Roger Penrose is a very clever man, but he also had his foolish and delusio nal moments, as in his ideas about quantum computing in the brain.
A point ignored, despite being stated by many.
The foolish and delusional part is your idea that it's worth your while to post your opinion on the subject. Roger Penrose has earned a certain amount of credibility. You haven't.
inability to understand some rather simple concepts, apparently, such as:
He'd be unlikely to bother, and his track record in physics is even less im pressive than yours, so he'd be even less likely to be taken seriously.
result changing in the relevant context.
It may be clear, but there's absolutely no point in you re-iterating it. Le e Smolin can get away with publishing stuff along those lines - "The Troubl e with Physics" - but he has published enough in peer-reviewed journals to make him a tolerably reliable source.
formatting link
You aren't, and you are silly enough not to realise it.
Sure, Penrose is being soundly trashed for many of his ideas in physics. He denies known cosmological observations.
e.g.
formatting link
The problem with Penrose is that he is a mathematician, not a physicist.
Argument form authority is a common logical fallacy, which is the argument you are engaging in.
My statements stand on their own. There are either true or false. What statements do you claim is false?
"Time is what a good clock reads" "Clocks measure time, not space-time" "Time represents the system state of all the objects in the universe"
I am well aware of Lee Smolin and his views.
You ad-hominem argument, is of course, no argument either.
I introduced Penrose simply to illustrate that the bulk of what I have wrote, is not invented by me, but well understood in the literature. In this case the problem of the block universe, which is indeed the elephant in the room. The block universe is an undeniable deduction of SR and if true, QM is false. Its just the way it is.
It may well be that Einstein's extremely strong opposition to the inherent randomness of quantum Mechanics was because he actually understood that it was a killer to the SR interpretation of the Lorentz Equations.
Sure, this is a hobby of mine, what's your actual point?
Your strategy is the same as the trans lobby. Anyone that expresses an opinion that they disagree with is a "transphobe", yet they never actually give give any argument as to why any such an opinion is actually treats anyone in a personal negative way.
In your case, your use of the word "foolish" identified no actual evidence appropriate to such a term. The implication is that merely disagreeing with a standard position is foolish, despite that position being experimentally identical to the standard position within its relevant domain. However, the alternative position solves contradictions in an extended domain.
My use of "before you look as foolish " identified your "...I do know some stuff..." as tending to the same words of someone that one can have no rational doubt, is indeed extremely foolish, to say the least.
As for the alternative, it is clear that QFT is, essentially, a Lorentz Invariant Aether theory in denial.
formatting link
As for Lee Smolin, I quote:
////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Lee Smolin in Time Reborn, which shows that the scientific view of time is up for grabs more than ever before.
The source of the disagreement could hardly be more fundamental: is time real or illusory? Until recently, physics has drifted toward the latter view, but Smolin insists that many of the deepest puzzles about the universe might be solved by realigning physics with our everyday intuition that the passage of time is very real indeed.
Clocks tick; seasons change; we get older. How could science have ever asserted this is all an illusion? It begins, Smolin says, with the idea that nature is governed by eternal laws, such as Newton's law of gravity: governing principles that stand outside time. The dream of a "theory of everything", which might explain all of history from the instant of the big bang, assumes a law that preceded time itself. And by making the clock's tick relative ? what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another ? Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there.
This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin. Even if there was a theory of everything (which looks unlikely), we'd be left asking: "Why this theory?" Or equivalently, why this universe, and not one of the infinite others that seem possible? Most of all, why one in which life can exist? "
////////////////////
I have simply concurred that, as per Smolin, that time is real. That is, in contradiction to the SR interpretation, clocks actually do slow down as an interaction with the aforementioned Quantum Field. Einstein has led everyone up the garden path for 100 years and scared most physicists shitless to opposing it.
I have given an argument as to why Smolin is correct, in a manner that is truly obvious. That is not foolish.
But you aren't even a mathematician. Or at least not a recognised one. I wa s an undergraduate when I work up to the fact that Lorenz contraction expla ined how the magnetic field was created by moving charges, but after I'd ru n it past my tutor I realised that everybody knew it already, though my tex t-books didn't spell it out. Wheeler's - that did - was published a year o r two later, but it was a higher level text-book than any I'd been exposed to.
g.
to
unt
t
No, it isn't. I'm not arguing with your logic, but with your enthusiasm for parading it. You can have all the ideas you like, but putting them up on a webpage is something of a waste of time if you haven't got the credentials that would justify anybody taking them seriously.
Once you have got them published in a peer-reviewed journal you can re-iter ate them to your heart's content, but until then you are just one more nutc ase.
I don't argue with any of them, but I do argue that having correct argument s posted by some body who looks rather like one of the "Einstein was wrong and I can prove it" brigade isn't all that useful.
Actually, it is. Smolin doesn't need your support and that fact that you lo ok rather like one of the "Einstein was wrong and I can prove it" brigade u ndercuts him - not by a lot, since plenty of people with more credibility t han you do endorse him - but it isn't helpful.
I'm not a pilot, but I can spot when one is drunk.
I guess you missed the bit that its called the "Lorenz contraction".
Sure, it explains EM and was deduced by... now get this.... Lorentz... from his LET, BEFORE Einstein put his particular slant on it.
formatting link
Einstein simply simply stated that the simplest way to arrive at the same results as LET, was to just take as an axiom, the POR & SOL as an invariant.
He simply stated that the concept of an Aether was not required for the MATHEMATICS to work.
Most just don't appreciate that the core content of SR already existed before SR.
You have clearly missed the point. I explained it to you already. This is a hobby.
Why would I want do do that? This is a hobby.
Ho hummm.... you clearly, again, just don't understand. There is no disagreement with the physical results of SR, outwith QM. It is well accepted that there are an infinite number of LET type axioms that are identically equivalent to SR. LET existed before SR, its truly that simple.
You don't seem familiar with what is actually in dispute. No one that understand relativity disputess that there are mathematical identical alternatives.
The entire physical content of SR is the LT. The LT doesn't not require the postulates of SR. Furthermore, there is zero experimental support that the the independent axioms of SR are true. They are inherently self referral. This is a fact.
The issue is this:
A1) All that is red is a plant A2) Grass is red C0) Thus grass is a plant
Thus false axioms may result in correct results.
The speed of light is claimed to be independent of inertial motion. The POR, that is, the laws of physics are independent of inertial motion means that clock ticks must also be independent of inertial motion.
The fundamental problem is that how does one measure the speed of light, especially for moving systems? By using clocks...Dah....
It is thus inherently impossible to verify the SOL postulate without assuming that the POR postulate is true.
If clocks ticks change due to inertial motion and the sol changes they can cancel.
The reason that LET works as an alternative to SR is that the axioms of SR cannot be independently verified.
You don't appear to be able to understand the subtlety here.
All actual measurements of moving clocks appear to indicate that the clock ticks slow down. However, this is NOT how SR explains the situation. SR states that objects take different paths in space-time such that clocks never slow down. However, this is a metaphysical claim. Its impossible to verify.
SR requires denial that the clock ticks change with motion to preserve the POR.
The problem with this, as I noted, is that that results in, the block universe, which is a direct contradiction with the statistical nature of QM.
However, if one simply assumes that what is measured, is as it is, the LT remains, and the contradiction with QM goes.
Its just a mathematical fact, if the axioms cannot be independently verified, than the truth of the axioms cannot be confirmed within the system.
Oh.....
Those statements inherently lead to the conclusion of a contradiction between QM and SR. QM says the next state cannot be determines, SR says it can. That's all there is to it. One is fundamentally wrong, and no Ph.D is required to deduce this.
You don't seem to get to grips with the fact that some of us understand the formalities of physics, in detail.
A fundamental principle that separates the "Einstein was wrong" nutters and rational debate, is the understanding that nothing can be stated that contradicts known experimental results. At no time are there any statements, despite offering alternative views, that ever disagree with known experiment results. Furthermore, I usually cite well accepted credible alternatives.
In this case it is a known fact that LET is mathematically and physically identical to SR, despite having different axioms.
Additionally, whilst many deny an Aether, I cited a professor of physics explaining QFT that, essentially, described QFT in identical language of that used to describe an Aether, notwithstanding the nationally denial of such a meaning the language.
None of this is rocket science.
One somewhat interesting point is in an essay by Einstein on the acceptance of the Aether of gravity v the rejection of the Aether of Lorentz
formatting link
"If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. "
Unfortunately, "Einstein was indeed wrong". Quantum Mechanics indeed tells us that no part of space may be imagined to be empty of electromagnetic field.
When SR was invented, QM didn't exit nor did QFT.
QFT has er... gravitated to an Aether in denial, as I noted...
What makes you think that I wasn't aware of that? My problem was that my te xtbooks hadn't made the point at all.
e to post your opinion on the subject. Roger Penrose has earned a certain a mount of credibility.
ent
for parading it. You can have all the ideas you like, but putting them up o n a webpage is something of a waste of time if you haven't got the credenti als that would justify anybody taking them seriously.
a hobby.
It isn't. You aren't doing anything more than studying the existing theory and restating it for your own amusement.
A hobbyist would create something new, or a least something novel and unpre dictable enough to be worth reading.
terate them to your heart's content,
You may be able to delude yourself into thinking this is true. In fact it i s merely an ego-trip.
he formalities of physics, in detail.
Or think they do. The proof of that would be that you could spell out some formality or other with enough novel detail to get it published in a peer-r eviewed journal.
nd
ts,
ent
This isn't fundamental point at issue. You haven't got anything usefully no vel to say, so there's no point in you putting it on your website.
It seemed to interest you enough to post my papers here.
Novelty is not a requirement for usefulness.
One of my key principles in analog ASIC design is to not re-invent the wheel. A novel design is a design to be viewed with much suspicion. It usually has errors.
To the contrary of your claim, I have pointed out that what is apparently claimed as novel, for example, in Dr. Tong's explanation of QFT
"..we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics...and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron"
Isn't novel, but, essentially, just LET in denial.
I claim that that when clocks are measured to slow down, that is exactly what they really do. This should not be a novel claim, unfortunately, according to SR, it is, and unfortunately, all media accounts and many professionals, don't understand that clocks don't slow down according to SR.
I have taken formal courses in Relativity, notwithstanding that I am no Hawking, and it is clear that the original basis of relativity is ignored. The only novelty I claim, is to repeat what is already known because others aren't.
I posted it - just one of them - to make a point about your advice about not embarrassing yourself. I knew they existed, but cursory examination, years ago, left me with the clear impression that it was merely an ego trip, and not remotely interesting.
There are others. You don't deliver any of them.
When I point out to potential employers that I have invented patented solutions, I do mention that I much prefer to pinch working solutions from related fields - inventions have to be debugged, and that does take time.
But you haven't claimed it in a peer-reviewed forum, so it's not a particularly reliable claim.
There a bad lecture courses in every subject, and slow students in every lecture course.
** Think you mean before JFETs were commercially available. Here is the original article by him in Wireless World in 1963.
formatting link
The RF condenser principle was a MAJOR breakthrough in microphone design. In one step it eliminated the need for vacuum tubes and all the associated encumbrances while improving the available s/n ratio and dramatically reducing such mics extreme sensitivity to moisture and weather.
The latter made the mics suitable for outdoor use and immune to human breath contamination - the bane of most tube and FET condenser mics TODAY. Huge. It should have been patentable.
d encumbrances while improving the available s/n ratio and dramatically red ucing such mics extreme sensitivity to moisture and weather.
ath contamination - the bane of most tube and FET condenser mics TODAY.
Sadly, capacitor bridge based pressure gauges had been around before 1963 - I 'd had to read up on them for my Ph.D. thesis and I've got a couple of r eferences that date back to 1954 and 1956.
A microphone is just a faster pressure gauge, and pushing up the bandwidth of the detection circuitry isn't the kind of innovation that you can patent . Pity. Baxandall does talk about a patent application, but the second part of the Wireless World article does mention earlier Dutch work (one of wh ich - from 1947 - is earlier than the Dutch papers I referenced in Ph.D. th esis. but seems to come from the same group) which probably sank that.
"Whilst the system here described was developed quite independently of ot
fact that such work was going on-references (6) and (7) show that a v ery similar train of thought and activity has been pursued in Holland."
It seemed to interest you enough to post my papers here.
Novelty is not a requirement for usefulness.
One of my key principles in analog ASIC design is to not re-invent the wheel. A novel design is a design to be viewed with much suspicion. It usually has errors.
To the contrary of your claim, I have pointed out that what is apparently claimed as novel, for example, in Dr. Tong's explanation of QFT
"..we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics...and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron"
Isn't novel, but, essentially, just LET in denial.
I claim that that when clocks are measured to slow down, that is exactly what they really do. This should not be a novel claim, unfortunately, according to SR, it is, and unfortunately, all media accounts and many professionals, don't understand that clocks don't slow down according to SR.
I have taken formal courses in Relativity, notwithstanding that I am no Hawking, and it is clear that the original basis of relativity is ignored. The only novelty I claim, is to repeat what is already known because others aren't.
Gravitational redshift isn't a large effect. It's hard to measure accurately.
formatting link
Any mass you can more around isn't going to change the local gravitational field very much any where on the surface of the Earth.
formatting link
can be used to measure the gravitational redshift between two lumps of iron on different floors of the same buildling, but you'd need to move a lot of rock to see the same kind of difference in gravitational field with one static specimen.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.