Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 9/13/14 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, The bottom 3 ships sunk! The light down there then only went at ...

Akinbo Ojo: on 9/13/14 at 17:48pm UTC, wrote I have replied on Cosmic Hologram . Let me use sound/air for analogy....

Peter Jackson: on 9/13/14 at 13:49pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, "the value of c varies". No, The hierarchy doesn't imply that at...

Akinbo Ojo: on 9/13/14 at 8:21am UTC, wrote Of course it is obvious I accept the hierarchy in between. Within each...

Peter Jackson: on 9/12/14 at 20:24pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, In which case you accept the hierarchy in between. I suggest you...

Akinbo Ojo: on 9/12/14 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote Concerning "a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to...

Akinbo Ojo: on 9/12/14 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote You have "forced" me to read your Truth-Function-Logic and your 2012 essay...

Peter Jackson: on 9/12/14 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases. Even if you...



FQXi FORUM
June 23, 2017

ARTICLE: The Cosmic Hologram [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

doug wrote on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Holograms are great! (I especially like the little hula girls)

http://img3.etsystatic.com/000/0/6173573/il_fullxfull.
298538135.jpg

CIG Theory conserves information.



CIG also offers a have a pleasingly slow, continual process of creation.

Where does your Space come from?

Thank you for a fine theory. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Please try mine.

www.CIGTheory.com

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 00:44 GMT
Dr. Strominger,

Regarding the note that "your work is often quite prescient, and it is only in retrospect—sometimes years or decades later—that many of your papers have been fully appreciated", in this regard, I shall take these words into full consideration and further take it upon myself to now quit, and find other things to do.

Perhaps one day CIG Theory will be appreciated.

Farewell all. I'm sorry that no one ever answered my balloon question. Perhaps the next generation. Within CIG is a quantum-gravity solution. It is advised that someone look at it. It too is a crazy theory.

www.CIGTheory.com [ Where does your Space come from ? ]

to the hula girls..and beyond

thanks everyone & many many happy new years to all

Please tell Lisa that I never got the bill for lunch

doug

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 01:41 GMT
Structure moves into the past(contraction) As energy moves into the future. (expansion)

report post as inappropriate


Albert Z wrote on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 05:30 GMT
Perhaps future theoreticians are beaming the holographic projection from the center for untestable postmodern pseudo-science, which was created in 2016 after a rift with experimentalists who kept generating inconvenient results.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 18:56 GMT
Boundary element method is applicable as an alternative to FEM for wave fields in a medium. When Strominger is sticking to his equations he ignores that these equations belong to a model that is fundamentally at variance with reality. What does he mean with the notion "the infinite future"?

While I dislike attempts to escape from paradoxes with mainstream speculation by even more silly phantasm, I guess, we might possibly benefit if Strominger points us to what he considers the most unwelcome paradoxes. Let's ask for relationship to what might be wrong in most basic but commonly confirmed assumptions. Of course, I wonder if hints are to be found in winning essays.

John,

Struere: struo, struxi, structus, means to build; structure means (something) was built (passive). Is the future something that has been built, a structure?

Yes, however not in reality. The future is merely a mental construct. The past is both a mental structure of fading relevance and an objectively unchangeable "structure".

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT
There is no true/real/actual experience OF OUTER SPACE. It is impossible.

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 01:03 GMT
I disagree.

You should live in my brain. It is empty.

I have experienced outer space.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 01:50 GMT
True seriousness and/versus clowns. Experience and being are integrated and interactive. This is one of the main reasons that you all are so lost.

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Dec. 27, 2012 @ 00:50 GMT
Send in the Clowns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvZex3Qf7QQ

Lost in Space

Warning Warning Dr. Smith....

OK so I deserved the clown remark

But please, try www.CIGTheory.com [ where does your space come from ?]

I'll try and be more serious. It's very hard these days as we are about to go off the fiscal cliff. [send in the politicians]

True Seriousness 5 / Clowns 1

Happy New Year & thanks for the interactive experience

doug

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 27, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT
The ACTUAL experience OF OUTER SPACE is impossible. Hence, all experience is interactive and integrated with the observer (of necessity) -- dreams and waking. Accordingly, the red shift and astronomical/telescopic observations are integrated and interactive experiences involving observer AND observed.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 27, 2012 @ 18:04 GMT
Regarding outer space:

1) Being is never experienced apart/alone from experience.

2) You cannot experience outer space (AS IT IS, and separate from being) because it is [inherently] separate from being. Being and experience are integrated and interactive, of necessity.

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 23:19 GMT
Final Statement - CIG Theory -

Quantum dynamics approaches Classical dynamics as the rate of matter (of traveling particles) approaches pure stillness (velocity = zero). At zero velocity, the two (quantum & classical theory) are indistinguishable. At velocity = c, Matter becomes Space. In between is everything else [Dark Matter & Dark Energy & other variations of the "dark entities" (that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 07:27 GMT
While the very first 'present' contained nothing, the future following that present filled in the void suffered by that 'nothing' present by passing an existing universe backward in time disguising itself as the 'nothing' that becomes everything. Is that what this article is saying or suggesting?

If so then: I think that this is the theoretical 'reach' that makes clear that theory is not the solution. I think that this is an example of inventions of theoretical substitutions for the unknown. Theorists don't let what they don't know stop them. Rather, the unknown becomes fertile ground for 'blackboard' imaginings. I think that, in addition to the problem of lack of knowledge, theory is also the problem.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
James,

That was very thoughtful.

We'll never know anything, that's the problem.

Even if we run out of problems, with everything answered, we'll still never know anything. How can we? Where are we? How can we be sure? So things agree with experimental verfication? So what. Who are we to say this has meaning and why should we believe it? Anarchy of existence, of thought, of theory. Heresy.

When everything becomes a problem we can always lick the ice cream cone on a hot summer's day, the probabilities collapse, it's chocolate with sprinkles, and everything again becomes real. She glances this way with a slight smile. The reality starts to blur again. I look down to make sure my cone is still there.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 19:18 GMT
Doug,

Thank you for your kind words. I have expressed, in the past, an appreciation for Pascal's description:

"Scientific learning is composed of two opposites which nonetheless meet each other. The first is the natural ignorance that is man's lot at birth. The second is represented by those great minds that have investigated all knowledge accumulated by man only to discover at the end that in fact they know nothing. Thus they return to the same fundamental ignorance they had thought to leave. Yet this ignorance they have now discovered is an intellectual achievment. It is those who have departed from their original condition of ignorance but have been incapable of completing the full cycle of learning who offer us a smattering of scientific knowledge and pass sweeping judgements. These are the mischief makers, the false prophets."

There are other translations, but, this is my favorite. I have found it to be greatly resisted and have never received feedback in agreement with it. For me, it is clear and correct. It applies to me as well as all others. I see it as representing the acknowledgement that all we ever learn about are effects. They are our body of knowledge. We do not know what cause is. An example of the smattering process is, I think, the mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe presented to us by theoretical physics. I see this as a severely limited artificial perspective. The achievement of this universe is the existence of human free-will. A mechanical universe is incapable of producing even the first step in understanding the existence of human free-will. That is my opinion. I don't presume that you agree with my position. Thank you for sharing your view.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 18:37 GMT
I have free-will. I believe in free-will. I don't have free-will. I can't believe in free-will. God does not play dice. HE can throw doubles at will. Can free will and physics co-exist? The Free Will to Believe in Physis. The Physics of Free Will. I swear I didn't do it. I was framed by Physics.

Can free will and physics co-exist?

Physics applies up to the point free-will kicks in?

Free-will destroys physics.

I do believe in free will. I said that on my own accord, right?

I have the free will to believe in free will.

Does God have free-will.

Take responsibility and believe in free will.

Do I not have the free will not to believe in free will? Does that mean I have free will? That free will is TRUTH. Only if had the free will.

Pointless meaningless everything. Pointful. Meaningful. Nothing.

Presume what you may James, for your presumption is as good as my own, perhaps even better. Today I will let you decide if I have free will. I can do that, right?

& Happy New Year - wweeeeeeeeeeee

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
The hologram containing all the past and the future of "THIS" universe is touching (only touching) my perception of Total Simultaneity, where all pasts and all futures of all probable and unprobable universes are "available".

The hologram that is "reaching" back to the point where we are has however some interesting aspects I think :

1. In this perception the "history" goes further as our 13,7 billion years, which of course can be a good thing, we would be able to back eternally, because the hologram has to be infinite on the illusion of time.

2.Once we are accepting the infinite time aspect on the hologram, we no longer have the trouble that the so called "going back" is needed (This so called "going back" is the reason that FREE WILL is not available in this perception, the life/time-line is fixed !!!) Just see the moment we are consciouss and the thereby belonging "block universe" as one point on the infinite surface of the hologram, from that point you can both reach an infinity of pasts and an infinity of futures, the Free Will is conserved, we are no longer a movie with a fixed beginning and end.

In my essay "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" I treated this subject deeper.

Happy new year (the life line in TS that gives you and the ones you love the most of well being)

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jan. 8, 2013 @ 17:44 GMT
So..the instant of the Big Bang is an illusion?..and of course the Maths must themselves be judged to be illusionary!..so say the math-emagicians?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 13:37 GMT
Mathematical structures can support any idea because the constraints are based on whatever the mathematician choses. The real world illusion or otherwise has constraints that must be defined and tested. A hologram still operates on well known optical principles so with that in mind holograms have nothing to do with illusions. Strominger should try another word, an imaginary theory rather than a holographic theory because we have a theory of holograms.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
You can find anything mathematically but cannot find anything physically. These ideas are really challenging logic at a fundamental level.

FQXi should really have an "Anonymous Competition". I suspect when you remove all the academic titles and institutional affiliation, many of these ideas will be viewed more clearly. I suspect many great thinker would lose. Steven King did something similar to see if he could still get published if no one knew who he was

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 20:36 GMT
Hi Sophie, All,

In the article the term "future" is used- Quote "the universe is a hologram projected back from the future". That such a future realm exists seems, taken at face value, to be metaphysical conjecture, as is its supposed infinity. Is that conjecture used because it gives the most beautiful mathematics? Is it necessary? or is use of that term (future) just the way in which the work is described for general consumption and there is a different understanding of the term by the researchers themselves?

Isn't something very far away seemingly in the future only because it takes time for information about it to reach the distant observer. Who upon receipt and interpretation experiences it in his/her/its present time. Doesn't the "pre-written future", that actualised (materially existing) information, that will eventually lead to generation of present experience (a manifestation) co-exist with the "observer to be" within the uni-temporal or timeless space?

I agree that the -seen universe (image universe)- is a kind of illusion.IMHO That information giving a 3D representation can be encoded upon a 2D surface is a very useful and important concept. I have previously read about it with interest.By the way I'm about to read "Information The new language of science" by Hans Christian Von Baeyer, that curiously I found in a local discount bookshop. It has a chapter called " Black holes where information goes to hide". Written in 2003- so not the latest work and ideas about information in physics, unlike the many FQXi articles : )

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 12:22 GMT
The issue is really mathematics vs mechanics. Mechanics is aways mathematical but mathematics is not always mechanical. Einstein special theory is more mechanics than mathematics and the General theory is more mathematics than mechanics.

Space can exist without time but time cannot exist without space. Time can be recorded by a clock or it can be recorded by space. Clocks are a common way but it does not tell us anything about time but more about transformations in events. Vibrating a space is the only way to know what time is.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
FQXi should really have an "Anonymous Competition". I suspect when you remove all the academic titles and institutional affiliation, many of these ideas will be viewed more clearly.

A truly excellent suggestion, and contains the reason why it probably won't happen.

report post as inappropriate


DR. EDWARD SIEGEL wrote on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 21:41 GMT
“SEPHIROT”: EMET!!!: “Known Unknowns Versus Unknown Unknowns”: It’s a Jack-in-the-Box Universe: Ten-Digits; Log-Law Scale-Invariance; Utter-Simplicity: “Complexity” Versus “Complicatedness”; Zipf’s-Law/ Hyperbolicity/ Inevitability (Archimedes); Bose- {Euler[(1732)] over-reals R)∑_(k=1)^∞▒〖1/k^R =∏_P▒1/((1-1/P^R ) )〗= ∏_P▒P^R/((P^R-1) ) ~...

view entire post


attachments: 1_FULL_PAPER_COMPLEX_QUANTUM-STATISTICS_IN_FRACTAL-DIMENSIONS.pdf, FULL_PAPER_on_so_MIScalled_COMPLEXITY_IS_UTTER-SIMPLICITY_vs._COMPLICATEDNESS.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 2, 2014 @ 13:24 GMT
Teory of Everyhing (TOE) based on Set Theory

Number zero 0 ≡ Ø = {} (empty set) represents BEING. Number 1 ≡ 0' = {0} = {Ø } represents quantum vacuum, number 2 ≡ 1' = {0,1} = {0, {0}}, = {Ø, {Ø }} represents electromagnetic energy, number 3 ≡ 2' = {0,1,2} = {0, {0}, {0, {0}} } = {Ø, {Ø, {Ø, {Ø }}}} represents elementary particles. Observer in physic has origin in BEING which is not a type of energy or matter we know and we describe with E=mc2.

attachments: TOE_-_Set_Theory.png

report post as inappropriate


Darius M wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 18:38 GMT
What if the structure of the Universe is God's Mind as Hegel argued? All individual minds are a part of Universal Mind. This way all space points represent the whole Universe from their perspective - i.e. the Universe is a hologram.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fra

m
ework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_K

a
nts_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 10, 2014 @ 11:56 GMT
Akinbo et al.

Our new big home, the 'Laniakea supercluster', video and links here; Scitech article.

paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0880.

Full Video.

To give a better perspective on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'.

But also be careful as they admit to many assumptions, saying;

"Except for the very closest galaxies, uncertainties in distance measurements translate into uncertainties in the peculiar velocities of galaxies that are larger in amplitude than the actual peculiar velocities."

Using Earth as a datum rest frame and assuming distances (we know redshift is a flawed basis), Omega and it's direction etc, only minor adjustments could mean the whole flow direction is REVERSED! i.e. (A crowd walking mainly north at different speeds would look like they're mostly walking south from the rest frame of a skateboard moving north at a speed 85% of the average.). The effect may be a called apparent 'time reversal', or just poor rationalisation.

The clear logial conclusion in any case is that LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. What we actually find is that EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates. The logical rationale of discrete inertial systems with limited spatial 'domains' should then be a little clearer, I hope?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 10, 2014 @ 13:09 GMT
Hi Peter,

I agree with aspects of your post and misunderstand others. But thanks for showing me and others our new luxury mansion, the 'Laniakea supercluster'!

"on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'". I still don't know why you have a difficulty with this. Is the CMBR in motion? And if so, relative to what? Most of the anisotropies in the CMBR appear to be related to cosmology and structure formation or intervening effects before reaching observer. Are there any dynamical anisotropies due CMBR motion?

LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. Perhaps, as we have argued before, local 'rest frame' can vary relatively, to sun, then to galaxy then to Laniakea supercluster, then to ..., then to ..., then to.... Unless the universe is infinite, you must end at one largest and biggest mansion.

"EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates".. This statement hides information. The values of c in LOCAL rest frames is not universal. When compared to each other, for example on the surface of a super dense neutron star, c will be much less in value than what we measure c as here on Earth. This is also why there is refraction (change in speed) when light traverses the vicinity of the star before it reaches us.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 10, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT
Akinbo,

I don't 'have a difficulty', it's just a flawed conception. I suspect being unfamiliar with astronomy you've long harboured a false conception of bunches of 'objects', (i.e. components of a galaxy), moving THROUGH 'space'.

That's incorrect. The local 'space' moves WITH the 'inertial systems'. Even the editor of Sci Am recently wrote about how galaxies rotate in what he...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 10, 2014 @ 18:39 GMT
It appears you don't understand my position since I am in full agreement with all in paragraph 2.

But to the POSTULATES of SR make perfect sense, I disagree. Read what the postulates say and mean and not your own interpretation of them.

Also I doubt anyone can understand the meaning of "EACH has it's own local CMB rest frame".

Such mixing of sense with nonsense is what sometimes creates the antagonism you see directed at some of the sense you make here.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 13:27 GMT
Akinbo,

No. It's the rules of logic not 'my' rule. You persistently ignore what I write and don't check the references so contradict me without basis! TFL is a propositional logic with hierarchical structure. The rule of brackets in arithmetic uses it. Neither are finite and both avoid the paradoxes of all others including calculus', including the 'infinity' paradox. (Actually quantum...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 14:53 GMT
If you cannot give a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing' on the large scale without my reading Truth-Function-Logic I will oblige when I get the time. But it looks to me a Yes or No answer can be given.

Regards

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 17:35 GMT
Akinbo,

TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases. Even if you want to bring in a God you can do so. It's agnostic.

But what's important is not only that it's the ONLY logical system that works universally but that it's the only kinetic system that can consistently resolve all the paradoxes surrounding SR; What can you falsify in this statement;

"Light is re-emitted by each electron at c in that electrons centre of mass rest frame, and light thus changes speed to the local c on encountering all co-moving systems of 'matter'.

I suggest that in the whole of science it's mainly initial unfamiliarity with newly encountered truths that prevents progress. That's how our neural networks operate; pattern matching'.

Best wishes

Peter

PS There's a super little easy read book "Introducing Logic" By Cryan, Shatil and Mayblin. You can get one for less that 80 pence on 'Alibris'.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 18:15 GMT
You have "forced" me to read your Truth-Function-Logic and your 2012 essay again. I reply on the Faster than Light blog if you don't mind as I think it is more appropriate there. Or what do you think? I can repost here.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 18:49 GMT
Concerning "a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing'" and "TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases".

It is a question of details since it works perfectly in both cases. However, in my preferred view, the answer is 'Yes'. On the smallest of scales, I suggest the extended geometric point, possibly of Planck size limit and on the large scale, the universe itself, finite in size but expanding. So smallest bracket - the point, largest bracket - the universe itself.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 20:24 GMT
Akinbo,

In which case you accept the hierarchy in between. I suggest you can't logically refute that in any case. If you don't accept anything larger than 'our universe' that's also fine. The important part is that anywhere in the hierarchy it's only the local 'next frame up' (bracket) that acts as the local datum for the limit 'c'.

I've described how and why that is the only logical dynamic, which you haven't refuted and appear to have agreed. But I suggest you must then also accept the only possible logical consequences which are as I've described; The 'larger space 'S' is the same as any other space, so is the 'smaller space' in the larger context.

Einstein's postulates (the only part of the theory consistently verified) then DO have a valid logic. Approaching the issue scientifically that is the only possible solution.

The problem with changing paradigms is that the gatekeepers have all published papers saying 'A+B = F'. Proposing that A+B = C is then a unacceptable to them a priori. You've now fallen into the same trap. If we're to change paradigms we must all learn how to be more objective and abandon positions we've previously taken. (I did point out the flaw or 'incompleteness' of your view at the time!)

Best of luck in that. It's hard, but I've done it many times. If you can't do it then you can't expect mainstream to do so.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 13, 2014 @ 13:49 GMT
Akinbo,

"the value of c varies". No, The hierarchy doesn't imply that at all. The value c is identical within all inertial systems. Each IS then entirely equivalent as logic anyway demands and as Galileo, Einstein's postulates and all empirical evidence. It's the DATUM condition K that varies, becoming K', K" etc.

Look at it like this; We have a sealed laboratory on a ship. It measures the speed of a light pulse in a near-vacuum chamber to be precisely c. ALL such laboratories on all such ships will do so. Yet they may be 100 space ships going flat out on 100 different vectors. If we change observer frame to that of a background rest frame OUTSIDE the ships and look through the windows, all light pulses will APPEAR to be going at c+v or c-v.

What you need to grasp and apply to overcome the apparent paradox is that the light reaching your eye is NOT the light pulse! That light is NOT VISIBLE! The light observed is that from the SEQUENCE of stationary particles in the vacuum chamber charged in turn by the pulse. That's why we see light from collimates quasar jets at apparent speeds many tines c. There is no paradox. It is the 'carrier medium' if you like that is also moving wrt the observer.

If you'd also like the implications of the 're-emision at c' transition mechanism, here they are;

Each transition between hierarchical interim rest frames ('discrete fields' - thus DFM) is equivalent, and each MUST then be a LOCAL 'CMBR rest frame'. That is indeed Galilean relativity, but when one frame is moving at near c through it's local background the blue shift at the TZ tends to min wavelength gamma, which is 'optical breakdown mode' electron density where the Lorentz factor well models the acceleration 'drop off' near c. The difference between Galilean and special relativity is only that 'drop off' approaching c.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 13, 2014 @ 17:48 GMT
I have replied on Cosmic Hologram . Let me use sound/air for analogy. Arrange your 100 space ships vertically at different altitudes. Is the velocity of sound the same in all the ships, given what we know of variation of air density with altitude? See the illustration I attached on Faster than light thread.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 13, 2014 @ 20:05 GMT
Akinbo,

The bottom 3 ships sunk! The light down there then only went at 140,000miles/s.

Actually this IS Cosmic Holograms, but I understand the confusion!

I just answered that elsewhere, you're correct for bound gas, Not for plasma, but that makes no odds as the two effects are entirely independent. One a media constitution, the other a media relative state of motion.

If you can hold those two and their effects separately in your mind prior to 2020 you're doing exceptionally well and beating the intellectual evolution of our species! It's like golf. It first needs constant practice for a while.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.