Does Absolute Motion Unite Qm & Gr Theories ?

[Rade]

This may seem like a strange question, so I post it here in Strange Claims section of forum.

 

Suppose we assume that motion itself is absolute not relative. This appears to be a logically consistent view because Einstein assumed that speed of light, c, is absolute, and used that assumption as the basis of this Theory of Relativity. Thus, let us assume that motion is absolute, and that its essence can be derived from the absolute measurement = c (speed of light) as shown possible by Einstein.

 

My question is, can we conclude that a concept of Absolute Motion, as measured by the absolute c, can be used to conceptually unite QM and GR theories ? In particular, would it be consistent to apply the Dirac Equation of QM and Einstein equation of GR to demonstrate how both theories can be united by an assumption that Motion is Absolute. Any comments pro and con appreciated.

 

Ps/ You can Google Dirac equation and Einstein GR equation to find representations that include the measure of absolute motion c for both.

[Rade]

I see a few views of this thread, no comments.

 

My research has found that a concept of absolute motion has been suggested that does unite GR and QM. It is from the papers of the late Dewey B. Larson and his "Reciprocal System of Theory". Larson has a fascinating suggestion that motion itself (not matter or energy) is the fundamental basis of the universe, that the universe is an entity with absolute unit motion, that the unit measure of that motion is c = speed of light. His Reciprocal System (RS) thus derives all of known (and yet to be known) aspects of physics. OK, remember this thread is in the strange claim area.

 

For those with interest, the collective works of Larson, and three others that expand the RS thinking can be found here:

 

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/

 

I suggest you begin with Nehru, then read Satz. The link to Studtmann does not work, BUT, in upper left hit > arrow and an interesting paper is found that suggests a name to the absolute units of motion that comprise the universe as suggested by Larson. These authors offer a more modern perspective of Larson that includes recent research in physics. Then, work your reading back to the original ideas Larson, some of which is factually outdated.

==

 

ps/

 

I suppose this thread could evolve into a discussion of the claims of Larson, or someone could begin a new thread on Larson and his RS. I have found one affirmative answer to my strange OP question, that will revolutionize science (and religion) if it is a correct understanding of the physical universe we live in.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Rade

[Aethelwulf]

Because there is no absolute frame of reference, there cannot be an absolute motion. To speak about an absolute motion, you'd still need to pick an absolute frame of reference. It's completely relative in this sense.

[Rade]

Because there is no absolute frame of reference, there cannot be an absolute motion. To speak about an absolute motion, you'd still need to pick an absolute frame of reference. It's completely relative in this sense.

Not sure, since I have read only a little about the RS of Larson, but I think it is possible that Larson would reply to you that it is incorrect to conclude that anyone needs "to pick" any frame of reference in a universe created with absolute motion as its fundamental unit basis (not matter or energy). Thus, prior to the existence of any entity with ability "to pick" frame of reference, unit motion itself would exist absolutely in the universe as a system and have an absolute unit of magnitude, c = speed of light. For Larson, unit MOTION is primary, not entities with matter that pick frame of reference. The concept of frame of reference would only emerge in such an absolute system after some entity with the ability "to pick" frames came to be. How this initial creation of matter and energy first came to be within the first absolute unit of motion in the RS of Larson is not clear to me at this time. Clearly a reading of Larson is needed to see if he did or did not have a concept of absolute motion, but for now I suspect he did, until I read otherwise in his papers.

 

Thanks for first reply to the thread topic.

[Aethelwulf]

The speed of light cannot be used as an example. For systems like a photon, they do not possess a frame of reference. Any system which moves at the speed of light in theory does not have a frame of reference .

Edited March 16, 2013 by Aethelwulf

[Rade]

The speed of light cannot be used as an example. For systems like a photon, they do not possess a frame of reference. Any system which moves at the speed of light in theory does not have a frame of reference .

Yes, it would seem this is the idea of Larson, that the universe itself is made of fundamental units called motion, which just like the photon, move at the speed of light, therefore the motion of these units of motion is absolute. Of interest is that Larson puts motion of these fundamental units of the universe prior to anything with mass or energy, thus the photon, because it is pure energy, is a creation of the fundamental motion units...well that is what I can gather so far from his papers and others.

 

Here is one way to visualize this. So, let [] = a fundamental unit of motion of universe, initially empty of matter and energy. The universe starts at time measure of a moment t=0 at unity, with scalar magnitude of 1 [] motion unit. Each [] is an empty unit of space that can evolve in time and it moves at the speed of light. At t=1, we have [][] two units of motion, and a vector dimension of direction is added, and so on.

[]

[][]

[][][]

[][][][]

[][][][][]

[][][][][][]

 

<--space-time axis-->

 

Thus space and time superpose to form a reciprocal system that can evolve and expand, and we see the origin of Einstein space-time concept, arrow of time from unity, and expansion of the universe as extended entity. The y-axis of the above figure would represent the magnitude of the expanding universe as a function of space-time.

 

Somewhere along the way the first pure energy photon, γ, is created within one (or more simultaneously ?) of the [] motion units, and it must move at the same speed as that which contains it, [], which is c = speed of light. The picture would be this: [γ]. Thus we see why the photon, γ, moves at the speed it does, it is nothing more than a passenger within a more fundamental entity, the [] unit of motion. I am not aware of anyone other than Larson who has attempted to answer the question, (why does the photon move at the speed of light, c ?), it is always taken to be a fundamental given, but perhaps I error.

 

OK, we are in the strange claim area of the forum, and this idea of Larson fits the bill. But, let us see how far we can take this idea, what other new understanding of physics emerges (please read the collective papers of Larson as mentioned above: http://

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/)

Edited March 17, 2013 by Rade