Curved Space vs. Dense Space
In all scenarios curved space and dense space are
mathematically and geometrically equivalent.
In the example of light being curved around the sun, if we
consider the light traveling in a channel of space with height equal to the
amplitude of the light, the bottom of the channel appears to have denser
space (the wave troughs are closer together) that the top of the channel,
and is an exact equivalent of a band of varying density space. If we
consider the light to be traveling in a region comprised of an infinite
number of number of infinitely thin curved space lines, this is also
mathematically and observationally equivalent to a region with a varying
density of space.
So:
1 - They are the same thing, and they are equally valid.
2 - No experiment can be made to distinguish one from the other
I suspect in time though, that more people will come to use the phrase dense
space as it is an easier and more natural idea to work with. I hope
that sounds all right to you. Please let me know.
Thanks
Piers Newberry (avid amateur)
piersnewberry@hotmail.com
Dr. Siepmann responds:
Good question. Thank you for the chance to comment. Though the two concepts
may have similar outcomes, they are different in several ways:
By explaining the observed effect as being the result of a physical “thing”
which has been called “aether” or “Space” we give a physical explanation for
an effect which space-time does not.
With the theory of Space having a physical existence and its
differential density being the reason for gravity (the density of Space is
greater at the site of its displacement by matter) we are able to come up
with new equations that are not possible with space-time (see
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-1/laws_space.html ).
By using such equations we can obtain answers to questions that are more
accurate those available from space-time such as the gravity at a black hole
horizon being 2.0E8 m/s2.
Though these differences may be subtle to some, their implications mean much
and offer more than space-time can give. I don’t think of the Space density
as replacing space-time but rather a refinement of it, just as space-time is
a refinement of Newton’s laws. It’s just getting a little closer to the
truth.
Smoking & Lung Cancer
I am wondering if it is not possible for you to update that article of
yours, it was vastly interesting, and honest [see
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data) ]. I commend you on your
work. It takes away the anxiety from a smoker like me. I am wondering if you
are aware of studies that have been done for things like, what brand of
cigarette is more likely to cause death etc. Or stats on, how long the
average person must smoke, to die from smoking.
I hope you can get back to me on this.
Thanks, and good job!
Leon mediann@mailbox.co.za
Dr. Siepmann responds:
Your email was referred on to me and I regret that I have not had the time
to follow-up. There was a proposal from an actuary association to do what
you describe for all smoking related illnesses but when I looked into the
cost of doing such a study it was well over $100,000 to do it right, yet the
most funds available were $40,000. As much as I would have liked to do such
a study, I had neither the time or the extra money to do it.
But I do have some good news. There is a new book, which was excellent on
the subject of smoking and the false statistics/facts that are being used by
the antismoking movement. It is not only scientifically factual, but logical
and well written, I couldn't put it down. If there is one book to read this
year, this is it. It is called "Dissecting Anitsmokers' Brains" and it is
available through http://www.antibrains.com/pricing.html .
Though I don't recommend smoking, I feel that it is a personal decision for
which an informed person needs to decide for themselves after analyzing the
risks and benefits as you have. This irrational antismoking movement is a
scary and is just one of the threats upon our personal freedoms that is
currently underway. That is why I think that this book "Dissecting
Antismokers' Brains" should be required reading for anyone who is interested
in science, logic, and freedom.
Relativity Unraveled
Aside from carefully crafted arguments that can throw doubt, it is only
necessary to exhibit a convincing counter example in order to demonstrate
the absurdity of a closely knit physical theory.
For Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT), we need only show, by means
of a valid thought experiment, that time is not relative – that clocks on
two platforms in relative motion can, in fact, be synchronized.
For Einstein’s General Relativity Theory (GRT) we need only demonstrate that
for a body or system accelerated by gravity, in contrast to one accelerated
by an engine or a cable, the motion of an object in that system will be
different – that we can use the motion of the object to decide whether
gravity or a different force is responsible for the accelerated motion.
The counter example for SRT is in chapter 3, the counter example for GRT is
in chapter 9 of the e-book: www.aquestionoftime.com .
Hans J. Zweig, PhD Hjzweig@aol.com
Wave Frequency & Prime Numbers
Earth quakes bounce around inside the earth off the crust. If you place a
fine powder on the skin of a drum, then apply the correct sound pitch, you
will have a 6 pointed star form in the dust made from two triangles. This is
a wave frequency, but it is not a pure wave frequency because you
"essentially" have to take your 'pen off the page' to be able to draw it. A
prime number is a single three pointed wave form - or triangle - reflected
within a spherical environment. It is a five pointed wave form - or
pentagram - reflected within a spherical environment. It is a seven pointed
wave form - or...errr....one of those seven pointed thingy's - the point is,
these prime number wave forms do not require you to lift your pencil when
you are drawing them. They are a pure wave form. 8, 9, 10, 12, 15 etc, all
non-prime numbers, cannot be drawn without you having to lift your pencil.
They are all made up of multiple other shapes/waveforms. Hence they are not
pure waveforms.
Also because the prime number completes a single waveform within a spherical
environment it is quite possible that it is significant in regards to energy
quantization as well possibly molecular bonding between atoms.
Regards,
glen angus graham redshift@senet.com.au
relativity theorist
PS: Isn't there some kind of competition to figure out what a prime number
is for??
Dr. Siepmann responds:
The contest you refer to can be found at
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/
and involves the Riemann hypothesis. There are other problems for which
there is also a $1,000,000 prize each and the link to them is listed on our
Awards page at http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/conf.htm
(link no longer active).
Relativity & the Speed of Light
It is well understood that Einstein's two postulates of Special Relativity
are as follows:
1) The principle of relativity - the laws of physics are identical in all
inertial systems,
2) The speed of light is measured the same by all inertial reference
systems.
The first postulate asserts that there is no experiment that will allow us
to identify an absolute reference frame - we can only measure relative
velocities between reference frames. The second postulate asserts that
observers in all reference frames measure the speed of light to be the same
- whatever that speed may be (we denote it as c even though it has a known
value).
There seems to be confusion that the second postulate implies that the speed
of light is constant and unchanging in velocity. The second postulate,
however, does not place any restrictions on a variable c (whether increasing
or decreasing), just that it's speed is measured the same by all observers
regardless of their frame of reference. The speed of light can in fact be
decreasing in time and all observers will still measure the same value of c
as long as it decreases simultaneously for all reference frames and across
all regions of space. At any given time, it may be less or more than what it
previously was a few seconds ago, but it will still be measured the same by
observers millions of light years away moving at different velocities.
Therefore, there would not be an inconsistency in the second postulate of
Special Relativity with a decrease in the speed of light over time, assuming
such a decrease occurred simultaneously across all reference frames. This
would then allow the familiar mass-energy relationship, as well as the other
transforms, to be maintained in a universe with a changing value of c.
Michael Harney mharney@signaldisplay.com
Bookmarking the Journal of Theoretics
I just got turned on to your Journal as a result of this
debate I am embroiled in. Bravo to you people, this is an area of need that
to the best of my knowledge had not been addressed previously and I found
your Journal fascinating in both scope and concept. It is now a most worthy
addition to my collection of bookmarks.
Sincerely,
Jim Fernandez
jimztheman@hotmail.com
The Uncertainty Principle is Untenable
By re-analyzing Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment and the ideal
experiment from which the uncertainty principle is derived, it is actually
found that the uncertainty principle can not be obtained from them. It is
therefore found to be untenable.
Ideal Experiment 1
Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope Experiment
A free electron sits directly beneath the center of the microscope's lens
(please see AIP page
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm ). The circular lens forms a cone of angle 2A from the
electron. The electron is then illuminated from the left by gamma rays--high
energy light which has the shortest wavelength. These yield the highest
resolution, for according to a principle of wave optics, the microscope can
resolve (that is, "see" or distinguish) objects to a size of dx, which is
related to and to the wavelength L of the gamma ray, by the expression:
dx = L/(2sinA) (1)
However, in quantum mechanics, where a light wave can act like a particle, a
gamma ray striking an electron gives it a kick. At the moment the light is
diffracted by the electron into the microscope lens, the electron is thrust
to the right. To be observed by the microscope, the gamma ray must be
scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A. In quantum mechanics,
the gamma ray carries momentum as if it were a particle. The total momentum
p is related to the wavelength by the formula,
p = h / L, where h is Planck's constant. (2)
In the extreme case of diffraction of the gamma ray to the right edge of the
lens, the total momentum would be the sum of the electron's momentum P'x in
the x direction and the gamma ray's momentum in the x direction:
P' x + (h sinA) / L', where L' is the wavelength of the deflected gamma ray.
In the other extreme, the observed gamma ray recoils backward, just hitting
the left edge of the lens. In this case, the total momentum in the x
direction is:
P''x - (h sinA) / L''.
The final x momentum in each case must equal the initial x momentum, since
momentum is conserved. Therefore, the final x momenta are equal to each
other:
P'x + (h sinA) / L' = P''x - (h sinA) / L'' (3)
If A is small, then the wavelengths are approximately the same,
L' ~ L" ~ L. So we have
P''x - P'x = dPx ~ 2h sinA / L (4)
Since dx = L/(2 sinA), we obtain a reciprocal relationship between the
minimum uncertainty in the measured position, dx, of the electron along the
x axis and the uncertainty in its momentum, dPx, in the x direction:
dPx ~ h / dx or dPx dx ~ h. (5)
For more than minimum uncertainty, the "greater than" sign may added.
Except for the factor of 4pi and an equal sign, this is Heisenberg's
uncertainty relation for the simultaneous measurement of the position and
momentum of an object.
Re-analysis
To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle
within the cone of angle 2A.
The microscope can resolve (that is, "see" or distinguish) objects to a size
of dx, which is related to and to the wavelength L of the gamma ray, by the
expression:
dx = L/(2sinA) (1)
This is the resolving limit of the microscope and it is the uncertain
quantity of the object's position.
The microscope can not see the object whose size is smaller than its
resolving limit, dx. Therefore, to be seen by the microscope, the size of
the electron must be larger than or equal to the resolving limit.
But if the size of the electron is larger than or equal to the resolving
limit dx, the electron will not be in the range dx. Therefore, dx can not be
deemed to be the uncertain quantity of the electron's position which can be
seen by the microscope, but deemed to be the uncertain quantity of the
electron's position which can not be seen by the microscope. To repeat, dx
is uncertainty in the electron's position which can not be seen by the
microscope.
To be seen by the microscope, the gamma ray must be scattered into any angle
within the cone of angle 2A, so we can measure the momentum of the electron.
dPx is the uncertainty in the electron's momentum which can be seen by
microscope.
What relates to dx is the electron where the size is smaller than the
resolving limit. When the electron is in the range dx, it can not be seen by
the microscope, so its position is uncertain.
What relates to dPx is the electron where the size is larger than or equal
to the resolving limit .The electron is not in the range dx, so it can be
seen by the microscope and its position is certain.
Therefore, the electron which relates to dx and dPx respectively is not the
same. What we can see is the electron where the size is larger than or equal
to the resolving limit dx and has a certain position, dx = 0.
Quantum mechanics does not rely on the size of the object, but on
Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment. The use of the microscope must
relate to the size of the object. The size of the object which can be seen
by the microscope must be larger than or equal to the resolving limit dx of
the microscope, thus the uncertain quantity of the electron's position does
not exist. The gamma ray which is diffracted by the electron can be
scattered into any angle within the cone of angle 2A, where we can measure
the momentum of the electron.
What we can see is the electron which has a certain position, dx = 0, so
that in no other position can we measure the momentum of the electron. In
Quantum mechanics, the momentum of the electron can be measured accurately
when we measure the momentum of the electron only, therefore, we have gained
dPx = 0.
And,
dPx dx =0. (6)
Every physical principle is based on an Ideal Experiment, not based on
MATHEMATICS, including heisenberg uncertainty principle.
For example, the Law of Conservation of Momentum is based on the collision
of
two stretch ball in the vacuum; the Principle of equivalence (general
relativity)
is based on the Einstein's laboratory in the lift.
Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment is an ideal experiment.
Einstein said, One Experiment is enough to negate a physical principle.
Heisenberg's Gamma-Ray Microscope experiment has negated the uncertainty
principle.
Ideal experiment 2
Single Slit Diffraction Experiment
Suppose a particle moves in the Y direction originally and then passes a
slit with width dx(Please see diagram below) . The uncertain quantity of the
particle's position in the X direction is dx, and interference occurs at the
back slit . According to Wave Optics , the angle where No.1 min of
interference pattern is can be calculated by following formula:
sinA=L/2dx (1)
and L=h/p where h is Planck's constant. (2)
So the uncertainty principle can be obtained
dPx dx ~ h (5)
Re-analysis
According to Newton first law , if an external force in the X direction does
not affect the particle, it will move in a uniform straight line, ( Motion
State or Static State) , and the motion in the Y direction is unchanged
. Therefore, we can learn its position in the slit from its starting point.
The particle can have a certain position in the slit and the uncertain
quantity of the position is dx =0. According to Newton first law , if the
external force at the X direction does not affect particle, and the original
motion in the Y direction is not changed , the momentum of the particle int
the X direction will be Px=0 and the uncertain quantity of the momentum will
be dPx =0.
This gives:
dPx dx =0. (6)
No experiment negates NEWTON FIRST LAW. Whether in quantum mechanics or
classical mechanics, it applies to the microcosmic world and is of the form
of the Energy-Momentum conservation laws. If an external force does not
affect the particle and it does not remain static or in uniform motion, it
has disobeyed the Energy-Momentum conservation laws. Under the above ideal
experiment , it is considered that the width of the slit is the uncertain
quantity of the particle's position. But there is certainly no reason for us
to consider that the particle in the above experiment has an uncertain
position, and no reason for us to consider that the slit's width is the
uncertain quantity of the particle. Therefore, the uncertainty principle,
dPx dx ~ h (5)
which is derived from the above experiment is unreasonable.
Conclusion
From the above re-analysis , it is realized that the ideal experiment demonstration for the uncertainty principle is untenable. Therefore, the uncertainty principle is untenable.
Reference:
1. Max Jammer. (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics (John Wiley &
Sons
, Inc New York ) Page 65 2. Ibid, Page 67 3.
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm
.
Author : BingXin Gong hdgbyi@public.guangzhou.gd.cn