Thursday, November 13, 2008

Was relativity proved by quantum mechanics phenomena?

The fractal character of nested Aether foam leads to the formation of dualities from human logic perspective. Consecutive logic of human thinking is dual to intuition, which is collective result of many synapses actions at the same time. Therefore by human logic the observable reality is described strictly by surface gradients and transversal wave spreading (so called "gradient driven reality"), while the information mediated by longitudinal waves of many particles is perceived as a "quantum chaos". Therefore Aether appears as composed from layers of causal membranes, surrounded/alternated by gradually more chaotic particle field and vice-versa. Human understanding consists of formal theories dualities, alternated by zones of intuitive understanding / philosophy, which are forming an uncrossable barriers between both theories from formal math perspective due their divergence into landscapes of infinite many solutions. On the other hand, every tendency to describe the universe by formal theory with infinite exactness leads into scrambled perceiving of reality as well, because of mixed inner/outer perspectives during interpretation of individual theories.
The supersymmetric situations, when formal model was used as a logical explanation of dual theory and vice-versa were not so rare in history of physics. The so-called geocentric model of Ptolemy was formalized by introducing of epicycles concept by Tycho de Brahe up to precision, which could serve for astronomical predictions well. Therefore Galileo opponents, the proponents of Holy Church in particular have objected to Galileo by predictability of geocentric model, which could serve as an indirect confirmation of its logical validity. How we know today, this logic was quite weak from observational perspective - but still not quite wrong from more AWT perspective.
The very same situation has repeated in physics at the beginning of 20th century, when Einstein has come with his relativity theory. With respect to relativity, the quantum mechanics is dual theory in many aspects. Therefore is nothing strange, Einstein has opposed quantum mechanics violently, especially its concept of quantum uncertainty ("God does not play dices with the universe.", EPR paradox) by the similar way, like many string theorists are objecting the LQG theory by now. The relativistic aberration (observed first by Eddington, 1921) and gravitational lensing (observed by F. Zwicky 1932) are both considered as iconic phenomena of general relativity. Therefore we can expect, Einstein would be quite surprised by claim, the relativistic aberration or gravitational lensing are quantum mechanics phenomena, not relativity effects. While such stance appears ridiculous (both effects were predicted and computed just by using of relativity) - exactly the opposite appears correct from AWT perspective!
The main problem is, the gravitational lensing was interpreted as a result of space-time curvature, which should manifest itself by time dilatation, which was never measured directly. From strictly causal perspective, only the curvature of light path can be measured due the local character of (special) relativity theory. By special relativity the light is always spreading by constant speed through vacuum, so no refraction phenomena should be observed both at macroscopic scale, both at microscopic scale, if we consider, the elementary particles are pinpoint objects, surrounded by vacuum, too. The observer, falling into black hole would see the speed of light unchanged and straightforward even at the case, he would encircled the black hole together with photons, thus effectively staying at rest from more general perspective. As we can see, every local postulate violates explicit theory from more general perspective less or more lately.
The quantum gravity character of relativistic aberration follows from the fact, the fragmentation of image by gravity lens introduces a multiverse aspect into observation, because it makes the observed object location uncertain, thus violating a single-time arrow causality and Lorentz symmetry. By such way, prof. Einstein succeeded in persuasion of mainstream physics community about validity of relativity theory by using of experiment, which can be interpreted as a direct violation of Lorentz invariance and relativity as such..;-) We can compare it to the "proof" of geocentric model on background of successful prediction of solar eclipses by using of epicycle model of Ptolemy. While lack of exactness is apparent in every theory based on non-formal logic, such doublethink and lack of logic is less or more hidden problem of every formal approach as a manifestation of Gödel uncertainty theorem.


SydV said...

Who are you out of curiousity? I see your interests are as varied as mine, your thoughts are along similar lines and I'ld like to get in touch and have a chat.


Anonymous said...

What are you talking about? You cannot apply special relativity in the presence of gravitational fields. No speed change is necessary to have "refraction" as you call it. Light simply follows a geodesic. Spacetime is curved according to GR, so there you have your lensing. No QM involved.

Zephir said...

Hi, sydspoetry

you can chat with me on-line here:

Best, Z.

Zephir said...

/* cannot apply special relativity in the presence of gravitational fields..*/

Should we understand your comment in the way, general relativity allows special relativity to be violated in presence of gravitational field?

Ciudadano Kane said...


I'm afraid, Anonymous is right. You can see this fact in the chapter 7 of the monumental book Gravitation by Wheeler et al. This is due to the fact that Newtonian gravitational fields propagate with infinite velocity.


I have said to Zephir that he should learn physics and math, again and again, but he does not want to do it.

Zephir said...

/*..I'm afraid, Anonymous is right....*/
Lets wait for his answer... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Here is the chapter, in Google, so you don't even have to buy the book.
Please read it.

Also stop trolling reddit.

Zephir said...

I just read it. What next?

Zephir said...

Peter Hayes: The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. Actually this is an inherent property of whatever formal theory (do you remember the Goedel theorems?): it must be based on inconsistent postulate set for to be able to predict at least something. You cannot extrapolate line trough two coinciding points in causal space. Every theory must be inconsistent at least a bit for to remain predictable and as such falsifiable. Which implies, every theory has its limited validity scope.

Zephir said...

Gravitation: frequency shift vs. lensing - incompatibility of two phenomena