Relativity and Quantum Theory

[Quantum321]

I previous threads I commented that Einstein explained differences in clock timing with time dilation. Since I don't believe time exists in the physical universe I proposed there is another possible solution. The weak and strong forces emit electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves react with gravitational waves and I proposed that this interaction could be one possible explanation for the difference in clock timing.

While there are some bizarre aspects to QT I don't think time dilation is ever used to explain anything. Here is my point. If QT doesn't need time dilation why should GR? Could this be part of the incompatibility?

[Strange]

The weak and strong forces emit electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves react with gravitational waves and I proposed that this interaction could be one possible explanation for the difference in clock timing.

 

 

Is there any evidence for any of that?

 

 

 

While there are some bizarre aspects to QT I don't think time dilation is ever used to explain anything.

 

Length contraction and time dilation (which are essentially the same thing) are a fundamental part of modern quantum field theory. One of the more obvious things it explains is the relationship between electricity and magnetism.

[Quantum321]

 

 

Is there any evidence for any of that?

 

 

Length contraction and time dilation (which are essentially the same thing) are a fundamental part of modern quantum field theory. One of the more obvious things it explains is the relationship between electricity and magnetism.

 

Yes its incorrectly explained as time dilation. I propose the true explanation is not yet determined. We know that gravity is the weak and strong electromagnetic force only slightly modified by space time curvature. Its is natural to know there is an interaction.

 

I believe length contraction is not connected with time dilation.

[Strange]

So, instead of a well tested theory which works, your are suggesting some unsupported beliefs based on an unknown explanation?

 

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with science. Because, you know, it works.

[studiot]

 

quantum321 post#1

If QT doesn't need time dilation why should GR? Could this be part of the incompatibility?

 

If I recall correctly, you have already been told that more advanced quantum theory includes relativistic effects.

[Quantum321]

So, instead of a well tested theory which works, your are suggesting some unsupported beliefs based on an unknown explanation?

 

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with science. Because, you know, it works.

Does length contraction exist in quantum theory. No. The Planck Length is a length unit, like the meter or the mile. It is derived from three physical quantities that do not depend on one’s reference frame, and thus the Planck Length is also independent of reference frame. Asking if the Planck Length is succeptible to length contraction is like asking if the meter is; the length of a meter is what it is — it’s a unit — while a rod that has the length of one meter is succeptible to length contraction, because it just happens to have the length of one meter in one reference frame. For the same reason, if you had a rod 1 Planck Length in length, it too would exhibit length contraction from another frame according to special relativity. The notion that the Planck Length is the “smallest” physical length is a bit of a bad rumor. In fact the question of what happens at the Planck Length scale is still unknown, as we do not have the technology to probe anywhere near this scale with today’s technology.

 

If I recall correctly, you have already been told that more advanced quantum theory includes relativistic effects.

Just because someone erroneously tells me something does not make it true. Time dilation is not a consideration in QT. Any more erroneous examples?

Edited December 2, 2016 by Quantum321

[Phi for All]

I previous threads I commented...

 

!

Moderator Note

You need to do more than comment. When you make assertions here, you need to back them up. Nobody is interested in your opinion in science. It's worthless without supportive evidence. Do you understand?

 

If you have questions, ask them. It's clear you're going against mainstream physics because you are at an impasse in your understanding. Insisting you're right by waving your hands doesn't help anyone, and it's very boring in discussion. You need evidence for your claims. Please provide SOMETHING.

[swansont]

I previous threads I commented that Einstein explained differences in clock timing with time dilation. Since I don't believe time exists in the physical universe I proposed there is another possible solution. The weak and strong forces emit electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves react with gravitational waves

No, the strong and weak forces do not emit EM waves. That requires an EM interaction.

 

EM waves do not react with gravitational waves.

 

(Offer above void at sufficiently high energy, i.e. the unification energy.)

 

Anything based on these incorrect ideas is bunk.

[studiot]

 

quantum321 post#6

Just because someone erroneously tells me something does not make it true. Time dilation is not a consideration in QT. Any more erroneous examples?

 

Indeed but rudeness does not validate your view either.

 

I seem to recall noting before that the first person to develop a relativistic 'correction' to the Schrodinger equation was Paul Dirac, back in the 1930s.

 

There have been other versions since but the thing with all relativistic corrections is that the participants have to possess sufficient relative velocity to make the corrections significant.

[Quantum321]

No, the strong and weak forces do not emit EM waves. That requires an EM interaction.

 

EM waves do not react with gravitational waves.

 

(Offer above void at sufficiently high energy, i.e. the unification energy.)

 

Anything based on these incorrect ideas is bunk.

Thank you for reminding this. You are correct the strong and weak force binds protons and neutrons. IMHO the binding is through electromagnetic waves which are not detectable outside the atoms we have in our solar system.

 

!

Moderator Note

You need to do more than comment. When you make assertions here, you need to back them up. Nobody is interested in your opinion in science. It's worthless without supportive evidence. Do you understand?

 

If you have questions, ask them. It's clear you're going against mainstream physics because you are at an impasse in your understanding. Insisting you're right by waving your hands doesn't help anyone, and it's very boring in discussion. You need evidence for your claims. Please provide SOMETHING.

 

Thank you for your assistance. Many of the things I talk about are theoretical. I can't bring proof. I will use IMHO to clarify this

[Phi for All]

Many of the things I talk about are theoretical hypothetical. I can't bring proof supportive evidence.

 

!

Moderator Note

Remember that theory is the height of science. The most trustworthy explanations are theories. What you have is a loose hypothesis you need to support with evidence. We need more than just your honest opinions, otherwise it isn't science..

[Strange]

Thank you for your assistance. Many of the things I talk about are theoretical. I can't bring proof. I will use IMHO to clarify this

 

 

Never mind proof, you don't even have any evidential or theoretical support, just random guesses. So it isn't "theoretical". It isn't even hypothetical. It is just fairy tales.

[swansont]

Thank you for reminding this. You are correct the strong and weak force binds protons and neutrons. IMHO the binding is through electromagnetic waves which are not detectable outside the atoms we have in our solar system.

 

Thank you for your assistance. Many of the things I talk about are theoretical. I can't bring proof. I will use IMHO to clarify this

I don't care what your opinion is, if it's not supported by evidence. Ideas that don't have a testable/falsifiable model supported by experimental evidence don't belong in the conversation.

[Quantum321]

Tough room. Please tell me in what forum are the exchange of ideas regarding QT, GR and M theory allowed?

 

 

Never mind proof, you don't even have any evidential or theoretical support, just random guesses. So it isn't "theoretical". It isn't even hypothetical. It is just fairy tales.

 

Before you can have a theory you have a hypothesis which starts with an educated guess based on prior knowledge and research.

[swansont]

Tough room. Please tell me in what forum are the exchange of ideas regarding QT, GR and M theory allowed?

 

 

Before you can have a theory you have a hypothesis which starts with an educated guess based on prior knowledge and research.

This is a science site. There is no place to discuss WAGs.

[studiot]

 

quantum321 post#16

Really, I am here to discuss physics.

 

So discuss physics in general and quantum physics in particular.

 

And stop claiming that relativity and quantum physics cannot be combined.

 

You have google the same as I do, Item 3 on my google search is this lecture from Berkeley University:

 

There are plenty of others to choose from

 

http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221B-S02/Dirac.pdf.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Off topic post regarding definitions hidden.

 

To be clear you do not get to post guess-work in the main fora. Stop it.

 

In these fora, you can ask questions, make suggestions, answer queries, etc. What you cannot do is post your wild speculation - there is a special subforum for that. If you do not understand a topic - ask a question no matter how basic or how advanced; however, if you post an assertion that is contrary to accepted physics you are likely to be challenged by members and you should only do this in the Speculations Forum

 

Please also stop ignoring blatant counters to your arguments - especially the one in the post immediately above regarding QM and SR

 

[Quantum321]

!

Moderator Note

 

Off topic post regarding definitions hidden.

 

To be clear you do not get to post guess-work in the main fora. Stop it.

 

In these fora, you can ask questions, make suggestions, answer queries, etc. What you cannot do is post your wild speculation - there is a special subforum for that. If you do not understand a topic - ask a question no matter how basic or how advanced; however, if you post an assertion that is contrary to accepted physics you are likely to be challenged by members and you should only do this in the Speculations Forum

 

Please also stop ignoring blatant counters to your arguments - especially the one in the post immediately above regarding QM and SR

 

 

This is sad. When you have to delete my linked verification of my comments that support my original assertion. So any comments that are not accepted by your FORUM is deleted? .

"This is a science site. There is no place to discuss WAGs"

 

 

Deleting verified comments are not science.

When any forum deletes verified comments it ceases to be a science forum

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Deleting verified comments are not science.

When any forum deletes verified comments it ceases to be a science forum

 

Do not be ridiculous. It was a cut n paste from an internet dictionary site in which you attempted to justify making wild-arsed guesses (WAGs) and posting them here in the main physics forum.

 

Post physics here or not - but stop the complaints and self-justification

 

Please do not respond to any moderation within the thread.

 

[Quantum321]

I stated that a hypothesis is a guess and you removed my reference links. You are wrong this pill will be hard for you to swallow. I invite you to check out EVERY LINK

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis

 

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html

Scientific hypothesis

People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"[12][13] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. However, some scientists reject the term "educated guess" as incorrect. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

[swansont]

Educated guess ≠ uninformed guess

 

Even where educated guess is used it's explained that an hypothesis is really more than that (ignoring your non-scientific citation; we aren't interested in the lay definition)

[Quantum321]

Shall we discuss gluon waves. They are waves and act just as photons do and as all quantum objects do. They have momenta, and since they are massless, their frequency/wavelength/energy/momentum relations are the same as for photons. I come from an amateur radio background and because I am familiar with electromagnetic waves propagate endlessly my thoughts were confined to these types of waves. However, gluons exhibit particle duality. The strong force has no theoretical limit to its range, as gluons have no mass. They travels at the speed of light when created and annihilated in their exchange within the nucleons. I want to discuss gluons outside the atom. They can't be isolated and remain quite elusive much like the virtual photons exchanged by electrons.

IMHO gravity is a wave like any other wave. A wave that propagates endlessly. Could that also not be the gluon?

Educated guess ≠ uninformed guess

 

Even where educated guess is used it's explained that an hypothesis is really more than that (ignoring your non-scientific citation; we aren't interested in the lay definition)

LOL and you think that the scientific statement that "the theory is incomplete" is any less absurd?

So, instead of a well tested theory which works, your are suggesting some unsupported beliefs based on an unknown explanation?

 

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with science. Because, you know, it works.

Right. However, it doesn't explain all aspects of the quantum world does it? So its an incomplete theory, isn't it?

It's funny that when I am right..no one acknowledges this fact ...but when I am perceived as wrong everyone jumps on the bandwagon and discredits my posts. This is not an honest forum...face the facts..

Edited December 14, 2016 by Quantum321

[Strange]

IMHO gravity is a wave like any other wave. A wave that propagates endlessly. Could that also not be the gluon?

 

The gluon is spin 1 but gravitons must be spin 2. So no.

 

Right. However, it doesn't explain all aspects of the quantum world does it? So its an incomplete theory, isn't it?

All theories are incomplete. That doesn't mean you can just make stuff up.

[Quantum321]

"All theories are incomplete" LOL What a cop out! And a typical strange comment way of saying "we don't know" Please explain this ridiculous comment and how it relates to my comments regarding alternated theories.

 

That doesn't mean you can just make stuff up

I discuss theories here. It is easy to sit on your wallet and regenerate the current physics dogma, which is neither right or wrong than come up with ANY creative or new ideas of your own?? You are an encyclopedia...with no original thought. Go to you desk and learn how to create new ideas that solve current problems in physics.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Quantum321

[swansont]

"All theories are incomplete" LOL What a cop out! And a typical strange comment way of saying "we don't know" Please explain this ridiculous comment and how it relates to my comments regarding alternated theories.

 

That doesn't mean you can just make stuff up

I discuss theories here. It is easy to sit on your wallet and regenerate the current physics dogma, which is neither right or wrong than come up with ANY creative or new ideas of your own?? You are an encyclopedia...with no original thought. Go to you desk and learn how to create new ideas that solve current problems in physics.

 

 

You haven't presented an alternate (or alternated) theory. You've presented, by your own admission, a guess. You have no model, no way of making predictions, and as a result, no way of testing your "ideas" (if that could be possible, as ill-formed as they are)

 

Perhaps some effort in those areas, rather than ranting about science dogma, would be useful.