Read e-book The Multiverse Through Careful Deduction: The Creation of Alpha-Prime

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Multiverse Through Careful Deduction: The Creation of Alpha-Prime file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Multiverse Through Careful Deduction: The Creation of Alpha-Prime book. Happy reading The Multiverse Through Careful Deduction: The Creation of Alpha-Prime Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Multiverse Through Careful Deduction: The Creation of Alpha-Prime at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Multiverse Through Careful Deduction: The Creation of Alpha-Prime Pocket Guide.
Sep 12, - When H. G. Wells wrote his history of the world, he imagined The nearest star, the Alpha Centauri system, would be about 40, miles away. It's also possible that the universe is infinite, and in a multiverse there explain the world by deduction from a small number of fundamental laws and principles.
Table of contents

The main concepts of special relativity - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.

In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction.

According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space.

Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality. To illustrate the difference between the two views of time, Sorli and Fiscaletti consider an experiment involving two light clocks. Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors, so that a photon's path from one mirror to the other represents one tick of the clock.

The clocks are arranged perpendicular to each other on a platform, with clock A oriented horizontally and clock B vertically.


  • Common Sense: Does it still exist in America?.
  • Excel VBA made Easy: -Liew Voon Kiong.
  • Hidden Promises!
  • A Tale of Sound & Fury;

When the platform is moved horizontally at a high speed, then according to the length contraction phenomenon in 4D spacetime, clock A should shrink so that its photon has a shorter path to travel, causing it to tick faster than clock B. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the length contraction of clock A and subsequent difference in the ticking rates of clocks A and B do not agree with special relativity, which postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

They say that, keeping the photon speed the same for both clocks, both clocks should tick at the same rate with no length contraction for clock A. They mathematically demonstrate how to resolve the problem in this way by replacing Minkowski 4D spacetime with a 3D space involving Galilean transformations for three spatial coordinates X, Y, and Z, and a mathematical equation Selleri's formalism for the transformation of the velocity of material change, which is completely independent of the spatial coordinates. Sorli explained that this idea that both photon clocks tick at the same rate is not at odds with the experiments with flying clocks and other tests that have measured time dilation.

This difference, he says, is due to a difference between photon clocks and atom-based clocks. He also explained that, without length contraction, time dilation exists but in a different way than usually thought. GPS confirms that clocks in orbit stations have different rates from the clocks on the surface of the planet, and this difference is valid for observers that are on the orbit station and on the surface of the planet.

So interpreted, 'time dilatation' does not require 'length contraction,' which as we show in our paper leads to a contradiction by the light clocks differently positioned in a moving inertial system. In the future, Sorli and Fiscaletti plan to investigate how this view of time fits with the broader surroundings. They note that other researchers have investigated abolishing the idea of spacetime in favor of separate space and time entities, but often suggest that this perspective is best formulated within the framework of an ether, a physical medium permeating all of space.

In contrast, Sorli and Fiscaletti think that the idea can be better modeled within the framework of a 3D quantum vacuum. Rather than viewing space as a medium that carries light, light's propagation is governed by the electromagnetic properties the permeability and permittivity of the quantum vacuum. This model gives exact calculations for the Mercury perihelion precession as calculations of the general theory of relativity.

More from Other Physics Topics. Your feedback will go directly to Science X editors.

MULTIVERSE THEORY EXPLAINED

Thank you for taking your time to send in your valued opinion to Science X editors. You can be assured our editors closely monitor every feedback sent and will take appropriate actions.

leondumoulin.nl e-Print archive, All Submission Categories

Your opinions are important to us. We do not guarantee individual replies due to extremely high volume of correspondence. E-mail the story Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space Your friend's email Your email I would like to subscribe to Science X Newsletter. Learn more Your name Note Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.


  1. The Doctors Runaway Fiancée (Mills & Boon Cherish) (Rx for Love, Book 15).
  2. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets (SparkNotes Literature Guide) (SparkNotes Literature Guide Series).
  3. About this book.
  4. Recommended for you.
  5. Little White Lies?
  6. EOTHEN: Traces of Travel Brought Home from the East?
  7. The Man I Love;

    8. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties. More information Privacy policy. This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Share Twit Share Email. Home Physics General Physics. Light clocks A and B moving horizontally through space.

    Navigation menu

    According to length contraction, clock A should tick faster than clock B. In a new study, scientists argue that there is no length contraction, and both clocks should tick at the same rate in accordance with special relativity. Image credit: Sorli and Fiscaletti. Explore further. There is actually a young-earth creationist who got his Ph. He was a very nice guy at University of Colorado, and I didn't know him all that well then. I ran into him again at the Creation Museum, when I visited surprised to see him there, because I didn't know what he did after his PhD!

    I read some of his articles published while he was a PhD student, and at least one of them gives time-scales on the order of millions of years. I think he's a capable scientist, smart, somewhat dishonest, and sadly has ceased to do any worthwhile work in astronomy. One thing is sure, science is not able to consider God, God is just not in the grasp of science that is committed to methodological naturalism.

    In this sense expecting that science could tell us anything about God is delusional and unfair to scientists. Maybe that it is the subject of metaphysics or theology but not for science. This is very much the same as the error from Thomas Nagel in expecting science to consider teleology, science is not able to deal with teleology philosophy, metaphysics or theology may do it, not science.

    That is so sound and reasonable as expecting science to be something else distinct from science. On a side note, I can tell that this is an unusual article when I find myself completely agreeing with your responses. In these days the notion of an overreaching science is almost so popular among theists as among atheists. Actually, the theory or theories of God can be considered from the perspective of a scientist, although of course that is not the only perspective. All available on YouTube. Carroll also gives a second talk at same conference called "Poetic Naturalism.

    Of course they can, which doesn't make those theories scientific, but they can be metaphysical, philosophical or theological. I do think that the point of view of a physicist or a scientist is relevant to this question.

    Recent Comments

    It is not the only possible point of view one can have. There are aspects of the idea of God that do not reduce to the roles played by a simple scientific theory. But there are also aspects of the idea of God that do play the role of a scientific theory, and those aspects can be judged by the same criteria as we use to judge scientific theories. The idea of God -- to the extent that almost all believers use the idea of God -- does have aspects of it that can be judged in precisely analogous ways to the way that we judge an ordinary scientific theory.

    I'm very well aware that there is a thread of thought that says the opposite of that, that says the idea of God is something separate, a different kind of idea than the ideas that we have when we have physics theories. I just want to get around that particular definitional problem by putting forward the idea of a 'theory' as something very, very broad. I don't want to pick some very specific 'philosophy of science' definition of a theory.

    To me, a 'theory' is just an idea about the universe that may be true or false. We should try to figure out how to judge whether this particular idea is true or false.

    The Deflation of Inflationary Theory

    One of the problems with God as a theory is that it is not a very precisely specified theory. That is going to be one of my points, that even though we sometimes try to have God play the role of a physical theory that -- making predictions and explaining things, serving some explanatory role -- I'm going to argue that it doesn't do a very good job. The problem with new atheists even in the case of Carroll with whom I am sympathetic is that they have a limited knowledge of what really is Catholicism with is they prime target , or the religious phenomena at large and try to criticize a particular absurd mockery they thing is remotely plausible and their popularity in doing atheist apologetics is just grounded by their professional competence as scientists or philosophers and to the naivety and shallow cultural level of the audience , shooting in every direction, but failing to get even close of the target.

    At this point I would say that you or any other atheist that regularly comment here at Strange Notions are much better qualified to criticize religion. Does this make any sense to you?