This study delves into the concept of velocity within the context of the physical interpretation of acceleration and deceleration for objects in motion through space.A thought experiment involving a marble and a photon is utilized to propose the hypothesis that all objects in space, inherently, do not take time to move from a specific source to a destination.Through a series of methodically structured thought experiments, this hypothesis and the accompanying conclusions are explored and validated.Newton's first law of motion serves as the basis for these scenarios, enabling logical conclusions to be drawn.Based on the arguments presented, this hypothesis is used to provide a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics.The methodology emphasizes logical reasoning over detailed mathematical formulations, offering a more accessible presentation.Consider two entities: a photon and a marble.Both the photon and the marble are set to travel 100 meters in a straight line within the same dimension and in a vacuum.Since a photon travels at the speed of light, it takes approximately 0.0000003336 seconds for the photon to cover the distance.In contrast, assuming the marble is initially traveling at a speed of 40 meters per second in this thought experiment, it takes 2.5 seconds for the marble to complete the 100 meters.This raises a question: The photon covered the distance in 0.0000003336 seconds, while the marble took 2.5 seconds.In other words, the marble took approximately 2.4999996664 additional seconds to complete the distance compared to the photon.What accounts for this extra time taken by the marble?Consider the following analogy: Mrs. Bob has two sons, Eric and Smith, with Eric being the elder child in the household.Mrs. Bob typically sends Eric to buy groceries from a supermarket located a few blocks away from her house.Eric always takes about 20 minutes to purchase the groceries and return.One day, when Eric was unavailable, Mrs. Bob sent her younger son, Smith, instead.Smith left the house with a list of groceries, just as Eric would.However, unlike Eric, Smith returned after 45 minutes.Mrs. Bob noticed this significant difference in timing between the two and asked Smith the question: "Why did you take so long?Eric would return in 20 minutes."If Smith were to respond, he might say: "I couldn't find some of the items, so I had to go to another supermarket, which is farther away," "There was a long line at the checkout," "It took me a while to locate some items in the supermarket," "The supermarket was closed, so I had to wait for 15 minutes until it opened," "I ran into a friend on the way and we chatted for a while," and so forth.Smith could provide multiple reasons to account for his delay.However, all
This study delves into the concept of velocity within the context of the physical interpretation of acceleration and deceleration for objects in motion through space.A thought experiment involving a marble and a photon is utilized to propose the hypothesis that all objects in space, inherently, do not take time to move from a specific source to a destination.Through a series of methodically structured thought experiments, this hypothesis and the accompanying conclusions are explored and validated.Newton's first law of motion serves as the basis for these scenarios, enabling logical conclusions to be drawn.Based on the arguments presented, this hypothesis is used to provide a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics.The methodology emphasizes logical reasoning over detailed mathematical formulations, offering a more accessible presentation.Consider two entities: a photon and a marble.Both the photon and the marble are set to travel 100 meters in a straight line within the same dimension and in a vacuum.Since a photon travels at the speed of light, it takes approximately 0.0000003336 seconds for the photon to cover the distance.In contrast, assuming the marble is initially traveling at a speed of 40 meters per second in this thought experiment, it takes 2.5 seconds for the marble to complete the 100 meters.This raises a question: The photon covered the distance in 0.0000003336 seconds, while the marble took 2.5 seconds.In other words, the marble took approximately 2.4999996664 additional seconds to complete the distance compared to the photon.What accounts for this extra time taken by the marble?Consider the following analogy: Mrs. Bob has two sons, Eric and Smith, with Eric being the elder child in the household.Mrs. Bob typically sends Eric to buy groceries from a supermarket located a few blocks away from her house.Eric always takes about 20 minutes to purchase the groceries and return.One day, when Eric was unavailable, Mrs. Bob sent her younger son, Smith, instead.Smith left the house with a list of groceries, just as Eric would.However, unlike Eric, Smith returned after 45 minutes.Mrs. Bob noticed this significant difference in timing between the two and asked Smith the question: "Why did you take so long?Eric would return in 20 minutes."If Smith were to respond, he might say: "I couldn't find some of the items, so I had to go to another supermarket, which is farther away," "There was a long line at the checkout," "It took me a while to locate some items in the supermarket," "The supermarket was closed, so I had to wait for 15 minutes until it opened," "I ran into a friend on the way and we chatted for a while," and so forth.Smith could provide multiple reasons to account for his delay.However, all
This study delves into the concept of velocity within the context of the physical interpretation of acceleration and deceleration for objects in motion through space. A thought experiment involving a marble and a photon is utilized to propose the hypothesis that all objects in space, inherently, do not take time to move from a specific source to a destination. Through a series of methodically structured thought experiments, this hypothesis and the accompanying conclusions are explored and validated. Newton’s first law of motion serves as the basis for these scenarios, enabling logical conclusions to be drawn. Based on the arguments presented, this hypothesis is used to provide a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. The methodology emphasizes logical reasoning over detailed mathematical formulations, offering a more accessible presentation.
This study delves into the concept of velocity within the context of the physical interpretation of acceleration and deceleration for objects in motion through space. A thought experiment involving a marble and a photon is utilized to propose the hypothesis that all objects in space, inherently, do not take time to move from a specific source to a destination. Through a series of methodically structured thought experiments, this hypothesis and the accompanying conclusions are explored and validated. Newton’s first law of motion serves as the basis for these scenarios, enabling logical conclusions to be drawn. Based on the arguments presented, this hypothesis is used to provide a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. The methodology emphasizes logical reasoning over detailed mathematical formulations, offering a more accessible presentation.
An operational approach to quantum mechanics has been developed in the past decades in our group in Brussels. A similar approach is taken in this work, making use of the extra operational depth offered by this approach, to show that the construction of spacetime is specific to each observer. What is usually referred to as the block universe then emerges by noting that parts of the past and future are also contained in the present, but without the limitations that a four-dimensional block universe usually implies, of a reality in which change would be impossible. In our operational approach, reality remains dynamic, with free choice playing a central role in its conceptualization. We also show that, when operationally analyzed, the theory implies that objects move not only in space, but also and especially in time, and more generally in spacetime, with their rest mass being a measure of their kinetic time energy. We therefore claim that Einstein’s relativity revolution has not been fully realized, since most physicists are not ready to accept these consequences of the theory although the formula’s showing them, when operationally analyzed, are in every relativity textbook. In particular, when relativistic motion is revisited as a genuine four-dimensional motion, it becomes possible to reinterpret the parameter c associated with the coordinate speed of light, which becomes the magnitude of the four-velocity of all material entities. We observe that this four-dimensional motion in Minkowski space can also be better understood if placed in the broader perspective of quantum mechanics, provided that non-locality is interpreted as non-spatiality, thus indicating the existence of an underlying non-spatial reality, the nature of which could be conceptual, consistent with the conceptuality interpretation of quantum mechanics. This hypothesis is reinforced by noting that when observers, or experiencers, as they will be referred to in this article, are described by acknowledging their cognitive nature of entities moving in a semantic space, Minkowski metric emerges in a natural way.
1. Amend the two postulates of the special relativity. 2. Set “the measurement is founded to change the object by destroying the original quantum coherence between the object and its environment” as the third postulate. 3. From the third postulate (new added postulate) educe: the concept of the reference system’s referenced weight and perhaps the reference system’s space is something nearby the referenced weight; time coordinate should be something as space coordinate there is not the problem to have to synchronize the clocks of the two reference systems before simultaneous time measurement; the essence of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; the “actual length” of the same measurement unit in different case is different; it is the reference system’s taking measurement instead of the ether or the object’s motion that changes the being measured object; two reference systems (e.g. Σ and Σa and their relative motion may be uniform or not) taking simultaneously measure of the same quantity of the same object their measurement will disturb each other and “the numerical values before Σ’s unit” ≠ “the numerical values before Σa’s unit” (only when the relative motion speed v≡0 or uniform relative speed v=0 can the sign ≠ just turn into =); even in uniform relative motion Σ and Σa still are different for the relative motion and they may have different referenced weight, in taking simultaneously measure of the same speed of relative motion the speed numerical values of Σa is v while of Σ is va11/a44. 4. From the three postulates express the relation between the numerical values of the two reference systems taking simultaneous measurement of the same speed by matrix and the same small moving particle’s mass by the element of the matrix; determine the speed of the photon which come from “in motion” light source by the photon’s speed when light source “in stationary” and the reference systems’ coordinate relation; determine two reference systems’ coordinates relation when reduced the case educe generally there is not the invariant interval and then there is not the proper time, re-reduced the case and re-re-reduced the case then educe the essence of “in motion” time dilate or contract meanwhile space contract or dilate in all directions, moving micro-particle’s time to dilate and space to contract in all directions, superluminal photonic tunneling experiment, quasar’s super-luminal expansion and fine structure constant’s lessening, took Michelson-Morley experiment with the light from the sun or quasars or high-speed (close to C) moving micro-particle all obtained zero result.
This article takes the form of 3 microarticles. They are 1) Relativity says science overvalues experiments, 2) Time dilation to co-moving and non-comoving observers and 3) EXPLORING VENUS, MARS, ETC BY ENTANGLING THEM WITH EARTH. Each microarticle was originally written to stand alone, but I decided they should be combined into one article. Everybody (even including Nobel-winning physicists) seems to have a preference for experiment instead of theory. This reminds me of a movie I saw about Alexander the Great. Aristotle (played by Christopher Plummer) was teaching the young Alexander and said Greeks use their minds while rely on their senses, and what they can see and hear etc. While science acknowledges the importance of theory and mind, it appears to be following Aristotle's other races when it declares that observation and experiment always have the last word. This is justified by saying the ancient Greeks made mistakes because they didn't always rely enough on mathematics and experiment. However, it's well known that experimenters make mistakes too - from the days of Galileo to the recent experiments with faster-than-light neutrinos, and with the cosmic microwave background. This article hopes to plant a seed that will grow into a science which doesn't automatically assume observation and experiment must always have the last word. The entire universe, along with all of the past and present and future, appears to be becoming unified by our science into one entity/event. Consider the 19th century's union of electricity and magnetism into the one force of electromagnetism (light, and every type of radiation, are forms of this). Consider the unifying attempts of Einstein's Unified Field Theory, as well as the union of space and time into space-time, in the 20th century - and of physics' subatomic String Theory and Theory of Everything in the 21st century. A vital player in this trend is quantum mechanics, with its experimentally verified quantum entanglement that says particles can affect each regardless of distance in space-time. The way things are going, the mathematics used on Earth will end up being revised. After all, it's based on the limited perceptions of our senses and the idea that a virtually unlimited set of separate observations and experiments can be made ie it says 1+1=2. But if absolutely everything is actually a single thing/event, 1+1 will have no choice but to equal 1.
On the Limits of “Undecidability”: Quantum Physics, Deconstruction, and Anti-realism Christopher Norris (bio) I Philosophers of science have responded in various ways to the conceptual and interpretative problems thrown up by quantum mechanics. These problems emerged a century ago from Planck’s researches into black-body radiation and have scarcely been resolved—rather, if anything, deepened and complicated—by the intensive debate that has surrounded them since that time.1 For some theorists, the resultant dilemmas (of observer “interference,” wave/particle dualism, quantum superposition, nonlocal causality, superluminal [faster-than-light] propagation, etc.) are such as to entail drastic revisions to our very idea of the physical world as existing and exerting its causal powers quite apart from our current best theories or investigative methods.2 For others again, quantum mechanics just is the best theory currently available, whatever the problems that it happens to create for our normal habits of logical thought or consistent reasoning on the evidence. Thus logic itself may have to be revised—right down to putative “laws of thought” such as noncontradiction and excluded middle—if these turn out to conflict with the results of quantum-mechanical theory or experiment.3 This is the view taken by Hilary Putnam in his writings on quantum logic and also by others, von Neumann among them, for whom the working rule in any such trade-off is to keep the physics as simple as possible even if the result is to complicate logic by introducing values other than those of determinate (bivalent) truth or falsehood.4 Very often it consorts with the argument that if quantum mechanics is right—at any rate on the standard Copenhagen interpretation—then we had best give up any hope of retaining a “classical” Einsteinian ontology, that is to say, a Lorentz-invariant account of space-time coordinates where the speed of light is the limiting value for assignments of position, velocity, and causal propagation.5 Hence Einstein’s famous series of debates with Niels Bohr when he devised a whole range of increasingly elaborate thought-experiments designed to prove that the quantum-mechnical description of reality had to be in some way “incomplete,” or not to have reckoned with some crucial factor that would bring it into line with logical reasoning and a causal-realist ontology. For on Einstein’s view there was simply no room in science for a theory—such as Bohr’s—that involved either the suspension of classical truth/falsehood [End Page 407] values or the idea of some “spooky action-at-a-distance” which contravened both commonsense realism and the requirements of Special Relativity.6 However it is Bohr who is generally thought to have carried the day in these debates. In which case—so it is argued—we are left with a choice between three possible “solutions.” These are (1) the hypothesis that quantum mechanics is “incomplete” or open to an alternative (“hidden-variables”) interpretation;7 (2) the adoption of an alternative (many-valued or non-bivalent) quantum logic that effectively conjures such problems away;8 or (3) the conclusion that realism may have to be abandoned in favour of some radically different ontology or worldview which counts this a price worth paying in order to conserve the predictive power of the standard quantum formalisms.9 On option (3) there is a further choice of interpretative views according to the theorist’s preferred choice between the various models (or possible-world scenarios) currently on offer. Thus the model may be one that embraces nonlocal simultaneous particle interaction, or which gives up space-time covariance (relative to the speed of light) as required by Einstein’s Special Theory. Or again it may be one that somehow envisions—strangest of all—the splitting-off of multiple coexistent but non-interacting “worlds” whenever the wave-packet collapses or whenever an act of measurement is performed upon any such quantum-system whose properties must be thought of as strictly indeterminate until that moment.10 For, according to its partisans, this theory is the most economical—i.e., involves least conflict with the standard quantum formalisms—despite its baroque proliferation of alternative worlds and its well-nigh unthinkable implications when applied...