Spiral Galaxy Formation in Extended Newtonian Gravitation

1. Cosmological Model 

This is a continuation of previous posts on dark matter and The Universe as Weakly Compressible Gas subject to Pressure and Gravitational Forces, which post we recall:

We consider a cosmological model in the form of Euler's equations for a compressible gas subject to Newtonian gravitation: Find $(\rho ,m, e ,\phi ,p)$ depending on a Euclidean space coordinate $x$ and time $t$, such that for all $(x,t)$:

• $\dot\rho + \nabla\cdot (\rho u ) =0$       (or $\frac{D\rho}{Dt} = -\rho\nabla\cdot u$)
• $\dot m +\nabla\cdot (mu) +\nabla p + \rho\nabla\phi =0$
• $\dot e +\nabla\cdot (eu) +p\nabla\cdot u +\rho\nabla\cdot m=0$,

where $\rho$ is mass density, $u=\frac{m}{\rho}$ is matter velocity, $p$ is pressure, $\phi$ is gravitational potential, and $e$ is internal energy as the sum of heat energy $\rho T$ with $T$ temperature and gravitational energy $\rho\phi$, and the dot indicates time differentiation and

• $\frac{D\rho}{Dt}=\dot\rho +u\cdot\nabla\rho$

is the convective time derivative of $\rho$, see Many-Minds Relativity 20.3 and Computational Thermodynamics Chap 32.

These equations express conservation of mass $\rho$, conservation of momentum $m$ with $\nabla p$ pressure force and $-\nabla\phi$ gravitational force, and conservation of internal energy $e$. These laws of conservation are complemented with constitutive laws connection $p$ and $\phi$ to density, of the following form:

A1: Weakly compressible gas ($\delta$ small positive constant):

• $\Delta p =\frac{\nabla\cdot u}{\delta}= - \frac{1}{\delta\rho}\frac{D\rho}{Dt}$

or

A2: Compressible perfect gas ($0 < \gamma < 1 $):

• $p=\gamma \rho T$.

B: Newton's law of gravitation:

• $\Delta\phi =\rho$ with $\phi =0$ at infinity.            

We observe

1. Similarity of $\nabla p$ and $\nabla\phi$ in momentum equation. 
2. Similarity between A1 and B connecting $\Delta p$ to $-\frac{D\rho}{Dt}$ (or $-\rho$) and $\Delta\phi$ to $\rho$.
3. $p \ge 0$ and $\phi \le 0$.

Here 1. can be seen as the Equivalence Principle (equality of heavy and inertial mass) expressing that there is no difference between gravitational and other forces (pressure) in Newton's 2nd law expressing conservation of momentum.

Further, 2. expresses that the constitutive laws A1 and B both can be viewed as action at distance if $\rho$ is viewed as the cause, but represent local action of differentiation if $\rho$ is viewed as the effect. 

For a weakly compressible gas described by A1, there is no need per se to identify a cause-effect relation between $p$ and $\rho$; it is enough to say that $p$ and $\rho$ are connected in a certain way expressing a form of "perfect harmony". 

In the same way, there is no need per se to identify a cause-effect relation between $\phi$ and $\rho$; it is enough to say that $\phi$ and $\rho$ are connected in certain way expressing a form of  "perfect harmony" in the spirit of Leibniz.

The relation $\Delta\phi =\rho$ is explored in Newtonian Matter and Antimatter with $\Delta\phi > 0$ identifying matter and $\Delta\phi < 0$ antimatter, with dark matter where $\Delta\phi$ is smooth and visible matter where $\Delta\phi$ is singular, typically as a sum of multiples of delta functions representing matter in point form.  We refer to such a model as Extended Newtonian Gravitation. 

2. Galaxy Formation

We start from a spherical distribution of matter of low density of dark matter (a halo) with $\Delta\phi$ a smooth function, which we assume to be in static equilibrium with the the gravitational force balanced by a weak pressure force with $\nabla p = - \rho\nabla\phi$. 

Starting from this halo of low density dark matter, we assume that some visible matter (stars) is formed by concentration of dark matter by gravitational attraction into point masses with $\rho$ becoming large locally with the result that the gravitational force $\rho\nabla\phi$ can no longer be balanced by a weak pressure force $-\nabla p$. This is an effect of the different action of pressure and gravitational force, with pressure scaling with surface and gravitational force with volume.

The combined effect of the presence of a halo of dark matter and gravitational collapse of visible matter as a system of point masses, may then create a spiral galaxy of visible matter surrounded by a halo of dark matter, which is the standard view of the nature of a spiral galaxy, with in particular a characteristic distribution of velocity of visible matter as roughly independent of the distance to the galaxy center as an effect of the dark matter halo. 

It thus appears that an extended Newtonian model with $\Delta\phi$ of variable sign and concentration may be sufficient to explain essential aspects of galaxy formation, for which Einstein's equation equation is useless.   

Einsteins "Scientific Method": Magic Physics from Definition

Einstein "scientific method", which brought him immense fame as the greatest physicist of all times, consists of:

• Start from a definition, convention or stipulation/law without physical content, and then draw far-reaching consequences about the physics of the world.

It is not hard to understand that such a "method" cannot work: You cannot draw meaningful conclusions about the world simply from a definition empty of physics content. You cannot develop a meaningful scientific theory from a definition that there are 100 centimeters on a meter. 

Einstein cleverly covered up by naming his definitions or conventions or stipulations/laws, "principles":

1. Equivalence Principle: Gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass.
2. Relativity Principle: Observations in inertial coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, are to be connected by the Lorentz transformation.
3. Covariance Principle: Physical laws are to have the same form independent of the choice of coordinate system.

Here 1. is an empty definition, because there is only one mass, and that is inertial mass, which measures acceleration vs force and gravitational force is a force. Gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass by definition. Attempts to "prove/verify" this experimentally, which are constantly being made with ever increasing precision and always with the same result of equality, are as meaningful as experiments attempting to verify that there are 100 centimeters on a meter, which could very well be the next grand challenge for LHC, in the spirit of Einstein.

2.  stipulates that different physical phenomena are to be viewed to be the same. This is because the Lorentz transformation is not invariant with respect to initial conditions, and thus Einstein stipulates that  two waves satisfying the same form of wave equation, but having different initial conditions, shall be viewed to be the same. No wonder that with this play with identities, all sort of strange effects of time dilation and space contraction can be drawn out of  a magicians hat.

It is clear that physical laws in general take different forms in different coordinate systems, and thus 3. is an absurd stipulation. Alternatively, it is trivial and just says that a physical law will have to transform when expressed in different coordinates so that the law has the same physical content. So 3. is either absurd or trivial, in both cases devoid of physics.

It is depressing that none of this can be understood by leading modern physicists. Nada. Even more depressing is that the discussion is closed since 100 years.

The Blind Space Traveler with Gravitational Potential Meter

              Hawking inside a space ship without windows with a Gravitational Potential Meter

Imagine you are a space traveler locked into a space ship without windows, or traveling through a  region of invisible dark matter. Imagine that in this difficult situation, you have access to an instrument capable of recording the gravitational potential around the space ship from near to far away, an instrument or sense which we may call a Gravitational Potential Meter. Below I discuss how such an instrument might be designed.

Would that allow you to create a normal picture of the distribution of celestial objects/matter around you including your own position, which would be the picture you could see if there were windows or dark matter somehow was made visible, a standard picture/map making it possible to navigate?

Yes, it would because the mass distribution $\rho (x)$ depending on a Euclidean space coordinate $x$ at any instant of time, is related to the gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ by Poisson's equation (in normalised form):

• $\rho = \Delta\phi$,          (*)

where $\Delta$ is the Laplacian with respect to $x$. In this setting you would naturally view the gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ as primordial, because this is what you can record/sense, and you would view the mass distribution $\rho (x)$ as a derived quantity, because this is what you can compute knowing $\phi (x)$ by applying the Laplace operator, which is a differential operator acting locally in space. 

In this new setting you would not, as in the classical setting of viewing $\rho (x)$ as primordial and $\phi = \Delta^{-1}\rho$ as derived by the inverse of the Laplacian as a non-local operator, have to explain instant action at distance, only the local action of (*), and you would thus have eliminated the question of the physics of instant action at distance, which does not seem to have an answer, and as such may be the wrong question. 

We conclude that depending on what we can see through instruments or senses, we are led to questions, which may have answers or not.  It is natural to think that questions, which may have answers, are better questions than questions which do not have answers.

As to the design of a Gravitational Potential Meter or Gravitational Force Meter, imagine a system of little satellites in free fall distributed over the space of interest and connected to a GPS system allowing tracing of the satellites, thus giving information about the Gravitational Force and from that the Gravitational Potential. It is not unthinkable that such a system could cover any space accessible for space travel and beyond. 

Simultaneity as Non-Physical Convention along with Special Relativity

The book Concepts of Simultaneity: From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond is presented by:

• Max Jammer's Concepts of Simultaneity presents a comprehensive, accessible account of the historical development of an important and controversial concept—which played a critical role in initiating modern theoretical physics—from the days of Egyptian hieroglyphs through to Einstein's work in 1905, and beyond. 
• Beginning with the use of the concept of simultaneity in ancient Egypt and in the Bible, the study discusses its role in Greek and medieval philosophy as well as its significance in Newtonian physics and in the ideas of Leibniz, Kant, and other classical philosophers. 
• The central theme of Jammer's presentation is a critical analysis of the use of this concept by philosophers of science, like Poincaré, and its significant role in inaugurating modern theoretical physics in Einstein's special theory of relativity. 
• Particular attention is paid to the philosophical problem of whether the notion of distant simultaneity presents a factual reality or only a hypothetical convention. The study concludes with an analysis of simultaneity's importance in general relativity and quantum mechanics.

In earlier post on I have argued that simultaneity in time at distant points in space is a man-made convention, which is useful to humanity in many ways including GPS, but as convention has no role in describing the physics of material bodies without GPS receivers.  Jammer presents much evidence supporting this view without closing the door to simultaneity as some form of factual reality.

Einstein's special relativity came out from an a simple thought experiment showing that agreement on distant simultaneity defined by a certain conventional form of clock synchronization set up by Einstein, cannot be established for different observers moving with speeds comparable to the speed of light with respect to each other. 

Einstein thus started from a certain ad hoc man-made convention and from the impossibility of making the convention work for moving observers Einstein jumped to the conclusion that our concepts of the physics of space and time will have to be fundamentally changed. And the world  jumped along. But is it possible to change physics by man-made convention? Can we change physics by changing our man-made conventions to measure time and space, by changing from yard to meter? I think not. 

Why believe that special relativity is real physics, when special relativity is based on an impossibility to make a certain man-made convention work?

I have stressed that the notion of distant simultaneity is present in the standard form of Newton's law of gravitation as Poisson's equation $\Delta\phi =\rho$, seemingly creating a gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ depending on a Euclidean space coordinate $x$ from instant action at distance by a primordial matter distribution $\rho (y)$ with $y$ different from $x$,  represented as $\phi =\Delta^{-1}\rho$ with the inverse $\Delta^{-1}$ a non-local (integral) operator.

On the other hand, viewing the gravitational potential $\phi$ as primordial and $\rho =\Delta\phi$ as derived by local differentiation, there is no need to explain the physics of instant action at distance, which Newton left open under the criticism of Leibniz and which has resisted all attempts after Newton.

We conventionally view matter $\rho$ as primordial, since we can see matter at distance if it is sending out light, while we cannot see the gravitational potential $\phi$, only feel that it is there. 

But with a different eyes we may be able to see the gravitational potential $\phi$, but not $\rho$, and we would then naturally view $\phi$ to be primordial. With such eyes we might be able to see a gravitational potential of dark matter and dark energy, which we now cannot see, only feel that it is there.   

The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time: Physical Stability or Empty Probability?

The question of the direction of time, or the arrow of time, is still haunting physicists with the physicist and cosmologist Sean Carrol expressing state of art in e.g. the book From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time, which is basically to say following old Boltzmann: There is a quantity named entropy, which cannot decrease with time and when strictly increasing sets a direction of time motivated by Carroll as follows in an introduction:

• The reason why entropy wants to increase is deceptively simple:
• There are more ways to be disorderly than orderly, so an orderly arrangement will naturally tend toward increasing disorder.

But Carroll is not very happy with this his explanation:

• If everything in the universe evolves toward increasing disorder, it must have started out in an exquisitely ordered arrangeement...a state of very low entropy.
• Why were conditions in the early universe set up in a very particular way? That is the question this book sets out to address.
• Unfortunately, no one yet knows the right answer.

And then follows the rest of the book, without answer. The only attempt to give reason to the tendency of entropy to increase, is to argue following Boltzmann, that things naturally evolve from less probable/low entropy states to more probable/higher entropy states. But of course this is circular: To say that more probable is more probable than less probable is a tautology without actual content.

In the book The Clock and the Arrow: A Brief Theory of Time I argue that there is another way of explaining the arrow of time and that is with reference to the physics of stability instead of the non-physics of probability of Boltzmann. The key point is:

• A system cannot remain in an unstable state because the inevitable effect of small fluctuations will have a major effect and thus transform the system to either a more stable state of more or less rest or to another unstable state of non-rest. 
• The transition from unstable to stable rest is irreversible since the reverse process from stable rest to unstable is impossible without major exterior forcing. 
• The transition from unstable is sensitive to small perturbations along with the formally reversed process, and thus cannot be reversed under any form of finite precision physics.    

Here is a summary of my view and that of Boltzmann/Carroll:

1. An arrow of time is given by physical stability properties of certain systems making them irreversible, without asking any specific order of an early universe.
2. An arrow of time is motivated by an empty tautology stating that systems evolve from less probable to more probable states, asking for a highly improbable highly ordered early universe. 

You may decide yourself between 1. and 2. Which is more probable?

Instant Action at Distance and Simultaneity not Needed in New Theory of Gravitation including Dark Energy

                           Einstein won the game. But what was the game about? Simultaneity?

Einstein's theory of relativity grew out from a question of simultaneity in time of events at different locations in space, which Einstein could not answer in a non-ambiguous way and then jumped to the conclusion that a fundamental revision of our concepts of space and time was necessary. Einstein took so on the responsibility in the service of science and humanity to make the revision and thereby open the door to a modern physics of "curved space-time" with all its wondrous new effects of time dilation and space contraction, albeit too small to be detected.

It is clear that simultaneity plays an important role in our society, to set schedules and allow people to meet at the same place and for these purposes we all have clocks synchronized to a reference clock. And to decide which scientist first submitted an article reporting a certain new scientific break-through and to navigate...

But what role does simultaneity play in physics? In what sense do distant physical objects care about simultaneity? Do they all have synchronised clocks? Of course not. What they do is to react to local forces acting locally in time, and no simultaneity with the action of distant objects is involved.

Or is it? What about gravitation, isn't it supposed to act instantly over distance and thus require a form of exact simultaneity? Yes, it so seems because in Newtonian gravitation the Earth is instantly acted upon by a gravitational force from the Sun directed towards the present position of the Sun, and not towards the position where we see the Sun because of the 8 minute time delay of the light from the Sun.

The standard view on gravitation, is thus that the presence of matter instantly generates a gravitational potential/force (Newton) or "curvature of space" (Einstein) at distance. This view comes with the following questions:

1. What is the physics of the instant action at distance? Gravitons?
2. What is the physics of the simultaneity associated with instant action? 

Since no progress towards any form of answer has been made over all the centuries since Newton, it is natural to shift and instead view the gravitational potential $\phi$ as primordial from which matter density $\rho$ is obtained by the differential equation acting locally in space and time:

• $\Delta\phi =\rho$.    (*)      

With this view there is no instant action at distance to explain and no associated simultaneity, since the action of Laplacian $\Delta$ as differential operator is local is space and time. 

It may thus be that the questions 1. and 2. are not the right questions, and then also that Einstein's relativity originating from a question about simultaneity, is not the right answer to the right question.

More precisely, simultaneity does not appear to be a matter of the physics of the world, since atoms are not equipped with a man-made system of synchronised clocks, and so it is not reasonable to make a complete revision of Newtonian mechanics starting from an ad hoc idea of probably little significance.        

The equation (*) further suggests that with $\phi$ primordial there is no reason to insist that $\rho$ as a derived quantity must be non-negative, thus (*) opens to the possible existence of matter density $\rho$ of both signs, that is to both positive and negative matter. 

This idea is explored in the app Dark Energy on App Store with in particular a simulation of a universe resulting from a fluctuation of the gravitational potential with associated positive and negative matter, with the negative matter forcing a positive matter world into accelerating expansion, which may be the missing dark energy you are looking for. Try it!

Bergson with History vs Einstein without History: Tragedy of Modern Physics

The clash between Bergson and Einstein in 1922 about the physics of special relativity can be described as the clash between the physics of Herakleitos as change and Parmenides as no change.

Let us recall Einstein's position of no change with motionless space-time trajectories without beginning and end or "world lines" frozen into a block of space-time, expressed with the typical Einsteinian ambiguity:

• ...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.
• Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein's special theory of relativity is defined by the following linear transformation between two space-time coordinate systems $(x,y,z,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,y^\prime ,z^\prime ,t^\prime )$ denoted by $S$ and $S^\prime$, named the Lorentz transformation:

• $x^\prime  =\gamma (x - vt)$,
• $y^\prime  =y^\prime$
• $z^\prime  =z^\prime$
• $t^\prime  =\gamma (t - vx)$,  

where $\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$ assuming the speed of light is 1 and $0 < v < 1$. Here $(x,y,z)$ and $(x^\prime ,y^\prime  ,z^\prime)$ are supposed to represent orthogonal space coordinates and the origin $x^\prime = 0$ in $S^\prime$ can be seen to move with velocity $(v,0,0)$ in $S$. Einstein's strike of genius is to claim that the Lorentz transformation represents the coordinate transformation between two orthogonal coordinate systems "moving with velocity $(v,0,0)$ with respect to each other" both describing the same physics of light propagation at speed = 1 according to one and the same wave equation taking the same form (being invariant) in both systems.

In the physics of change of Bergson the wave equation in $S$ is combined with an intial condition in the form of position $u(x)$ and velocity $\dot u(x)$ of a wave with extension at a given time instant say $t=0$, which forms the history for subsequent evolution for $t > 0$ of the wave as described in $S$. And the same for a wave described in $S^\prime$.

But initial conditions are not invariant under the Lorentz transformation, because $t=0$ translates to $x^\prime = \gamma x$ and $t^\prime =-\gamma vx$, and not $t^\prime =0$ as in a Galilean coordinate transformation.  Two waves connected by the Lorentz transformation satisfying the same wave equation will satisfy different initial conditions and therefore represent different physical phenomena. No wonder that different waves can exhibit what is referred to as time dilation and space contraction if the different waves are identified!

Bergson's physics of change describes phenomena with different histories/initial values as different phenomena even if they happen to satisfy the same wave equation in subsequent time,  which is completely rational.

In Einstein's physics of no change there are no intial conditions for extended waves, which allows Einstein to claim that there is no way to tell that representations connected by the Lorentz transformation do not describe the same physical phenomenon. This is used by Einstein as negative evidence that indeed the phenomena are the same, which leads to all the strange effects of special relativity in the form of time dilation and space contraction. By covering up history Einstein thus can insist that two different waves with different histories are the same wave, and from this violation of logic strike the world with wonder. But of course Einstein's insistence to cover up initial values, is fully irrational.

Einstein circumvents the question of initial value/history by only speaking about space-time events without extension in space recorded by space-time point coordinates $(x,y,z,t)$. By focussing on points in space-time without extension in space, Einstein can cover up the crucial role of initial value/history for a phenomenon with extension in space. But physical objects have extension in space and so Einstein's physics of points is not real physics. Einstein's physics is about "events" as isolated points in space-time, but real physics is not about such "events" but about the position in space and time of physical objects with extension both in space and time.

What has existence for Einstein as extended objects are "world lines" as trajectories extended in time of spatial points without extension frozen into a block of space-time, not objects extended in space changing over time. This is so weird and irrational that rational arguments fall short and the tragic result is modern physics without rationality, where only what is weird has a place.

In other words, a picture consisting of just one dot carries no history, just presence. A picture with many dots can carry history. It is not rational to identify two different persons arguing that they are the same person because they were born at the same place at the same time and live under the same conditions, while forgetting that they have different ancestors and histories. Or the other way around, if you identify such people, then you obtain a strange new form of parapsychology of shifting  personalities and if you believe this is science then you are fooling yourself.

Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurement of "space-time events" using "measuring rods" and "clocks", without ever telling what instruments these are and without caring about the underlying physics. It is thus a like an ad hoc tax system imposed by the government without caring about the underlying economy.

It is now up to you to decide if you think that the point physics of no change/without history of Einstein, is more useful for humanity than the real physics of change/with history of Bergson, or the other way around.

Maybe you will then come to the conclusion that it is a tragedy that modern physicists have been seduced by Einstein to believe in point physics without change and history, and even more tragical that no discussion of this tragedy has been allowed after 1922, by a dictate of leading physicists.

You can read more about the contradictions of special relativity in Many-Minds Relativity, with the non-invariance of initial conditions under Lorentz transformation observed in section 5.9.

Bergson and Deleuze on Duration of Time (and Irreversibility)

                                                             Duration of thinking.

                                                             Duration of smoking.

Both Bergson and Delueze say something essential about time by stressing the concept of duration or "thickness of the present" as a transformer changing past into future. To Bergson and Deleuze change is thus a fundamental aspect of time, and maybe time can simply be identified with change.

Deleuze makes a distinction between a more simple elementary concept of time represented by the Greek god Aion as the simple tick of a clock in linear progression with an infinitely thin present tick as an infinitely thin cut between past and future, and a more complete concept of time represented by Chronos as the duration transforming past to present. One of Bergson's masterpieces is Duration and Simultaneity.

Chronos thus represents the continuity of a phenomenon or being under change, where the past is transformed into present into future in a continuous change which loads the present with history, and which then gives time a direction. Aion represents discontinuous time without history and direction with every tick the same.

We understand that Chronos gives a fuller picture of time than Aion, which is the view of Einstein with his space-time events without history which has created so much confusion and misunderstanding.

Chronos concept of time is present in the generic mathematical model of a time-dependent problem as an intial value problem of the form: Find a function $u(t)$ of a real variable $t$ named time, such that

• $\frac{du}{dt} = f(u)$ for $t > 0$ 
• $u(0) = 0$ 

where $f(v)$ is a given function of a vector-valued real variable $v$. Here the differential equation in time-discretized form expresses the transformation of the state $u(t)$ from one time instant $t$ to the next $t + dt$ with the length of the Chronos duration equal to the time step $dt > 0$, carrying along (some of) the history of previous states, in an update of the form $u(t+dt) = u(t) + f(u(t))dt$ with $u(t)$ carrying the history and $f(u(t))dt$ the change.

With the duration of the present equal to the time step, we understand that the length of the duration of the present is not given once and for all, but like the time step can be smaller or bigger depending on the precision of time resolution of an underlying continuous evolution in time we may choose, and like the time step is never zero.

The irreversibility of certain processes as time evolution of $u(t)$, then is expressed in the initial value problem as stability in forward/increasing time and instability in reverse backward/decreasing time. The reversibility or irreversibility of certain processes is thus determined by stability aspects with actual physical processes being represented by intial value problems which are stable in forward time, and irreversible physical procesess being represented by intial value problems which are unstable in backward time and thus not realizable as physical processes.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics as the law of irreversibility of certain physical processes thus can be based on stability which is a physical property, instead of probability which is unphysical and has ruined modern physics.

It is more illuminating to give evidence of irreversibility as physicsl break-down or blow-up of unstable processes, than to say following Boltzmann that natural processes have a tendency to move from improbable to probable states (rather than the opposite), which is an empty tautological statement.

PS1 Concerning simultaneity, which is so important to Einstein, one may say that physics does not care about this concept, because in physics things happen locally and if two particles collide they do it at the same time. It would be ridiculous to report as a curious fact of a new physics that you met a person in a certain street corner at 1.00 pm once during a day according to your clock, while the person you met insisted that he/she met you once at 2.00 pm according to his/her clock the same day at the same street corner.

This would not be accepted as evidence of new physics, only as evidence that at least one of the clocks was off time. Right?   And yes, Einstein's physics is at most epistemology but not real physics, according to Lorentz.

PS2 Concerning time as change, one may identify time with motion as change of position, of the Earth, of the arms of a clock or with propagation of light. The basic question is then to answer how motion is possible as a solution of Zeno's Paradox of the arrow which at each moment is still and yet moves or changes position. A resolution is presented in posts on Zeno's paradox.

PS3 Bricmont and Sokal as Fashionable Nonsense accuses Deleuze and Guattari of using mathematical language in imprecise way in philosophical texts, which may be more or less meaningful, but forgets that Einstein in a scientific physics text is even more imprecise which is not meaningful. 

Time Again for Bergson vs Einstein

                    Who was more clever? Who was a better physicist? Who was a better philosopher?

The debate at Societe Francaise de Philosophie in Paris on April 6 in 1922 between the German physicist Albert Einstein and the French philosopher Henri Bergson represents a critical moment deciding much of 20th century physics and philosophy. Bergson articulated strong criticism of Einstein's theory of relativity, in particular its new concepts of time dilation and time inseparable from space during a long presentation, and was met by only a short statement by Einstein that Bergson's philosophy time was not Einstein's physics time and so all Bergson's arguments could be dismissed without consideration.

Einstein's tactics was necesserary because Bergson was very clever, much more clever than Einstein, and even better, it worked. Bergson was defeated, although his criticism was instrumental for the decision by the Nobel Committee to award the 1921 Nobel Prize to Einstein explicitly not for relativity theory but instead for "the discovery of the law" of photoelectricity and then explicitly not for Einstein's derivation of the law from an idea of light as a flow of particles. Evidently the Committee had a hard time finding a reason to avoid not giving Einstein the prize.

So Einstein won the game to physics with tactics quickly adopted by the physics community which have been dominating the debate into our time: As physicist you have the priority whatever criticism is expressed by anyone outside the inner group of physicists, to simply dismiss the criticism as being based on misunderstanding of a basic question which was settled long ago.

This is what happened when the Bergson-Einstein debate resurfaced in the 1990s in the form of an assault by Bricmont representing physics on postmodern philosophers including Deleuze again claiming exclusive priority to questions about space and time to physicists.

The string physics Lubos Motl expresses this attitude on his blog in ultimate defense of quantum mechanics as settled once and for all and thus beyond any form of criticism by anybody except Lubos himself.

All of this is very unfortunate, because Bergson was very intelligent and knowledgable and so was Deleuze and many other people outside the inner group of physicists, and to kill debate as Einstein did, always stops progress of science.

The result today of lacking constructive debate is an extreme form of modern physics, which paradoxically is beyond the most speculative philosophy and parapsychology as multiversa and string theory way beyond any thinkable observation.

It is clear that it is necessary for Bergson to restart the debate and thereby open for physics of the 21st Century which is connected to both realities and to human perception and understanding.

The between Bergson and Einstein is described in detail in the recent book by Jimena Canales The Physicist and the Philopsopher.

Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics??

Jean Bricmont starts his new book Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics with:

• This book is both apparently ambitious and modest in its aims. Ambitious, as it attempts to achieve something that has been declared impossible by some of the greatest physicists since the 1920s: making sense of what quantum mechanics really means. 
• But modest, because that goal was actually already attained many years ago in the work of Louis de Broglie, David Bohm, and John Bell. I will simply try to explain what they achieved.
• It would seem that, given all the claims to the effect that such a theory is impossible, its mere existence should be a subject of considerable interest, but this is not the case. Although interest in the de Broglie–Bohm theory is probably increasing, it is still widely ignored or misrepresented, even by experts on foundations of quantum mechanics.
• This book is written especially for all those students who feel that they have not understood the subject of quantum mechanics, not because they fail to master the mathematics or because they cannot do the exercises, but because they do not see what the theory means.

The message is that still 100 years after its conception quantum mechanics is not understood, neither by the greatest physicists nor by students. Any theory about physics with these qualities should have been dismissed long ago, but this is not the case and Bricmont gives us the reason:  

• Since its beginnings in 1900, the quantum theory has led to the most spectacularly well confirmed predictions ever made in science (some experimental results agree with the theoretical predictions up to one part in a billion), and it underpins all modern electronics and telecommunications. 
• It explains the stability of atoms and of stars, and lies at the foundation of the whole of particle physics, but also solid state physics, chemistry, and thus, in principle, biology. 
• It is truly our most fundamental theory of the world. Yet, to quote the famous American physicist Richard Feynman that “nobody understands quantum mechanics”.

We read that no human being understands quantum theory, but nevertheless it is the most successful theory ever giving predictions which fit incredibly well with experiments.

We understand that this can only mean that quantum theory somehow has been given to humanity as  ready-made, not to understand but to use to make predictions for human needs, like a clock of a construction which cannot be understood given to us from Heaven, but yet always giving the exact time for our needs. The difference between religion and science is supposed to be that science can be understood by all educated or at least by some expert scientists, whereas religion is hidden to understanding for all people. The conclusion can only be that the quantum theory which Bricmont speaks about, is not science.

To get out of this hopeless mess from scientific point of view, because science means to understand, it is necessary to go to the root of the trouble, which is to insist that quantum mechanics as atom physics must be based on a (i) linear (ii) multi-dimensional wave equation named Schrödinger's equation. This is an equation which by (i) allows unphysical superposition of states and which by (ii) cannot be solved for many electrons/atoms and thus can make real predictions only in very simple cases. 

  

But there may be a way out of the hopeless mess, and that is to start from a different form of Schrödinger's equation without (i) and (ii). This is explored in Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics.

Why not take a look, if you like Feynman and everybody else, do not understand quantum mechanics.

The key step is to replace an uncomputable linear multi-dimensional unphysical form of Schrödinger's equation with a computable system in 3d physical space, and in this way eliminate the unfortunate unphysical aspects which has driven modern physics into meaningless scholastics of mystery and fantasy.