Simply Relativity

[Max™]

So, yeah... I'm dying to get some feedback from people who are educated in these fields already. Most of the people I know tend to zone out or get lost when I get a little carried away. So, here goes.

Unlike what seems to be the current "in" thing, I don't claim to have disproved Einstein, or found any great huge flaw in SR/GR. I find the theories work as a great starting point.

I have a different view about the current form of Quantum Theories.


The simplest way to explain this, is to refer to Bell's Inequality.

Currently the view is that you can't have SR's light speed limit AND the results of Bell's Inequality experiments, which clearly imply superluminal, if not instantaneous transmission of information between two entangled but separated particles.

This occurs to me as a perfect example, not of the mismatch between SR and QM, but of the improper consideration of time in QM.


So, let's go ahead and describe the typical Bell experiment.

Entangled pair, (a, b).
Each pair can have an observed state, lets just use + or - for this, and call it spin orientation. So now we have (a+, b+) or (a-, b-).
Two observers, Alice and Bob. We'll use (A, B).

Alice........Bob
\ ___ /
Splitter
^
(a,b)

The experiment has shown that if Alice observes (A, a+), Bob will observe (B, b+), even if there hasn't been time for information from a on it's state to reach b at the speed of light. Superluminal information transfer, a violation of Special Relativity. *cue hordes of "Einstein was wrrrooonnnngggg!" groupies*

How to resolve this... hmmm....

What if the (a,b) pair doesn't have the proposed non-local interaction implied from probabilistic quantum models?

Is there any way to produce those results without exchanging information across a spacelike interval?



My, that is an intractable problem isn't it.



Oh! I know, what if the particles represented by the (a,b) pair didn't interact with time the same way that we do?

Wait, everyone insists time doesn't matter... but still, let's investigate that idea.

Perhaps (a,b) are interacting with time differently, what would that mean?
How could that possibly explain the results given by this proven experiment?



Oh! I know a different way to interact with time, time dilation! When you move rapidly, or produce a strong gravitational field, you interact with time at a reduced rate, right?

What if you continued that line of thought, what if the rate at which we observe time in relatively flat space ISN'T the maximum rate you can interact with time at?

Perhaps (a,b) interact with the entire time interval over which this experiment is performed. What would that look like?

Alice........Bob
\ ___ /
Splitter
^
(a,b)

For the start of the experiment, then replace Alice with what she observes.

(A, a+)........Bob
\ ___ /
Splitter
^
(a,b)

Now the (a) particle had it's orientation changed in what we observed as a temporally separated interval, but which to it was not out of the time which it interacts with. So it's past state to us, is influenced by it's observed present state.

(A, a+)........Bob
\ ___ /
Splitter
^
(a+,b)

If the (a,b) pair is entangled, then the (b) would have changed as well, and Bob observes this.

(A, a+)........(B, b+)
\ ___ /
Splitter
^
(a+,b+)

No actual information would have crossed the spacelike interval between Alice and Bob. The state of the particles in the past simply depended on the observed state in the future.

That almost seems too simple though, you would need to explain why the (a,b) particles interact with time like that, wouldn't you.

Well, looking at time dilation, what can we infer from that?

Bodies with great velocity/mass interact with time at an ever reducing rate...

Hmmm, perhaps I shouldn't have spoken so soon about the Einstein thing, because he chose the constant for the rate of time in his equations for gravitational red shift to equal 1 at infinite distance from the gravitational body. Implying that zero mass would experience roughly what we experience in locally flat spacetime.

I can forgive him that though, he probably sought to preserve causality more strictly than I do.

If you were to move that Rate of Time = 1 point, where would you put it?

That is a tricky question, but just for argument, let's try the Planck Mass, since it's roughly the point where Relativistic Gravity models break down.

So for masses/equivalent velocities above that point, you would observe time dilation.

On the other hand, below that point, you would observe increasing interaction with time.

We saw above that increased interaction with time would look odd, particles changing their own pasts, future unobserved states influencing present states... why, it would make it nearly impossible to say with certainty where anything below a certain energy level was!



Like some sort of uncertainty principle! Where have I heard that term before?



Ok ok, I know where it came from, but what am I saying here? That some sort of continuation of the observed relativistic time dilation, reversed below a certain mass, and providing increased interaction with time... could describe everything we currently know to be the realm of Quantum Theory?

Of course not, that's crazy talk... isn't it?

[Farsight]

Take a coin. Split it carefully down through the rim, and send each half off into space. If Alice observes heads, then Bob observes tails. Wow. Instantaneous transmission of information between two entangled but separated particles.

See the Noember 2007 New Scientist article "Quantum Entanglement: Is spookiness under threat?" and see Joy Christian's paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179. Rotations do not commute. That weakns Bell's case. I'm afraid all the spookiness and magick of quantum mechanics is soon to come crashing down.

[Max™]

There is a little problem with that paper, in that he's assuming more than Bell actually said, and I must admit I'm a little confused at the implication that the particles are interacting locally, across spacelike intervals, which isn't a violation of SR because the observation action isn't as important... or something. It was a little baffling the way he wrote it out, as he seems to be attempting to prove Bell wrong... when all Bell said recently was you have to take into account that the experiment has been done, and showed the adjustment on the state of the particles at spacelike intervals.

Either way, it still seems overly complex the way he wrote it out, I'll pore over it more later and attempt to decode it.

Just to clarify your example above, it is more like taking two coins and magnetizing them together so they always land the same way, (OVERSIMPLIFICATION, I KNOW IT DOESN'T WORK THIS WAY, JUST FOR EXAMPLE), then separating them across a spacelike interval, yet still getting the same results. So Alice observes heads, and Bob observes heads.

Where his strange extension of Clifford Algebras comes across as counter-intuitive (unless someone would like to clarify exactly what he was implying, it looked like he made two or three conflicting points there, and was attempting to disprove the wrong argument on top of that), an extension of temporal interaction winds up much simpler ultimately.

Just as an example, I happen to have worked up an equation to determine the interaction with time a given body experiences.

Tf=(Mp – Ev) (c (v/c))

Tf = time function
Mp = Planck Mass
E = Energy of the system (mass equivalent if need be, since some particles have no proven rest mass, I used E here, could also use the energy equivalent of the Planck Mass in GeV or whatnot)
v = Velocity
c = Light speed

Take the result you get for Tf and add it to the current age of the Universe, and you wind up with smaller and smaller values for high mass/velocities, and larger and larger values for low mass/zero mass situations.

Still tweaking it, but I actually have a graphical representation for this.

Of course, this sort of gives away another aspect I'm working on, that matter/energy is actually excitations of, or folded space.

I'll explain more in depth if need be, I have an outline of the thought processes which led me to this conclusion in my signature there, under Simply Relativity.

In essence I modified the classic E=mc² to E=(d/Tf+Au)c², with d as distance, and Au as the Age of the Universe, since I'm still trying to decide which symbols should be used for this value without being too confusing due to other terms using them too.

[Farsight]

Try the New Scientist article which I think you can read here:

http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/20...er/001833.html

I've drawn that exponential curve too, though with time on the vertical axis and distance on the horizontal axis. I was talking about the relative strength of gravity at the time. I wasn't kidding when I said the spookiness of quantum mechanics is going to come crashing down, because the quantum of quantum mechanics is 3.86 x 10ˉ¹³ metres. And I know this sounds odd, but rest mass is rest energy, and energy turns out to be the same thing as space. Because when it comes to excitations, space is a one trick pony and the only trick is distance.

[Max™]

Here's the difference from what I'm suggesting and that paper: The past and future states of the particle are the hidden variables.

This can produce the interference results shown in cases such as quantum erasers, when you consider the worldline of the particle interacting with others.

The randomness predicted.

Essentially you take the extended spatial spread of a wave function, and twist the orientation so it's an extended temporal spread.

The folded space I mentioned above, imagine a simple set of coordinates to make it easier to visualize.

[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]

Fold two of the coordinates together.

[x] [2x] [x][x][x][x][x][x]

Now that 2x spot has stretched... or curved, the local space around it, add another region with greater folding, and using a simple geodesic type pathing they will tend to seek a state with minimal distortion to local space. Coming together and assuming a spherical shape would accomplish this.

[x] [2x] [x][x][x] [3x]
[x][x] [2x] [x][x] [3x]
[x][x][x] [2x] [3x] [x]

The amount of distance, or space, enfolded within an object would directly represent the amount of curvature it induced on local space. Which sounds oddly familiar, like some sort of stress energy tensor... in that one guys theory... Einstein or something.

The thing that ties it in to quantum effects, is a simple relation. Flat Spacetime has maximal time interaction, in order to interact with space in some way, you have to sacrifice some of your interaction with time: (-t, +x, +y, +z) just as it's written in the theories of Relativity.

The leap of logic I made was simply to slide the rate of time = 1 point from 0 mass/flat spacetime, up to the mass level where quantum effects roughly disappear, and consider what sort of effects that would produce.

From that simple adjustment, and being more willing to give up absolute causality than locality. I found what we describe as quantum mechanics was suggested by relativity already.


As a note regarding causality, this wouldn't require a paradoxical or pathological adjustment to time. A self-consistent timeloop wouldn't be paradoxical. Consider how a being with significant time dilation would view one with very little time dilation.

[Max™]

Oops, made a little mistake in the writing of the Bell Inequality, where the (A a+) shows up, the B should be (B b-), as it IS opposing spins which are observed. The point still stands though, hadn't focused on the direct specifications as much as the explanation itself.

Was just pondering how the Bell Inequality would work with the theory I was developing and forgot that it is spin up/spin down, not spin up/spin up.

I'd edit the first post, but you can't for some reason. T.T

[Farsight]

Max, you have to understand time. There is no temporal spread. That's crap. Worldlines are abstraction, spin is real angular momentum, Minkowski spacetime was the wrong course. Look, PM me and I'll send you something to clear all this up. Prepare yourself, because it will rock your world.

[Max™]

Spin is a representation of the amount of energy contained within a group of spatial coordinates, and the form they take, in my understanding anyway, with higher spin meaning lower energy.

Lower spin could be thought of in a simple manner.

A thread, a ripple, a loop, a knot.
Graviton, Photon, Electron, Quark.
Spin 2, Spin 1, Spin 1/2

From left to right, the way they interact with time:
High interaction > Low interaction

The more "tangled" the coordinates are, the less temporally spread they are, and the more interaction they have on one another.

If Spin was angular momentum, then gravitons, and therefore empty space would have significant angular momentum?

[Max™]

Know whats really funny, so far I've been reading your pdf, and it's pretty much what I've written down, so I'm wondering where we diverged in our views of time.

Ah, I see now, you assume that when I say time, I mean the typical one second at a time type of time, to be fair, you should read my Simply Relativity pdf and see that we're really talking about very similar things here.

I summed up the middle quarter of your book in a paragraph in there.

Treat the EM tensor direction as a function of the shape of the folded
coordinate sets, which act roughly as stress energy tensors for Gravity. The
directional coordinate adjustment of the EM tensors on other EM tensors,
combined with the coordinate stretching due to Gravity become rather trivial to
visualize and compute. I am still working out the exact mathematical formalism
for this, but I believe the Weak Force can be treated as a simple rotational
handedness distinction in the coordinate bodies. The Strong force is a little more
complex, but would essentially be a function of bodies with a significant amount
of folded coordinates. The shape of the folding required would include an
“overlap” with its nearby coordinate bodies. With the effect that increasing the
distance between the two eventually becomes sufficient to produce another
particle group.

When I say increased interaction with time, to put it into terms you would prefer, I mean that the "direction" which the waveforms of normal quantum theory are spread isn't through the normal 3 space dimensions, but rather through the increased interaction with nearby bodies, at different points from the observed "now".

[Max™]

Get this, I've actually had the same issue about Hawking radiation and black holes.

I don't believe black holes radiate either, so the thought of one at the LHC was a little worrying.

I do believe that black holes will "lose meaning" when space grows too thin, and the folded space within them will promote fluctuations in the maximal entropy sea which should be enough to trigger a runaway expansion effect we call a Universe.

We're on to the same idea here, just have different views about time and it's importance.