espen haug unified revolution

[EGH]

"Wow, a perfect example of time dilation. We used to work near each other. That was about 10 years ago. Your team's numbers were very good that last year, hence why I was fortunate enough to enjoy the crisis and you were able to lose time."



Yes without those good years I would be delayed in my physics research many more years. I could indeed afford to lose time (money)...deriving deriving equations do not pay in short run at least, but when feeling one understand one thing after another it is an amazing feeling.

[pj]

> I will be happy to post much more info later



Please do.



BTW, amazon doesn't have your book so it doesn't exist.

Will you make notice on your homepage when it arrives?



And let me thank you for your option formulas book.

[EGH]

Yes it looks like it will take some weeks before amazon gets it, hard to predict exactly when. I will update my homepage along the way.

[pj]

One thing from Maggette's formula bugs me.

If NTT ego is imaginary EGH ego is negative Confused

[benji]

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics



This being said, I'm all ears. From the homepage I gather that you have Lorentz violations in your theory ("The Lorentz transformation and also the Einstein transformation still holds anywhere in the universe (with a few exceptions)"),



Given that there is so far no evidence of Lorentz violations, there will be testable predictions from your theory and that's a very good thing.

[Maggette]

Obviously I wasn't thinking deep and hard enough about my equation



It reminds me a little bit of a sign an Atlanta Hawks fan held during the season when Michael Jordan took his baseball time out, intending to diss Scottie Pippen.



It showed:



Scottie Pippen - MJ = 0



The fan made the same mistake I did:)

[EGH]

'Given that there is so far no evidence of Lorentz violations'



there is indeed a handfull of published experiments strongly indicating (but not fully conclusive yet) Lorentz transformation is incomplete. These studies are however not understood from theoretical point before, and therefor never got any attention. I discusses them in detail. They are in a series of my chapters discussion experiments that already have been performed. Some of these experiments need to be repeated, but three different types of experiments (that few have heard about) that actually we now can see are in the same class all point in the same direction.



The later Lorentz transformation (and Einstein transformation, I actually like to distinguish between them, as Lorentz before he got too much influenced by Poincare actually not is the same transformation as Einstein) are correct mathematically for round-trip experiments and for one-way experiments (one also have to distinguish very carefully between for example one-way time dilation and round-trip time dilation) when direcyl or indirectly relying on Einstein (and Poincare) synchronization, but the interpretation in relation to several experiments are wrong. Also there are a few classes of experiments that indeed can distinguish between the different theories here. Slow clock transportation synchronization gives for any practical purpose always same experimental results as Einstein synchronization. Very special experimental set ups are needed to get around these synchronization procedures and uncover the deeper reality.



There is also one type of experiments that is much more powerful (more robust and ´easy' to perform to show this. This is a experiment that require very expensive equipment that also is discussed in my book (expensive, but much much cheaper than LHC). A multi billion dollar company with this expensive equipment is now considering performing it, both from technical point of view, and how to expense/fund it (I am 99% confident in the result we will see). If the experiment will be done the next 6 months or in 10 years I do not know yet, all the equipment is standard well tested, but there are challenges on expenses and certain licenses etc that need to be in place. If the experiment not show what I predict I will eat my socks (well possibly I need to buy some eatable socks first, but I promise will wear them before I eat them .-)



My book indeed gives the math and logic explanation around a series of testable predictions. So this is much more than just some philosophical ideas. My theory is consistent with the well known experiments, and also with a handful off less known experiments. Main frame physics is in my view in conflict with this handful experiments that not have been understood before, but as a minimum these experiments need to be repeated, and I would hope my suggested and much more robust experiment to be performed asp (most to convince others, I am very convinced myself, but may be not the first person convincing himself .



Please also take a close look at the Larmor time dilation equation and the Einstein and Lorentz time dilation equation (time transformation). I will explain you the differences in detail later on, also it is in my book of course.



I am holding back on information a little now (on the internet, not in my book), I want my book to have reached a certain amount of distribution before I go in details about my ideas on the internet. Further I have used years to explain it properly in my book, any explanation I use 10 minutes on here will be less well formulated (and I never wrote this book to make money, it is mostly a technical book that I put quite some money into (I had in my view a very good illustrator for example, all illustrations in colors.), if I am lucky I get my direct expenses back after some thousand copies (if it ever sell that much), my hourly pay will at very best dream scenario likely be $2). Yes naturally let the Red lamps blink until my book has been carefully studied....

[jslade]

I will share Chiral3's respect for your having a testable experiment. It seems most physicists don't bother these days. FWIIW, are you familiar with Sommerfeld's relativistic aether theory? I think he talks about it in his "Mechanics of Deformable bodies." I used to be familiar enough with it to argue with people that there was nothing in Michaelson Morley which "proved" special relativity is the correct theory of nature. There are actually some obvious holes in special relativity (group velocity in dispersive media), and large parts of it remain untested (who knows, maybe Joao is right).



I have no idea of the contents of this book will be crazypants, but new ideas are scarce on the ground, and physics has been ruined by "careerification." If EGH has the leisure to pursue such things, more power to him. More people with tenure should have crazy ideas, and stop flying to dumb conferences.

[Martingale]

I guess kayaking with half naked girls does not do you good 24/7, EGH, good to see you back.

[EGH]

''I used to be familiar enough with it to argue with people that there was nothing in Michaelson Morley which "proved" special relativity is the correct theory of nature.''



you are right, I give several new mathematical proofs on this rooted in my much more fundamental theory, and also explain this from a new and deeper perspective. The Michelson Morley experiment just rejected pre-Michelson-Morley ether theories before one thought about length contraction and time dilation. Several other theoretical physics also claim the Michelson-Morely in no way proved Einsteins SR, or even distinguished the Lorentz and Poincare interpretation from SR, for example several ether based theories. Also it dose not distinguish between SR and Larmor.



I for fun repeated the Michelson Morely experiment myself with amateur equipment inside my barn, just to get a feel for it (my equipment was cheap and my accuracy worse than Michelson Morely), but at least I have a feel for the experiment also from a practical perspective. But to understand it is mostly about having a good theory. There is no doubt about the Michelson Morely null result as it has been repeated a large number of times by many different research gropes, the interpretation by many physicist is still wrong, as jslade and several ether theorists claims it is in no way ''proving'' SR. The accuracy in the Michelson Morely was incredible good (I think one would need to have clocks with close to 10^(-18) seconds (close to attosecond accuracy) to do it 'equivalent' with clocks, not even atomic clocks today I think can do this (if so only the super expensive ones), but yes likely the more recent optical clocks). Relaying on fringe shifts is a cheap way to get very high accuracy. I was so happy the first time I got the inference pattern up on the screen (a white card board) just to get a small feel for experimental physics, not to detect anything new in that case.



The Michelson Morely experiment only rejected the old ether theories (pre-Michelson-Morely experiment ether theories). My theory is not a ether based theory, or partly in some way, the ether in my theory is void (empty space, but empty space is very very important and discussed up and down in chapter one), ether theories alone are not enough to get to the depth of reality, but some of the ether theories mentioned in my book are close.



The null result in the Michelson Morley experiment came as a shock to the scientific community at that time. Pre-Michelson-Morely Ether theories clearly predicted a fringe-shift that easily should be detected by the very high accuracy in the experiment. FitzGerald then tried to solve it (get it consistent with ether based theories) by introducing length contraction, that all observable objects including planets underwent length contraction when moving against the ether. Natrually one could not easily observe length contraction directly as any measure stick would shrink in same fashion as the mass one tried to measure. It came clear than length contraction alone not could explain the null result. Larmor then came to rescue and combined Length contraction (where he refer to Lorentz that had more formally described length contraction) with time dilation.



The Larmor theory was the first mathematically theory consistent with the Michelson-Morely experiment. Larmor never accepted the Einstein interpretation on relativity, and I think neither the Poincare interpretation. Larmor's space and time transformation published 1900 is written in very original notation, after re-writing it into the Lorentz and Einstein notation (also shown in my book) it looks at first eye sight identical, and several physicist have mistakenly described it as identical. However it is not mathematically the same (the input is different), it is a ''special case'' of the Lorentz and Einstein transformation, but with a very different interpretation on both inputs and outputs. The Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation that is identical to the Einstein transformation holds for any two frames, the Larmor transformation only holds for a special case that also includes any type of Michelson-Morley type experiments, but do not hold for a long series of other experiments, simply because it only was derived for a ''special case''.



Important was naturally that Einstein also was able to derive and come up with key insight concerting energy and mass and also relativistic Doppler shift. Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare contributed with little here.



I recommend the book by Larmor published in 1900, but I would say it is very cryptic (due to his notation that is very different than Lorentz and also his writing style that can be hard to get). Also Larmor clearly had a limited understanding in interpretation. Still Larmor is indeed the first to derive time-dilation (and I am not the first to point out this). As a minimum he should have been given more credit. I do not extend on the Larmor theory directly, but show that also his mathematical theory was right for the special case that he derived it for. His assumptions where closer to reality, his math was more incomplete than Einstein and Lorentz. The Lorentz theory before he got too much influenced by Poincare (around 1905) was closer to Larmor.



Larmor also gets a few other mathematical results that actually holds true that no modern physicist even mentions today, likely because they never understood his insight. But even Larmor was vague and diffuse on his explanations on several topics (as expected from one of the first that truly starts to uncover the deeper realty with counter intuitive effects such as his time-dilation (1900)).



All these (basically 3 theories, the Larmor, the Poincare influence Lorentz theory and SR) theories are special cases of the transformations that I have derived from the ultimate depth of reality, but I am standing on the shoulders of a series of brilliant physicists Larmor was in my view in many ways closer to truth conceptually than Lorentz and Einstein and Poincare, but Einstein and the Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation is more robust as it holds for any two frames. But there is so much more to this....