves then understand the following.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path that takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave and the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling.
 
BlackHoley said:
You must have missed my several posts explaining this then.
Click to expand...
Apologies: you and paddoboy have moved pretty fast and honestly most of it seemed like bickering. I'm trying to get this down to brass tacks.
I said an observable in physics, is something represented by Hermitian matrix. That's the definition of something we can observe in physics.
Click to expand...
Um...what? How is a Hermitian matrix a measurement? That doesn't make a lot of sense. A measurement is a physical act of taking data: reading a mass from a scale, for example.

From the dictionary:
"Measure: 1. ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size."
It's a dilation between a change of states. There can be different rates of change, just as those who assume there are different rates of time in the universe.
Click to expand...
Indeed: but it seems to me that since the word "time" is used all over that article, those "rates of change" are called "time" by physicists in the context of GR. It really seems to me like you are dancing-around with the definition of time while just declining to use the word.
 
Russ_Watters said:
A
Um...what? How is a Hermitian matrix a measurement? That doesn't make a lot of sense. A measurement is a physical act of taking data: reading a mass from a scale, for example.
Click to expand...


A measurement can be the same thing as an observable in physics. A measurement is the act of observing a system to collect data; in quantum mechanics, the only things which can be measured in the quantum sense are observables... which are any physical attributes about a system. But the interesting thing, is that time is not an observable, it's not defined as a real physical thing. If it was, it would need to be represented as a Hermitian matrix to prove it is a real thing and that it can be measured.
 
BlackHoley said:
A measurement can be the same thing as an observable in physics. A measurement is the act of observing a system to collect data; in quantum mechanics, the only things which can be measured in the quantum sense are observables... which are any physical attributes about a system. But the interesting thing, is that time is not an observable, it's not defined as a real physical thing. If it was, it would need to be represented as a Hermitian matrix to prove it is a real thing and that it can be measured.
Click to expand...

What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics
 
Russ_Watters said:
Indeed: but it seems to me that since the word "time" is used all over that article, those "rates of change" are called "time" by physicists in the context of GR.
Click to expand...

No because global time evolution isn't described in general relativity by a time-parameter. It is in fact subject to diffeomorphism invariance and General Covariance which leads to evolution arising as a symmetry of the theory. It's not a true time evolution, it doesn't have time in it.
 
Yeah, the top physicists who are working up there on these problems, are really aware that time disappears from relativity and this is troubling, because no matter how many times paddoboy keeps repeating the same posts over and over again, it won't make his happy four dimensional view of the world any better: Time just doesn't have a place in General Relativity for more than one reason but they are all just as each other.
 
cav755 said:
What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics
Click to expand...

Well maybe if you and paddoboy stopped having spasms in your hands to cause you to repeatedly posting the same post contents every five minutes, you might be able to leave yourself some bandwidth for your rubbish.

Good day to you.
 
BlackHoley said:
Well maybe if you and paddoboy stopped having spasms in your hands to cause you to repeatedly posting the same post contents every five minutes, you might be able to leave yourself some bandwidth for your rubbish.

Good day to you.
Click to expand...

What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top