Wednesday, May 19, 2010

How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot, Part II

Part I, II

Abstract

In Part I, I wrote that physicists do not know why the decay of subatomic particles is probabilistic. I wrote that the reason for their ignorance is that the entire physics community has been indoctrinated with Einstein's physics. It is like wearing blinders. I also accused quantum computing researchers of being quacks because they base their "science" on ignorance and the bogus concept of state superposition. Below, I defend the thesis that nature is forced to use probability because, contrary to the claims of Einstein's cheerleaders, time does not exist.

Hidden Principle

In a classical or deterministic universe, one would expect every neutron to decay at the end of a precise temporal interval. That is to say, the lifetimes of all neutrons in the universe should always be exactly the same. The principle of the conservation of energy dictates that the precise duration of the neutron's lifetime depends on the energies involved in the decay process. So why are neutrons observed to decay at various intervals? Obviously, the universe is not deterministic. But why? And how can the principle of energy conservation hold true in a non-deterministic universe? One thing is certain: some hidden principle is preventing nature from either calculating the precise timing of decay processes or from triggering the decays at their correct times as demanded by conservation laws. What could that be?

A Thorn on the Side

It turns out that the answer has been staring the physics community in the face for quite a long time but they can't see it because they are all wearing their Einstein blinders. I am talking about something called non-temporality. I have already explained elsewhere why there can be no such thing as a time dimension. The gist of it is that a physical time dimension would make motion impossible. Therefore, since nature cannot sense or measure something that does not exist, the exact timing of decay processes is effectively prohibited.

Nontemporality is a serious problem, a painful thorn on the side of modern physics that will not go away. For one, the principle of the conservation of energy will be seriously violated unless the decay of every particle occurs precisely on time. Second, it reveals that Einstein physics has gravely handicapped our understanding of nature. Physicists are stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.

Probability and Nonspatiality to the Rescue

Fortunately for nature, it so happens that it is permitted to violate the conservation of energy but the violation must be corrected at the earliest opportunity. What is borrowed must eventually be paid back in full. In fact, there can be no motion or change in the universe unless there are violations that must be corrected.

The only way that nature can conserve energy in the long run, among all the neutrons in the universe, is to decay a percentage of the neutrons at random at every instant. The exact percentage is proportional to the degree of energy violation in a neutron, which is determined by the energies involved in the decay process. In order for that to happen, the number of neutrons in the universe must be finite. Why finite? Because obtaining a given percentage of an infinite number is impossible. Strike another blow against all the crackpot physicists and mathematicians who stupidly believe in infinity and teach others to do the same.

The above begs the question: why must nature pick a percentage of neutrons at random? Why not use a non-random method? The reason is that any non-random method would be biased one way or another and would lead to further energy violations and a lopsided universe.

Another question that comes to mind is, how can nature select from a group of particles that are dispersed in all the far-flung corners of the universe? The reason has to do with something I have written about recently, nonspatiality. Like time, space (distance) is an illusion of perception. The universe is one.

Conclusion

As can be seen above, the probabilistic nature of the universe is due to nontemporality. And it certainly has nothing to do with nor does it require the superposition of quantum states or the participation of an observer. Particles decay whether or not they are being observed in order to obey the conservation laws of nature. Nature's mechanism of particle decay consists of randomly selecting, at every discrete instant (yes, the universe is discrete), a number of particles for decay in order to conserve energy in the long run. Superposition is no more credible than the flat earth hypothesis. What imbecile came up with that idea anyway? That's what I would like to know.

There can only be one conclusion. If it had not been for Einstein and his followers, we would have understood the mechanism of particle decay ages ago. Einstein shot physics in the foot. Big time. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. In the weeks and months ahead, I will present other examples of Einstein's negative influence on scientific progress.

See Also:

Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
How To Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion

9 comments:

Sean said...

Louis,

I have many questions, but I'll try to focus on one at a time. First of all let me make it clear that I am totally on board with the concepts of non-temporality and non-spatiality. When I learned about the cotton gin as a kid we were told "all things with moving parts eventually break down." I realized that the entire universe as a whole system can't break down (where would it go?), so it must not have any moving parts and is therefore all one part.

To my question. You use the term "every discrete instant", which seems to indicate some absolute interval of, for lack of a better word, time. If the universe is one continuous existence, how can instants or moments be otherwise? What is the measurement of this "discrete instant"?

Sean McGarry
Philadelphia, PA

Louis Savain said...

Sean,

We seem to agree that, since there is no space, nothing moves in the conventional sense. That is, nothing is transported from one place to another. Thus the movement of a particle must be seen as just a change in some intrinsic property of the particle. The entire universe senses each and every movement/change and adjusts accordingly. The Universe is like a huge super-parallel computer. To use a Biblical metaphor, everything is full of eyes, within and without.

Conservation laws are universal, which means that they are non-local. This is something that Einstein could not grasp, having opposed it till his death. He was wrong, of course.

Quantum physics may be full of serious crap but not all of it is crap. It is correct about many things.

You ask:

You use the term "every discrete instant", which seems to indicate some absolute interval of, for lack of a better word, time. If the universe is one continuous existence, how can instants or moments be otherwise? What is the measurement of this "discrete instant"?

Excellent question. Yes of course. The universe, being both discrete and ONE, must have a discrete, universal and absolute heartbeat that controls all phenomena, without exception. This is the only way that conservation laws can be universal. The boneheaded Einsteinian idea that every particle has its own private clock separate from the others is just that, boneheaded. He confused macroscopic clocks (which can be fast or slow for whatever reason) with true time, the universal absolute heartbeat.

Some people believe that the Planck Time (the time is takes light to travel 1 Planck length) is the fundamental interval but I am not entirely sure that this is the correct way to measure it. I just don't like the way the Planck length was obtained via dimensional analysis. Still, I am sure that whatever the fundamental interval is, I am sure it is directly related to the Planck constant and the speed of light.

Let me hasten to add that the fundamental interval is not something that exists physically. It cannot exist for reasons that I have given elsewhere. Only change exists. The fundamental interval is derived abstractly from change/motion. In this vein, I should also add that nontemporality does not mean that we cannot use time. We already use all sorts of abstract quantities like length and percentages, etc. I don't anybody would seriously argue that a percentage is a physical entity.

Brendan said...

So basically the universe is a giant piece of software running on a computer, I wonder if they use COSA?

Louis Savain said...

Brendan wrote:

So basically the universe is a giant piece of software running on a computer, I wonder if they use COSA?

Funny but, actually, no. I would say that the universe is 100% software. The difference is that every instruction in this universal program is its own powerful all-seeing processor.

Saying that nature is awesome does not do it justice. I'm not sure we can even begin to comprehend the vastness and awesomeness of it all.

KMnx said...

"Saying that nature is awesome does not do it justice. I'm not sure we can even begin to comprehend the vastness and awesomeness of it all."

Thats why we need to survive the next 1000 years on this planet and head to space. I'm tellin ya, god is gonna come out with a new bible, the new new testament. In that there will be a "neo genesis" whereby god says to humans "go forth and multiply" and points to the stars.

we are demi gods, and god's perception of who he wants humans to be changes as does his circumstances, because we all know he is just some other dude flying in a star ship.

Ygg said...

First of all, physic's job, so to speak, is not to explain why universe works as it works; That's philosophy's job. Physic's job is to predict how universe has and will behave. If they need to construct imaginary timelines to predict that, than so be it. That doesn't mean those imaginary timelines have any physical representation in reality other than helping us solve a difficult equation.
What physic does is construct a model which it compares to reality. If the model works - fine, if it doesn't mark the area in which it doesn't work with red tape and construct a new model (or reuse old ones) for behavior in that area.

Second, what you speak of sounds a bit too familiar to the Holographic principle.

Louis Savain said...

Ygg,

I suspect you're a physicist or a wannabe. Your comment is a perfect example of why Einstein's physics is crap. Those who refuse to ask why are condemned to believe in crap.

On a tangential note, physicists answer why questions all the time. For example, acceleration is known to be caused by the application of a force. The principle of cause and effect is a fundamental part of physics and the rest of science.

It is only when physicists are caught with their pants down that they start claiming that physics is not about the why of observed phenomena. As I said, the bullshit in Einstein's physics is deep and in your face.

PS. I don't believe in the Holographic principle. So I don't know where that came from.

Louis Savain said...

KMnx,

Interesting.

Sean said...

Yeah, the thing is that maybe "science just makes models" but scienTISTS begin to confuse the models with reality. Hence the birth of time travel, we said "wow, since clocks slow down time must slow down". As if a $5 casio watch is the very embodiment of time itself. Clever, those japanese.

If timelines were imaginary then we wouldn't be trying to crack the time travel mystery. We would be referring to time as exactly what it is, a concept and nothing more. Our language would reflect it, but it doesn't. Instead we treat Star Trek scripts like science textbooks.

Physics isn't the problem, certain physicists are.