
EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"537.88 "
that is right (+ transport, and the book is heavy), the price of my unsigned book is now more pricy than some books of the President of USA (signed). "Aquaman", doubt he can afford it when he finally decides to buy it. The long term price trend is up?
Just in print
Why the Sagnac effect favors absolute over relative simultaneity
"Since Einstein and absolute synchronizations can be discriminated, the conventionality of the oneway speed of light holds no longer."
"Any attempt to justify relative simultaneity will not modify the fact that absolute simultaneity provides a simpler and more coherent way to interpret the linear Sagnac effect."





EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


In my (underpriced) book I had no gravity theory, but looks like atomism gives a quantum gravity theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics, soon to be submitted to journal (will likely be rejected due to controversial idea, modern physicists have not studied atomism)
Collision SpaceTime Unified Quantum Gravity Gravity is Lorentz symmetry break down at the Planck scale
Both Lorentz symmetry and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale, and gravity is remarkably the Planck scale. Modern physics have been searching for effects from the Planck scale, they have failed to see all of gravity is the Planck scale. They have failed to see there is a massgap that is linked to time. 



pj


Total Posts: 3469 
Joined: Jun 2004 


General relativity. Great. By the way, does the GPS work in your system?
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale
Would you care to expand?
Aquaman reference 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"By the way, does the GPS work in your system?"
I am not an expert on GPS, but yes GPS clocks are adjusted for the Sagnac effect, and the Sagnac effect is still the same in our model (as first predicted by Sagnac), but we claim at least the Linear Sagnac experimental set up gives inconsistence between assumption of also oneway speed is isotropic together with assumption of relativity of simultaneity. In other words we claim other explanation for Sagnac. Sagnac himself claimed the Sagnac effect was inconsistent with SR. Among supporters of standard theory they cannot agree if the Sagnac effect can be explained only from SR or if one needs GR, and for the ones claiming one need GR they cannot fully agree, as reflected in recent papers
"Despite countless explanations, in more than a hundred years, there are still different interpretations of Sagnac experiment in the framework of the GTR."
E. B. Fabiano, Hooman F. L., and M. C. Corda. On the general relativistic framework of the sagnac effect. The European Physical Journal C, 79, 2019. 



EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


> Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale
Would you care to expand?
In my model there is only one 100% mass, the Planck mass. The Planck mass is simply the collision between two indivisible particles. The Planck mass only last one Planck second (before the indivisibles move away from each other), and it can therefore only be observed inside one Planck second. To observe it one need to be it basically, and it stands absolute still. In my model at the deepest level there is only Planck mass particles (colliding indivisible particles) and energy (non colliding indivisible particles, moving at the speed of light). All masses we observe such as electrons are in reality both energy and mass, they are the Planck mass c/BarLambda per second, where BarLambda is the reduced Compton wavelength of the electron. This gives the correct electron mass.
The uncertainty in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in my model simply comes from that the indivisibles are moving back and forth over the Compton wavlength at the speed of light (except when colliding when they stand still).
The quantum probabilities I get out from my model (as well as from QM) are one (1) at the observation of Collisions (the Planck mass). There is no uncertainty of the position of a Planck mass. However in for example an electron there is uncertainty.
Well this is better explained in my working papers
Collision SpaceTime. Unified Quantum Gravity. Gravity is Lorentz Symmetry Break Down at the Planck Scale.
Finally a Unified Quantum Gravity Theory! Collision SpaceTime: the Missing Piece of Matter! Gravity is Lorentz and Heisenberg Break Down at the Planck Scale. Gravity Without G
Better and Deeper Quantum Mechanics! Thoughts on a New Definition of Momentum That Makes Physics Simpler and More Consistent (this working paper still needs more work)
Modern physics have missed a few points.
1. De Broglie came up with the matter waveparticle duality idea in 1923 or so. One soon observed wave like properties of matter in experiments. And it was assumed that de Broglie where right, and one developed much of QM around the de Broglie wave. However the same year about; Compton actually observed the Compton wavelength of the electron.
de Broglie (relativistic version)
versus Compton (relativistic version)
Why on earth should one have two different matter waves? If a particle stand still, then the de Broglie wavelength is infinite. This has been interpreted by some/many physicists that the electron can be anywhere in the universe until observed (even if we observed it one millisecond ago inside a small area). This is of course insane interpretations. As I have shown the de Broglie wavelength is just a mathematical derivative of the real matter "wave", which is the Compton wavelength. de Broglie is ComptonWave*c/v. So yes when v=0 the de Broglie gives infinite wavelength, (which leads to nonsense interpretation if one not understand this is just a mathematical derivative of the physical wavelength: Compton).
Building a QM around the de Broglie wave gives correct prediction (except at the Planck scale), but it is a unnecessarily complex way to do it. One goes through a derivative that one falsely think represent something real. Much simpler is (in particular interpretation wise as logic again is restored, and all the esoteric magical interpretations then disappear) when one built theory from the real observed matter wave, Compton. In my model it is not even a wave, it is just the average distance between the indivisibles in the matter type we are working with, but yes all the wave math works on this.
2. Modern physicists ignored Newton. Newton was clear on matter where indivisible particles. And his gravity formula F=Mm/r^2 is consistent with this mass view. Newton NEVER EVER mention a gravity constant, nor dose he use one. He predicts correctly the relative masses of planets, their orbital velocity etc. His model simply did not took into account relativistic effects for fast moving objects. Modern physics had to redefine Newton to F=GMm/r^2 (in the 1800). Because their incomplete mass definition they had to get in a magic gravity constant G that they do not really know what represent, only empirical calibrate without understanding what it is. Well it contains embedded the Planck length, the speed of light, and the Planck constant. This to get the Planck constant out from their incomplete (antiNewtonian) mass definition, and get the Planck length in. If they had understood this they would have understood Gravity is the Planck scale they have been searching for but not found. It has been just ahead of their nose all the time.





EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Spavieri, Gilles, Haug and Sanchez Light propagation and local speed in the linear Sagnac effect Journal of Modern Optics, fresh from the press!
"We show that, if standard clock synchronization is adopted, the speed c turns out to be invariant in an open section of the contour only. Our result is due to the distinctive physical feature of the ‘time gap’ introduced by relative simultaneity in the closed contour."
"many interpretations of the Sagnac effect are missing this crucial point: the fact that different synchronizations provide the same roundtrip result in the Sagnac effect, does not tell or reveal what the local speed of light is in every section of the light path." 



EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

pj


Total Posts: 3469 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Sigh, The fact that the relativity theory and quantum mechanics are not compatible is not new.
I urge you to google it. 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


PJ seems you mix up quanta in energy, linked to the Planck constant, with a quanta in length (minimum length) that my paper is about!
quantum mechanics have a quanta of energy, which is linked to the Planck constant (h), not the Planck length, even if there is a very weak link. Max Planck uses the Planck constant together with the speed of the light and the gravitational constant to derive the Planck length. But the Planck constant actually contains zero information about the Planck length, it is in no way needed to find the Planck length.
It is in no way clear how consistent QM is with a minimum length, actually it is not! Something that will become more and more clear. It is inconsistent!
It is also not clear if QM is consistent Minkowski spacetime, see article W. G. Unruh. Chapter: Minkowski SpaceTime and Quantum Mechanics, in the bool Minkowski Spacetime: A Hundred Years Later, Edited by V. Petkov. Springer, 2009. My paper linked here is not about SR being inconsistent with QM or not, again it is about SR being inconsistent with a minimum length. (not topic here, but Minkowski Spacetime actually simplifies at the Planck scale, read my two collision space time papers)
Quantum mechanics is only to some degree consistent with energy coming in quanta, linked to the Planck constant h. Standard quantum mechanics is in no way consistent with a minimum length, not even a minimum Compton length. Actually indirectly from my papers you can already see why, but I am going to write a paper specifically pointing out several inconsistencies in standard QM here.
to get a unified theory one cannot have a quanta in energy and at the same time have no minimum spatial dimension (modern physics have point particles). Scientist working on quantum gravity I think know this, but have not been able to solve it.
So if you had read my paper and understood QM better, you would have seen my paper is not about SR not being consistent with QM, it is about SR not being consistent with a minimum length, quanta in minimum length.
Part of the solution to the problem is the formula I first presented at the Royal Institution in London 2015 (mentioned in the paper), that I back then did not understand the great importance of. As I back then had not been able to figure out the diameter of the indivisible particle, the Newton Particle. But later I have proven it must be the Planck length.
PJ, where is the Planck length in standard QM ??? Please give me specific references. Yes in some extended attempts on QM we have it, but these extensions have not solved it. So the paper I have posted here is not even about SR being compatible with QM or not, it is about SR being incompatible with a minimum length.
SR, GR, and QM are all inconsistent with minimum length. Part of the reason they have all kind of bogus interpretations of certain aspects of things. To have a quanta of energy without a minimum quanta of length is actually part of the big flaw in modern physics. quantum gravity try to solve this.
My maximum velocity formula with its extreme simplicity is part of the solution. it removes a series of infinity challenges in modern physics and give us a minimum spatial dimension. I will write more papers on this, as also standard QM cannot be made consistent with a minimum length, it is incomplete, and why they not can unify it with gravity. This mostly only affect the Planck scale (nothing to do with the Planck constant, but with the natural units of Planck), which again IS GRAVITY!
(good one: The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken) 




pj


Total Posts: 3469 
Joined: Jun 2004 


>EGH post My apologies. The problem is a a tad deeper than I thought when skimming your paper. But I still fail to comprehend the contributions of your opus. You need to sell harder (scratch that) smarter.
Une recommendation pour des francophones
BTW, my handle is lowercase pj .

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 67 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Doubly special relativity that you link too is indeed an attempt to modify special relativity to get consistent with the Planck length and thereby the Planck scale, however it seems to be the wrong approach. From what I understand it still keeps the speed limit for mass as same as SR: v just being smaller than c. It is a topdow speculative way, mostly mathematical to try to get modified SR consistent with the Planck scale, but it is a failed attempt in my view.
While I simply derive my theory bottom up from atomism. And here I in 2014 found there is an exact maximum velocity of anything with rest mass directly linked to a minimum length, that I presented at the Royal Institution in 2015 in London. Back then I was not even close to show this minimum length (the dimeter of the Newton particle) can be shown by simple experiments that it must be the Planck length. I thought in 2014/2015 it possibly could be a connection, but I did not know how then. But now I know, and in this way we get in the Planck scale incorporated in relativity. And there is no longer need to search for the Planck scale, it is clearly gravity, as shown in my collision spacetime working papers (one of them in for review)
Doubly special relativity seems to have had very limited success. And I think I can understand why:
 They still assume for masses v less than c, while it should be Doubly special relativity also do not understand it is the Compton wavelength in matter that is essential.  They do not understand what Newton's gravitational constant is, except they "know" it is a universal constant. And yes it is universal constant, but it is a universal Composite constant, , and this is very essencial to understand. We can do fully without G and hbar, but we can not do without the Planck length, and the Planck length can be found totally independent of G and hbar.
secondary: they use an incomplete mass definition, the one used by standard physics, that lack the Planck length component. This is secondary they trick it back in (without knowing about that is what they are doing, because they do not know G is a composite) when they multiply G with standard mass defintion.
Actually Newton never invented G, nor did he use it, nor did he need to use it, nor is G consistent with Newtons mass view that he explicitly claimed declare is the philosophy behind all his theory = indivisibles!! ), third So yes Doubly special relativity is a top down mathematical theory that in my view not can succeed. G is needed to trick the Planck scale back into the modern incomplete mass definition, without doing so they could do no gravity predictions. But of course simpler and much more intuitive is to use the correct mass defintion in the first place.
There is much much simpler way to modify relativity to get it consistent with minimum length, and it is it to derive it bottom up from atomism (the particles Democritus, Newton). Then one also get quantum gravity!
>BTW, my handle is lowercase pj .
Thank you for this important correction, I will not do this important mistake again!









