The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

The funny thing is, that every political system has its "favourite theory". Capitalism favours theories which do not allow something for free, in all sciences, and of course specially in economics. But also "nowadays physics" stresses that nothing can be had for free.

This is another falsehood about mainstream physics and science that the general public just can't get right!  Frank Wilczek doesn't believe in the conservation of mass and doesn't believe the zeroth law is valid.  Wilczek is considered one of the world's most eminent theoretical physicists. He is known, among other things, for the discovery of asymptotic freedom, the development of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the invention of axions, and the discovery and exploitation of new forms of quantum statistics (anyons). Frank Wilczek is a Nobel Prize Winner, and is also an official advisor to CERN and to Daedalus.

Reference: The below is taken right out of a book written by Frank Wilczek titled, "The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and Unification of the Forces". This book is a must read!  Mainstream physics has not thrown out an Ether in their theories, as the general public wrongly asserts!  This is another false-hood about mainstream physicists that the general public can't get right!

At the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP), which operated at the CERN laboratory near Geneva through the 1990s, electrons and positrons (anti electrons) were accelerated to velocities within about one part in a hundred billionth of the speed of light. Speeding around in opposite directions, the particles smashed into each other, producing a lot of debris. A typical collision might produce ten π mesons, a proton, and an anti-proton. Now let's compare the total masses, before and after:

electron + positron: 2 × 10^–28 gram
10 pions + proton + anti-proton: 6 × 10^–24 gram

What comes out weighs about thirty thousand times as much as what went in. If mass is not conserved—and it's not!, then we can seek its origin.

Question: If E = mc², then mass is proportional to energy. So if energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, doesn't that mean that mass will be conserved, too?

Answer: The short answer is that E = mc² really applies only to isolated bodies at rest. It's a pity that this equation, the equation of physics that is best known to the general public, is actually a little cheesy. In general, when you have moving bodies, or interacting bodies, energy and mass aren't proportional. E = mc² simply doesn't apply. E = mc² holds for isolated bodies at rest. For moving bodies, the correct mass-energy equation is given in the image below, where v is the velocity. For a body at rest (v = 0), this becomes E = mc². When a body, for example, a proton or an electron, is accelerated, v generally changes, but m stays the same. Therefore, the equation tells us, E changes. If energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, but mass is not, then what gives?

Conservation of energy applies to systems, not to individual bodies. The total energy of a system of bodies includes contributions from both energy of motion and "potential energy" terms that reflect the interactions among the bodies. The potential energy terms are given by other formulas, which depend on the distances between the bodies, their electric charges, and perhaps other things. It is only the total energy that is conserved according to the mass-energy equation.

An isolated body has a constant velocity. That's Newton's first law of motion, which, unlike his zeroth law, still appears to be valid. When a body is isolated, we can regard it as a system unto itself. So the energy of the body should be conserved and from the formula, it is. Conversely, when a body's velocity changes, that very change is a signal that the body is not isolated. Some other body has to be acting on it to produce the change in velocity. The action of one body on another generally transfers energy between them. Only the total energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, not the energy of each body separately.

We considered a dramatic violation of conservation of mass. An electron and a positron annihilate, and out come a collection of particles whose total mass is 30,000 times larger. Nevertheless, energy is conserved. The velocities of the initial electron and positron were very close to the speed of light. Therefore, according to the general mass-energy equation, their energy is very large, much larger than mc². The particles that emerge from the collision, although they are more massive, move a bit more slowly. When you add up their energies, calculated using the mass-energy equation, the sum matches the total energy of the original electron and positron. Once the particles fly out and separate, the interaction, or potential, energy becomes negligibly small.

Gravock

Side Note:  Now, since we have a dramatic violation in the conservation of mass according to the mass-energy equation, and mass is undergoing expansion acceleration and is provided by different equations, then energy isn't conserved either.

[gravityblock]

....
.........
Question: If E = mc², then mass is proportional to energy. So if energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, doesn't that mean that mass will be conserved, too?

Answer: The short answer is that E = mc² really applies only to isolated bodies at rest. It's a pity that this equation, the equation of physics that is best known to the general public, is actually a little cheesy. In general, when you have moving bodies, or interacting bodies, energy and mass aren't proportional. E = mc² simply doesn't apply. E = mc² holds for isolated bodies at rest. For moving bodies, the correct mass-energy equation is given in the image below, where v is the velocity. For a body at rest (v = 0), this becomes E = mc². When a body, for example, a proton or an electron, is accelerated, v generally changes, but m stays the same. Therefore, the equation tells us, E changes. If energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, but mass is not, then what gives?
......
.............
Gravock

Mass increasing as an object approaches the speed of light is another false-hood promoted by the general public because they can't get the basic elementary truths of a theory correct, so one false-hood leads to a greater false-hood and so on.  And then, the general public wrongly and falsely asserts that it is the mainstream physicists which are the loonies and not themselves.  Give me a break!

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Trivial things which can be easily observed are of course described correctly. But the "fringe" is always pure politics or ideology.

Are you serious?  As one of my foes on this forum correctly stated, trivial things such as "the idea of light being something that travels from A to B is the unfortunate result of preconceptions based upon tests that really does not prove anything but a time differential between "light source" and receptor.  As soon as mankind realizes that there is no such thing as light speed or physical matter or objective time, or even a linear universe, we will move into next level of understanding".  It's really too bad he has aligned himself with the adversary of God!  Mankind hasn't been able to correctly describe even the trivial things of this world which can be observed, as you wrongly and falsely asserted.  We can't even get past the basic elementary truths of this universe!

1 Corinthians 1:27  But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise....

Gravock

[gravityblock]

First this so-called science should be rebuilt from scratch by competent scientists (how many do you think there are out there?).
Then we could see what the new theories say about the universe.

Or, should we see what the "old interpretations" of a theory says about the universe.  Pilot-wave theory makes all the same predictions as the probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics (which wouldn't be referred to as the "Copenhagen" interpretation until the 1950s), but without the ghostliness or mysterious collapse.  It is the Copenhagen probabilistic interpretation of QM I do not agree with.  The old, deterministic alternative of QM is not mentioned in most textbooks and most people in the field haven't heard of it. Sheldon Goldstein, a professor of mathematics, physics, and philosophy at Rutgers University and a supporter of pilot-wave theory, blames the "preposterous" neglect of the theory on "decades of indoctrination."  At this stage, Goldstein and several other noted researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy.  The physicist David Bohm resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, with Einstein's encouragement, and made clear that it did work, but it never caught on.  The theory is also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics.  Please remember, according to David Bohm, the one who resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, also says the entire universe is a hologram.

By 1932, when the Hungarian-American mathematician John von Neumann claimed to have proven that the probabilistic wave equation in quantum mechanics could have no "hidden variables" (that is, missing components, such as de Broglie's particle with its well-defined trajectory), pilot-wave theory was so poorly regarded that most physicists believed von Neumann's proof without even reading a translation.  More than 30 years would pass before von Neumann's proof was shown to be false, but by then the damage was done.  Later, the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell went on to prove a seminal theorem that many physicists today misinterpret as rendering hidden variables impossible.  But Bell supported pilot-wave theory. He was the one who pointed out the flaws in von Neumann's original proof.  And in 1986 he wrote that pilot-wave theory "seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored."  The neglect continues to this day.....

Now at last, pilot-wave theory may be experiencing a minor comeback — at least, among fluid dynamicists. "I wish that the people who were developing quantum mechanics at the beginning of last century had access to these experiments," Milewski said. "Because then the whole history of quantum mechanics might be different."  The experiments began a decade ago, when Yves Couder and colleagues at Paris Diderot University discovered that vibrating a silicon oil bath up and down at a particular frequency can induce a droplet to bounce along the surface. The droplet's path, they found, was guided by the slanted contours of the liquid's surface generated from the droplet's own bounces — a mutual particle-wave interaction analogous to de Broglie's pilot-wave concept.

The photon carries momentum. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is not possible to measure location and momentum at the same time. If the momentum is distributed throughout the entire volume, if one measures the entire momentum, the whole volume must be considered. Since the volume spreads all over creation, it is impossible to say that it is located at a point.  It seems that the meaning of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be reinterpreted to support the present conclusion of the nature of the photon. If it has aperture and length, the momentum is not located at a single point. If a single point is assumed for the structure, no momentum can be measured. It seems that the significance of the uncertainty principle has been highly overrated.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle simply says that the photon has volume.  Calculation shows that the energy and thus the mass is distributed uniformly throughout the structure. The same fact applies to the distribution of momentum.  Quantum indeterminacy and a probabilistic universe based on the wrong assumptions of the Copenhagen interpretation has been proven false!

"The old has been made new again"

Reference:  Fluid Experiments Support Deterministic "Pilot-Wave" Quantum Theory (Snapshots shown below)

Gravock

[gravityblock]

The funny thing is, that every political system has its "favourite theory". Capitalism favours theories which do not allow something for free, in all sciences, and of course specially in economics. But also "nowadays physics" stresses that nothing can be had for free.

Reference:  Time Crystals - Perpetual Motion Test Could Amend Theory of Time  (snapshots below)

Mainstream physicists are trying to build a perpetual motion machine that doesn't consume or produce energy by using "time crystals"!

Wilczek's equations indicate atoms can indeed form a regularly repeating lattice in time, returning to their initial arrangement only after discrete (rather than continuous) intervals, thereby breaking the symmetry of time.  Without consuming or producing energy, time crystals would be stable, in what physicists call their "ground state," despite cyclical variations in structure that scientists say can be interpreted as perpetual motion.  Frank Wilczek is also a professor at MIT.

Gravock