Relativity, Absolute Frame, Simultaneity, Action At A Distance

Quantum Physics comes with an instantaneous action at a distance. A simultaneity. I call it the QI, the Quantum Interaction.

This simultaneity, this action at a distance, has baffled Relativity enthusiasts. See “Taming The Quantum Spooks”.

According to Einsteinian lore, one cannot have such an “instantaneous” interaction, it would contradict “Relativity”. (From my point the interaction is not instantaneous, just more than 10^10 c, that is 10^10 the speed of light, at least.)

Jules Henri Poincaré asserted the Principle of Relativity (1904) and demonstrated that, supposing that the speed of light was always constant, one could get all the equations of Special Relativity. Then Einstein, opportunistically jumping on the immensely famous Poincaré’s work, asserted that the Frenchman’s work showed that the speed of light was constant (whereas a more cautious  Poincaré asserted earlier that, considering that the speed of light was always found experimentally to be constant, one should view that as a law of physics). Of course, Einstein did not quote the French, as he was a good Swabian (and not a good European), keen to ride, as his mentor Planck was, Prussian fascism.

This Field Of Galaxies Defines An Absolute Frame. It Is Plain To See, Only Years Of Learning Academic Physics Can Brainwash Someone, Not To See It.

This Field Of Galaxies Defines An Absolute Frame. It Is Plain To See, Only Years Of Learning Academic Physics Can Brainwash Someone, Not To See It.

Poincaré knew very well Lorentz’s Local Time theory, which he had helped established, in the preceding quarter of a century. However, Jules Henri still believed in Absolute Time (Einstein did not).

Why to believe in Absolute Time? Poincaré did not wax lyrical on the subject. He actually said nothing (contrarily to Nobel laureate Bergson twenty years later, who violently contradicted Einstein). Nor did any physicist, in the meantime (110 years), dare defend Absolute Time (we have lived in an Einstein terror regime!) But this what Quantum Physics quietly does and what I will now dare to do (if I can contradict professional Salafists, I surely can dare to contradict professional physicists).

Suppose we have an absolute reference frame. Bring a light clock there, at rest, call that time: Absolute time. One can slow transport clocks (say using chemical rockets, and taking 100,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri) all over the universe, establishing UNIVERSAL TIME. Relativistic effects depend upon vv/cc. The square of speed, divided by the square of the speed of light c. If v/c is small, vv/cc is even much smaller, and negligible. (Poincaré showed this first.)

So is there an absolute reference frame? Sure. That frame is the one steady relative to distance pulsars, quasars, distant galaxies, etc. (no rotation) and steady relative to the Cosmological Background Radiation. Then one can talk about simultaneity, absolute time, and thus instantaneous interaction at a distance.

(This is one approach; there is another approach of mine, more mathematical, using the fact a manifold of dimension n can be embedded in one of dimension 2n +1 (Whitney). Or then one can use the celebrated Nash’ embedding theorem.)

There is no contradiction of Absolute Time theory, or should we say, possibility, with Local Time Theory (LTT). LTT is about light clocks. Relativity is about light clocks. Yet we know of other interactions… plus the QUANTUM INTERACTION.

BTW, in “General Relativity”, “Einstein’s theory of gravitation”, the speed of light is not constant. Even Einstein recognized this.

Conclusion? One can profitably consider Ian Miller’s “Dark Energy and Modern Science“. Even physicists can believe what they believe in, on the most important fundamentals, because it is fashionable, a rite one has to believe in, so that one can become an initiated member of the tribe. And the more absurd the belief, the better.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , ,

9 Responses to “Relativity, Absolute Frame, Simultaneity, Action At A Distance”

  1. Gmax Says:

    It seems clear enough. Nothing like the absurdities of super strings and the like

  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Quanta Magazine.]
    Patrice Ayme says:
    September 15, 2016 at 5:16 pm
    Jules Henri Poincaré published E=mc2 in the leading Dutch physics journal in 1900. Einstein attributed the proof to himself more than 5 years later.

  3. ianmillerblog Says:

    The fashion in science is, for me, a pain. There seems to be a feeling that the equations rule, and if the equation is elegant enough, and uses sufficiently complicated mathematics, it must be right. My view is this is nonsense – if there is a conflict between observation and equation, the equation is just plain wrong. As for absolute time, I believe in it. It does not matter what your history is travelling relativistically, you can always stop and measure the time since the big bang (whatever that was). Perhaps not the most sensitive of clocks, but nevertheless the universe itself is an absolute clock

    • Gmax Says:

      Good point the universe as a clock! :-)!!!
      We are really ruled by idiots, and not just in finance and politics

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Equations mean nothing without context.Indeed. For example, the Dirac equation requires a context, spinor space.
      Complicated equations without proper context: the epicycle theories (idiots will say equations were truly invented after 1500…)
      The point that the universe itself is a clock, an absolute clock, is extremely cogent.

  4. richard reinhofer Says:

    re: as he was a good Swabian (and not a good European)

    Thank you again Patrice. Americans don’t understand this at all, yet we understand that a Mississippi land cropper is equally pollable with a rural Ohio commuter.

  5. 1truegarcol Says:

    You cannot solve physics with Philosophy. If time is not relative, how does GPS work by taking into account orbiting satellite speeds?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All physics started with the philosophical method. No exception. Whatsoever.
      I never said GPS does not work. I actually know the computation so well, I could explain for “non-physicists” on this site. The computation is correct. Yet that does not prove all of Einstein’s theory is right. That actually would be surprising, considering the extent of unproven statements in it.
      ALL of Special Relativity, including E = mcc was demonstrated by a number of physicists led and dominated by Jules-Henri Poincare’. As I try to explain all the time. Lorentz and Poincare’ worked out LOCAL TIME theory over 20 years. (“Local Time” is Poincare’ expression, BTW.)

      Einstein was much less intelligent than Poincare’. However Poincare’ died early (1912). Poincare’ also derived gravitational waves in 1905 (another point on which Einstein parroted him!)

      My own position: there is a universal time (just look at the big bang!). However, local time is also a fact (hence the slow clocks, something we have many direct experimental proofs of, and the theory is high school level!!!!!). What gives? Well, Quantum Physics has also its own time. And there is absolute time.

      Let me repeat:
      All and any new physics started with the philosophical method. Not one exception. Whatsoever. Ever. Those who claim otherwise are ignorant fools. Or then they don’t know what “new” is.

    • Gmax Says:

      Physics is natural philosophy, said Isaac Newton

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: