|
Have you checked that in the right limits (low energy/classical), your theory reduces to General Relativity and the Standard Model?
General comment:
Obviously I haven't seen the book or anything, and my knowledge of neutrino interactions is a bit rusty, but EGH's comments here:
forbes
don't seem to jive with what the IceCube experiment or SuperK experiments needed to do to measure neutrino signals. |
|
|
|
 |
.gif)
benji
|
|
| Total Posts: 197 |
| Joined: Feb 2005 |
| |
|
@darkmatters, I think you probably need to look at the OPERA experiment to get a flavour of the setup they mean. My biggest concern with the setup (assuming the encoding and event reconstruction/decoding time is smaller than the time gained by travelling in a straight line - I don't know if that's the case, and all the other insane requirement are met) is you can set up everything and have your beam stolen by someone setting up a detector 'in front' of you. You'd have no way of knowing it until you start losing money !
anyway, if the fundamental transformation is changed you can see that obviously the Dirac equation has to be changed meaning extra lagrangian terms etc - obviously you can't do anything too crazy. Thankfully you can often parameterize the violation with a set of model independent parameters which can then be constrained by experimental data. Given the interest in Lorentz violating theory in the past few years coming from quantum gravity there are quite a few people looking at these.
Have a look for example at this and that for some already old stuff.
EGH tell us that experimental constraints are discussed in his book.
Am I being Sokal'd here by even paying attention to some theory that supposedly even explains memory and intelligence ? |
|
|
 |
|
@benji
Funny you mention Sokal, I came across this a little while ago:
scam papers
which was hilarious.
Anyway, there are many things wrong with the neutrino trading idea, starting with the markets where you get the biggest gain, i.e. other sides of the world, don't have a big overlap in their active trading hours, somewhat hurting upside, and ending with getting a narrow enough beam that far across the world without giving everyone cancer. I remember a similar in nature idea for neutrino beams to degrade countries nuclear capacity be triggering radioactive decays of their warheads. I don't remember all the details, but I recall something along the lines that you would give everyone cancer in the facility from the high luminousity beam before you could decay the warheads enough...
Anyway, I would be blown away if his book was written in the effective field theory language, but don't think that is likely, otherwise this would come out as a series of arxiv posts instead of a book.
|
|
|
|
|
Nonius
|
| Founding MemberNonius Unbound |
| Total Posts: 12808 |
| Joined: Mar 2004 |
| |
|
| Hey, how you doing Espen? Long time. |
Chiral is Tyler Durden |
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
"Hey, how you doing Espen? Long time.''
hi hi Nonius, I am doing fine....what are u up to....(are you still writing some fiction?) London for u now? |
|
|
|
|
chiral3
|
| Founding Member |
| Total Posts: 5233 |
| Joined: Mar 2004 |
| |
|
| No more foreplay! Post a chapter! What's the worst that could happen? You call yourself as your publisher and ask yourself to take it down? |
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй! |
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
@benji "Anyway, there are many things wrong with the neutrino trading idea, starting with the markets where you get the biggest gain,"
fully possible, I do not at all discusses neutrinos in my book. In that article I was only approximating the distances through earth and doing calculations on speed in case it was possible. I left neutrino physics up to Bruce and the physicist Bruce Dorminey interviewed. (possibly I am mentioning neutrinos in one sentence somewhere, I need to look up the index, but absolutely nothing on neutrinos directly in my book.).
chiral3 "No more foreplay! Post a chapter! "
sorry not yet, I am having my first book launch next week Dec 10 (in Oslo, will only speak Norwegian there, but if anyone here speak norwegian (or swedish) and should be in oslo then send me a mail ) After that I will start to give out more info....I am possibly in New York in january and was thinking of trying to set up a talk there to, also thinking of my favorite: London, but this could take time.... )
@benji "Anyway, I would be blown away if his book was written in the effective field theory language, "
I just spoke with another theoretical university physicst two days ago (that of course was very skeptical when he had seen my book cover online, but he also admitted he was curious enough so that he at least would look into what it truly was about). He thought the clue for a possible break through in physics was yes field theories. I think that is in wrong direction (but must admit I know too little about field theories, and I think I make a little fun of field theories in a sentence or two in my book), and I don't think we need them after my theory ;-) -- or possibly field theories can later be seen as some type type of surface theory (not rooted in the very depth of reality) that could still be very useful. Also engineering math is very useful to construct wonderful bridges, but the math tell us close to nothing directly (but yes one could claim a bit indirectly) about the atomic or even subatomic building blocks of the bridge. My theory will not replace engineering math.
I feel much of the established physics is similar to engineering math, yes most of the math is correct and often very useful, but it is not really derived from the very depth of reality, and this explain why in parts of physics there are so many interpretations, and also I would say to some degree diffuse explanations. In my theory there is logic all the way, every equation has simple and only one logical explanation (all results can also be explained by words, the numerical output makes sense). Well there is of course parts of physics I not have tried to derive equations for yet, there is still more to do for sure. If my theory is right then there could indeed be great opportunities for some years ahead, as also other parts of physics that I have not touched then possibly also need to be ``re-written" or understood from different perspective. But yes at this points the lamps should blink red. Of course one need to study my theory first...May be I will be crank^3 after all :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without having seen any substance, the discussion so far makes me wary the book could be along the same lines as this. Maybe with a better salesman going at it, though.
EDIT:
If one can extend the Schwarzchild metric to be probabilistic, then it might also be a means to unite the various theories with a geometric basis? |
|
|
|
Nonius
|
| Founding MemberNonius Unbound |
| Total Posts: 12808 |
| Joined: Mar 2004 |
| |
|
Puttering about in London dude. If you're around let's grab a pint.
I still dabble in writing but not as much as my drunken stupor days in Paris. |
Chiral is Tyler Durden |
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
I have now added table of contents to my webpage as well as preface in same file:
Table of Contents and Preface
I will soon start to add more pages to my website related to this, with links to relevant papers and other material. Later on also add spreadsheets and Mathematica examples (but this will likely first happen in January some time).
My theory shows the true one-way speed of light is anisotropic, but that very few classes of experiments can detect this. The Einstein synchronization error is anisotropic, but perfectly symmetrical which means in most experiments the one-way errors will perfectly cancel each other out and one are only measuring apparent one-way speed (that embedded contains Einstein synchronization errors).
There have been performed 3 experiments in the class I call dual-medium experiments, here it looks like the Einstein synchronization error will be different in different mediums and not cancel each other out. All these 3 experiments have all detected anisotropy in the one-way speed of light, but these experiments have in my view not been fully understood from a theoretical point of view before and therefore mostly been ignored by the main frame physics community, also only 2 of them are published (the third one performed by a telecome company that got the same result: anisotropy in the one-way speed of light.).
Not only can we find the true-one-way speed of light, but also the direction of the solar system with respect to where it moves toward the void. We are moving at about 300 to 450 km/s towards the constellations Leo (and near by Virgo). This has been confirmed also by other types of experiments not directly related to the one-way speed of light.
There also exist some dual-frame experiments discussed in my book that can detect anisotropy in the one-way speed of light.
For example any stationary single medium round trip experiment cannot detect anisotropy, the one-way errors will then perfectly cancel each other out. Also single medium round-trip experiments set up in two frames at same time cannot detect anisotropy. Also stationary one-way experiments where clocks synchronized in same medium as measurement is done can in general not detect the anisotropy in the true one-way speed of light, and therefore just measure an apparent speed (containing an synchronization error).
My theory also gives much deeper and simpler insight into energy and matter and the relationship between them. I get the same end results for relativistic mass as well as such things as relativistic Doppler shift as Einstein, but with deeper insight. For example relativistic Doppler shift can in general not be used to measure the true one-way speed of light.
Only half a chapter is related to finance (this is a book mainly on physics, but physics can also explain a series of macroscopic phenomena.), where we show quantum randomness leads to fat-tails and high peak in finance. This means even if the markets should get even much more liquid and even more so called complete they will not converge towards Gaussian (as some famous academicians I have talked to seem to think and claim.). But yes most of my book is about space, time, the speed of light, round-trip time dilation versus one-way time dilation, causality and much more. |
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
Hi Espen,
Could you give some taste of your formulas?
Evidently it may not be so evident what can be plucked out.
But maybe there is
some simple nice technical extract?
The book isn't on this side of the pond yet.
And happy Christmas!  |
OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED
|
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
At some point I will likely put out some chapters on the internet, but not in near future. I could put out some of the pages with my derivations, but these would likely just confuse at this point, this even if the math used is very simple. This theory is so different than main-frame physics (not in many of the mathematical end results, that most of them are the same, but in fundament and way of thinking, that is based on very ancient thinking) that one in my view need to read the text chapters first to get a good grasp on atomism first.
After corresponding with several brilliant theoretical physicist I noticed they are not at all used to think in terms of ancient atoms (my postulates are based on 2500 old postulates) related to the indivisible particles and the void. Modern physicist are used to work with what under atomism must be composite particles, and they are used to concepts related to point particles (fundamental particles without spatial dimensions).
In finance there were researchers in 50s and 60s (and looks like 70s) that rejecting the empirical data (fat-tails that had been pointed out since 1920s) because they believed so much in their Gaussian models. Osborn is an example of this, he developed theories for geometric Brownian motion, he did empirical research, found non-Gaussian, and claimed likely something wrong with the data. In physics the establishment have been rejecting a series of independent experiments showing for example anisotropy in the one-way speed of light, but yes only a few classes of experiments can actually detect anisotropy here due to the perfect symmetry in the Einstein synchronization error. The scientific approach would have been to be very curious about these unexpected results and at least to repeat them; instead these researchers have been ignored (or ridiculed ), refused further research grants etc…
Merry Christams and Happy New Year! |
|
|
|
FDAXHunter
|
| Founding Member |
| Total Posts: 8372 |
| Joined: Mar 2004 |
| |
|
I would be highly suspicious of anyone claiming that they "can't put out their work for the world to see for 'fear of being misunderstood'". Quite frankly, I think you're insane. And while this may not be the intellectual discourse you are looking for, it's pretty obvious that any deeper engagement would be a waste of time. Mine primarily, but also yours. I think everything you've stated scores very highly on the crank-o-meter but of course, you will simply mark that up to the "world not able to understand you".
Just calling it as I see it. Merry Christmas |
The Figs Protocol. |
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
I do not at all fear being misunderstood; I said I do not like to confuse people (two different things in my view). If I easily could explain my theory in a note written during a Christmas day I would happily do so. I used many years writing this book and thinking through each challenge described in my book, to study the literature already published etc. Also my English is so bad I had to have editors brushing it up. I feel it is best explained in my book. The book starts out with some text chapters to explain the postulates and the basics, to just throw out math chapters (first chapter with any significant math is chapter 5) without the fundament (that is new even to physicist) I think could confuse rather than clarify.
Possibly I will post a series of the chapters on Internet later on; also I strongly prefer paper books myself rather than electronic files (my book will not be in electronic format, I am old fashion). This is subjective and personal preference, but then after all I am in almost fully in charge of my own book as I refused to sing contract I was offered with large publisher. Possibly I will regret on this, less distribution going outside big publisher for sure. I anyway expect quite few people interested in this topic, too many busy making money, and more money, few even bother going back study the old sources and the experiments in great detail :-) Many scientist today just good at repeating what their professor told them (with exceptions of course). The Michelson Morley experiment for example never rejected the ether, it was rejecting the old ether theories. Larmor was an ether theorist, the first one combining length contraction and time dilation, the first to derive the correct one-way speed of light for any direction. He did not suggest how to measure it, but showed Michelson Morley fully consistent with anisotropic one-way speed of light. Yes the round-trip speed of light is clearly isotropic.
Joseph Larmor never accepted the Einstein interpretation. The brilliant physicist Phrokonovik in 1967 was the first to mathematically point out the Einstein synchronization error (for "special case"). Several physicist (referred to in my book) have extended on this, including me (a non-physicsit :-). The figure I have posted below is the Einstein synchronization error in 3D, it is anisotropic, but 100% symmetrical (if the same frame and same medium) and only quite special experimental setups can detect it. Most important it is possible to detect the anisotropy in the true one-way speed of light and it has been already detected, but ignored and not fully understood. Prokhovnik did not point out how to possibly detect the Einstein synchronization error, and this is the key to really distinguish between the different theories that gives most of the same formulas and predictions. Other experimental physicist has detected the anisotropy in a series of independent experiments, several of them published (but ignored, because SR is now a Holy Cow and one cannot even question part of it without being called insane, most physicist do not even bother going back studying the original texts and experiments in great detail anymore :-), there are references in my book and I will put up a separate page for this on my webpage when I get time, with references etc..
I strongly recommend also Prokhovnik´s book: The Logic of Special Relativity (now even in re-print, possibly even free on electronic form?). See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trev42M/Simon_Jacques_Prokhovnik
Prokhovnik had only derived relatively few results back then so his book is a bit confusing (much he did not understand yet, naturally as the understanding has evolved in many steps). Prokhovnik had clearly also not studied Larmor in great detail. Larmor had derived the correct true one-way speed of light (for any direction) when not using clocks with synchronization error 67 years before Prokhovnik (and 5 years before Einstein just abandoned the Ether and assumed also the one-way speed was isotropic and the same as the experimentally well tested round-trip speed, despite there had been no experiments on the one-way speed of light, as had been pointed out by Poincare.). Larmors original notation also makes it challenging to follow him, but worth the effort. I am thinking of his excellent 1900 book. With Einstein synchronized clocks also the one-way speed of light is indeed C (same as round-trip speed), but this is an apparent speed, not the true speed. The Einstein one-way speed (also as measured) contains an embedded synchronization error. Poincare that also had different view than Einstein thought it would be impossible to ever measure the true one-way speed (a view held by many physicist today), also Poincare where likely wrong. As shown in my book this is not a one man show, this is a long series of scientists (several of them actually accused for being insane by pseudo-scientists) understanding piece by piece of a difficult puzzle.
Time will tell, I am not at all surprised that some people already now tries to go after the man rather than then the theory. This even before seeing anything more than the front page! I forgive you Hunter, after all I have worked on a trading floors for much of my working life, I have thick skin :-)
"Tout comprendre rend très indulgent"
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
There’s no dispute over the constancy of the speed of light when measured over a round trip. But what of its speed over a one-way trip? |
|
|
|
goldorak
|
|
| Total Posts: 1091 |
| Joined: Nov 2004 |
| |
|
> "Tout comprendre rend très indulgent"
Mais qui c'est-y qui dit des conneries pareilles?
|
If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space. |
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
"> "Tout comprendre rend très indulgent"
Mais qui c'est-y qui dit des conneries pareilles?"
Famous words from Madame de Staël (Germaine de Staël) ? or did she get this wonderful quote from some ancient (insane?) wise philosopher ? |
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
Hi Espen,
Could I get more? A chapter or two?
With some real math.
|
OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED
|
|
|
|
FDAXHunter
|
| Founding Member |
| Total Posts: 8372 |
| Joined: Mar 2004 |
| |
|
| Is the revolution happening yet? I'm hoping to throw out all my other textbooks so that I can just replace it with this one. Think of all the trees we could save. |
The Figs Protocol. |
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
How throwing out the already bought books could save trees?
Not mentioning that the words "throw out" and "books"
as used in the same sentence here...  |
OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED
|
|
|
|
|
Pj, recycling, you know  |
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
| |
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
Quasi probabilities are coming out of your mouth, quasi probabilities are coming out of you — wherever...
I will make physics great again! And no my book is no copy of any other book, the probability for that is zero. My book contains a long series of references to great work from others...
I heard rumors there also is this guy claiming that he will Make America Great Again? He thinks too small, or may be not small enough? You have to think really small to also think Big! Making Physics Great again is the real challenge! Physics is about the whole universe, from the smallest to the largest! America is just a dot in the waste cosmos.
Thanks for links to interesting work, but not sure I understand the language... |
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
> I will make physics great again!
Let me quote Wonnegut
> any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan.
You may start here. We are just the right audience. 
|
OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED
|
|
|
|
FDAXHunter
|
| Founding Member |
| Total Posts: 8372 |
| Joined: Mar 2004 |
| |
|
Maybe in Norway it's different, but I always thought physics was pretty great here.
What pj said. |
The Figs Protocol. |
|
|
| |
|
