Pentcho Valev
2017-01-27 12:33:38 UTC
https://www.vice.com/fr/article/que-manque-t-il-a-la-science-pour-rendre-le-voyage-dans-le-temps-possible
Roland Lehoucq : "Pour les non scientifiques, il y a deux choses qui sont a priori distinctes : l'espace et le temps. On peut se déplacer librement dans l'espace, mais pas dans le temps, qui s'écoule indépendamment de nous. On a tendance à imaginer ces deux notions comme universelles. Le monde entier est capable de se mettre d'accord pour identifier des référentiels qui normalisent ces concepts (minutes, secondes, kilomètres, etc.). Or, cette vision des choses est fausse. Elle fonctionne très bien pour la vie quotidienne, mais elle n'est pas vérifiée dans de nombreuses situations de physique. Cela découle de la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein, qui stipule que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide prend la même valeur pour tous les observateurs. Comme la vitesse est le quotient d'une distance par une durée, le fait qu'une vitesse soit invariante impose que distance et durée dépendent de l'observateur. Ainsi, Einstein a créé cette notion d'espace-temps, qui mélange l'espace et le temps."
La vitesse de la lumière n'est pas la même pour tous les observateurs, Roland Lehoucq. Elle VARIE avec la vitesse de l'observateur, en violation de la relativité d'Einstein. Pour que la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à l'observateur reste constante alors que l'observateur change de vitesse, la longueur d'onde doit varier avec la vitesse de l'observateur. Mais cette variation de la longueur d'onde est tellement absurde que les scientifiques souvent oublient la censure relativiste et disent la vérité, réfutant ainsi, implicitement, la relativité restreinte :
http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-db/www/CDEXPO/Ondes_fichiers/EffetDoppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. [...] 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
L'espace-temps n'est plus valide dans le monde anglophone mais en France, où un plagiaire "explique" la physique théorique depuis des decennies, la situation est tragique:
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – A, then B, then C – someone moving at a different velocity could have seen it a different way – C, then B, then A. In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
Pentcho Valev
Roland Lehoucq : "Pour les non scientifiques, il y a deux choses qui sont a priori distinctes : l'espace et le temps. On peut se déplacer librement dans l'espace, mais pas dans le temps, qui s'écoule indépendamment de nous. On a tendance à imaginer ces deux notions comme universelles. Le monde entier est capable de se mettre d'accord pour identifier des référentiels qui normalisent ces concepts (minutes, secondes, kilomètres, etc.). Or, cette vision des choses est fausse. Elle fonctionne très bien pour la vie quotidienne, mais elle n'est pas vérifiée dans de nombreuses situations de physique. Cela découle de la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein, qui stipule que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide prend la même valeur pour tous les observateurs. Comme la vitesse est le quotient d'une distance par une durée, le fait qu'une vitesse soit invariante impose que distance et durée dépendent de l'observateur. Ainsi, Einstein a créé cette notion d'espace-temps, qui mélange l'espace et le temps."
La vitesse de la lumière n'est pas la même pour tous les observateurs, Roland Lehoucq. Elle VARIE avec la vitesse de l'observateur, en violation de la relativité d'Einstein. Pour que la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à l'observateur reste constante alors que l'observateur change de vitesse, la longueur d'onde doit varier avec la vitesse de l'observateur. Mais cette variation de la longueur d'onde est tellement absurde que les scientifiques souvent oublient la censure relativiste et disent la vérité, réfutant ainsi, implicitement, la relativité restreinte :
http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-db/www/CDEXPO/Ondes_fichiers/EffetDoppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. [...] 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
L'espace-temps n'est plus valide dans le monde anglophone mais en France, où un plagiaire "explique" la physique théorique depuis des decennies, la situation est tragique:
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – A, then B, then C – someone moving at a different velocity could have seen it a different way – C, then B, then A. In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
Pentcho Valev