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

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

Georgina Woodward: on 4/27/17 at 1:11am UTC, wrote Hi Community, I could probably have done something better but it gets the...

Georgina Woodward: on 4/26/17 at 4:03am UTC, wrote A proposition for the cause of gravity, and inertia, and its relation to...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 5:03am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 5:00am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 4:54am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 4:51am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 4:47am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 4:45am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...



FQXi FORUM
April 27, 2017

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: Alternative Models of Reality [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)

Edited on 31 August to add: Thanks to Peter and John for commenting on my recent Nature article: "The Origins of Time and Space," which surveys some of the recent ideas on reality, and could serve as inspiration for this thread. :-)

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 15:14 GMT
Zeeya, thank you your invitation to discuss my ideas at this new thread.

Let me first provide the links to the websites:

The Unification of Physics

The Nature of Mass

The objective has been to develop a physical description starting from basic ideas of spacetime as described by special and general relativity.

The order of discussion that I hope to follow in this thread is:

- The nature of light

- The nature of mass

- the nature of electric charge

This order is important because the physical description in each case depends on the previous one.

The website refers to the Spacetime Wave theory which (as regards light) proposes that light is a wave disturbance of the medium of spacetime. The paper shows how the idea that light travels through spacetime which acts as a wave medium is consistent with the theories of relativity (even though SR and GR do not require it).

I hope that you find the description in the website clear even though you may not agree with the conclusions. I hope you will let me have your comments.

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Warwick Morgan replied on Sep. 1, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
Hi Richard, I don't dispute your claim that if there's a wave that propagates there must be something that waves, not as much as would some, because it is possible for a dynamics to be Lorentz invariant, as experiment quite strongly indicates it must be, but I feel a "so what?" reaction. What consequences does it have for a detailed mathematical description/model if there is a material ether? A 100 years ago, a material ether was felt so little to suggest Lorentz invariance that it was felt to be incompatible. After the event, and a 100 years, we know that Lorentz invariance can emerge in special states of condensed matter physics (for example, see Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet"), but it's not a commonplace. Given that, how confident can we be that suggestions that come from a particular material ether hypothesis will turn out to be experimentally useful, unless experiment has played an overwhelming role in choosing the hypothesis?

My second reaction is to ask how exactly do the waves move? I see on your "Waves in Space-Time" page an example motion that seems to require some kind of nonlinear wave equation, but I don't begin to be content unless there is a likeable motivation for a particular nonlinearity of an equation, and happiness only follows if the mathematics is tractable and turns out to be experimentally useful. Lastly, most importantly by far, what about the apparent stochasticity of our experimental results, the wave-like nature of the statistics of recorded discrete events, rather than there being a directly wave-like phenomena?

report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis replied on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
Hi Peter, Thank you for your reply. I will try to respond to your points.

What consequences does it have for a detailed mathematical model? I prefer to use the term 'medium of spacetime' rather than 'material ether' to describe the medium for wave propagation. This highlights the point that the detailed mathematical equations describing wave propagation in the medium must be derived from General Relativity. The main consequence in getting the description correct at the top level is that when we come to apply the mathematics we understand the link between the description and the maths. The most important consequence is the 'follow on' hypothesis that (since light is emitted when an electron changes state) an electron must comprise spacetime wave energy in a closed loop.

The waves in spacetime page is explaining how a spacetime wave (wave of changing space curvature) also has wave variation in the time dimension and this accounts for the property of electric charge. How do the waves propagate? The idea is that the energy in the wave comprises local changes in spacetime curvature which propagate at the speed of light. I have a reference from the book "General Theory of Relativity" by P.A.M Dirac (p64) in which a solution to the GR equations is found which satisfies the d'Alembert equation and its solution will be waves travelling with the velocity of light.

Regarding the stochasticity (the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan) of our experimental results: The key point here is that the wave motion is fully predictable. It is only when we try to detect something or make a measurement that the probability effects come into play. The outcome of an experiment is the interaction between the wave and the detector. The quantum nature of light is not conceptually incompatible with the wave nature since we can have wave quanta comprising specific energy and wavelength.

Richard

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
OK, I'll bite. I have a paper that I was thinking I would post to arXiv next week (that will likely generate no response by e-mail or otherwise), and that I currently intend to submit to Foundations of Physics, perhaps in a few weeks. It's not clear to me if this is the kind of thing you were thinking of, but you can let me (and the world) know if it's not OK.

Title: A U(1)-gauge invariant Dirac spinor test function formalism

Abstract: Dirac spinor test functions are used to construct a class of U(1)-gauge connections, which are used to construct U(1)-gauge invariant Dirac spinor test functions and U(1)-gauge invariant bivector test functions, resulting in a quantum field formalism of weakly nonlinear functionals of the Dirac spinor test functions, parallel to the informal nonlinear dependence of quantum electrodynamics on Lorentz invariant test function wave-number properties such as Mandelstam variables that determine the renormalization scale.

PDF attached.

For here, I'll note that this is intended to be a relatively empiricist approach. It's not so much a model of reality as an attempt at a model of our real shared experience. Part of what I'm attempting to do, however, is to get a better handle on renormalization as mathematics, which IMO gets in the way of interpretation of quantum field theory, so that I would hope that the approach I take here might enable more attempts at interpretation of quantum field theory. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Peter Morgan.

attachments: U1g.pdf

report post as inappropriate

adel sadeq replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 03:17 GMT
Hi Peter,

Nice to see you active again, we had some correspondence 4 years back. Whatever happened to your random fields, is there any connection to your new idea? I wonder if you had seen Philip Gibbs idea in the new FQXI contest, he also seems to be talking about a similar idea called random graphs and necklace lie algebra.

I cannot remember at what stage my theory was when you kindly reviewed it and commented on it, but I feel I have made much progress since. One of the main points of my theory is that reality follows a simple math (Your original criticism was that it has no great math in it). Your criticism of lacking presentation is still true, but that is because I have spent a lot of time on the simulations to get some really good results. However, the FQXI contest entry has a somewhat better presentation than the original website. And you can get much better idea from the people who commented on my theory, including Shirazi and Torsten.

One of the greatest results that I get from my theory is the mass of the electron from a renormalization curves like in my theory(actually the graph shows the proton/electron mass ratio at the simulated scale). So I think you are very correct in emphasising the renormalization issue. Again, my theory might seem to you (and others) an amateurish, crackpotish and underdeveloped for its lack of standard physics presentation, but I cannot help that ,it is what it is (for now). The important thing which I hope people can see is the results.

As you can see from the theory, matter is made up of many random lines (which their lengths interpreted as energy) and their start and end points are space points. That unifies space and matter in such a simple way! The laws of physics naturally arise. I hope I can explain more in coming days. Thank you.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

the simulations can be run and they are in the website

http://www.qsa.netne.net

Adel

report post as inappropriate

Peter Warwick Morgan replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 12:32 GMT
Hi Adel. In some sense I have made peace with QFT, so that random fields have become merely background thinking. I found, in particular, that although I could construct a random field equivalent for the quantized electromagnetic field, I could not construct a random field equivalent for quantized Dirac spinor fields, and I couldn't prove that it's not possible, so that I felt that I had to give up...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Warwick Morgan replied on Sep. 2, 2013 @ 11:54 GMT
For anyone who is reading the math, there is an embarrassing error at the bottom of page 5 (the "alternative way", which I will delete, is plain wrong), which has consequences for the first paragraph of subsection 3.3, the content of which will be modified and moved to Appendix C, and for the final sentence of subsection 3.4, which allows a straightforward fix. There is also a minor mistake in Appendix B (the placing of the "c.c"). Sadness, but good to fix.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Warwick Morgan wrote on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 17:06 GMT
I thought I was logged in. I've had that problem with the FQXi commenting system before. In any case the PDF has my e-mail address, but this comment is posted with FQXi telling me:

"ALERT

You are now logged in!".

But, just in case, Peter Morgan is I.

report post as inappropriate

angel lily replied on Sep. 9, 2016 @ 06:13 GMT
Hello everyone

i am new here and want to know about some physics topics please tell me here

Dissertation Writing Service

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 9, 2016 @ 08:58 GMT
I think you want to promote your writing service, yet you use no punctuation. It doesn't look good or read well. There are lots of articles and discussions on this site. Why don't you read some of those instead?

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 18:30 GMT
Zeeya!!!!!

That's more of a contest topic, than a blog posting!

Any way it could be a little more limited? Like what is your pet peeve with current models?

Is "modeling reality" even a coherently conceivable notion? At least in less than book length?

My Theory of Everything?

"Stuff Happens."

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 15:55 GMT
Hi John,

You're right! But unfortunately there's no prize for the best theory on this thread -- other than the satisfaction of having solved all of the problems in physics. :-)

I opened this thread because I get a lot of requests from people who want feedback on their ideas, but having (yet) published or released them in any formal way, in an academic setting. In that case, I can't really open a single thread dedicated to their ideas alone. But I wanted to open a space where people can discuss their ideas and invite feedback about ideas they are formulating.

There's a similar thread on Alternative Models of Cosmology kicking around somewhere.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 18:11 GMT
Zeeya,

I understand the opportunity you are offering, but the fact is that every participant on these forums does have some form of model, or improvement on an existing model, that they have been using every other thread to advance and debate the virtues over other's models. So being given a thread specifically dedicated to the purpose should engender enthusiasm, but the sense is more that it removes what little padding there is on the wall we have been banging our heads against. Not to say I'm ungrateful for the chance, but it begs some larger questions, such as how could there be any form of objective consideration, since even the pros have resorted to anthropic multiverses to explain reality?

You are a journalist, not a judge, so it is your job to report the state of the discipline, not make judgements, but as a journalist you still have to do some editing and narrating. This can go in any number of directions. Necessarily the normal route with science reporting is simply to report whatever cutting edge experiment, theory, or discovery has happened recently and leave larger context to those writing books. Yet it must be occurring to the members of your profession that cutting edge might just be a little far out over the edge. So at some point journalism will also have to turn around and try to figure out where the train did leave the tracks, or else step off the edge into the multiverse.

I suspect you have read some of my more repeated points, so I won't bother you with them here and the other participants in these discussions have heard and given their opinions in no uncertain terms. In the long run though, we will most likely have to let the dust settle somewhat and see what is still standing.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2013 @ 10:28 GMT
John,

You want Zeeya to report honestly on leading edge research, but censor anything you disagree with, such as the multiverse hypothesis, which is part of leading edge research?

If you don't have an ethical problem with that, I think you should.

Because my first career was journalism (not restricted to science) I have first hand experience with powerful people who control media resources (think Rupert Murdoch and his ilk) shaping news and opinion to suit their religion or philosophy, tastes, or just plain whim. I've been subpoenaed for testimony before the FCC with other Young Turk journalists of that day (the early 70s) who were reprimanded, fired or otherwise punished for reporting news not to the liking of owners and advertisers. We lost the battle, of course -- there are no more FCC standards that mean anything, and commercial news today both national and local is hardly anything more than sad or silly, even though still unduly influential. Thank God for public broadcasting and the BBC.

So ask yourself that if you had the power, would you publish only those science theories or anything else, that suit your worldview or whimsy?

Academics serve at the pleasure of institutions, John. They are not powerful people. They do their research and communicate the results, for university public relations departments to report to the public. And the institutions are hardly going to support research that tarnishes their reputation for what they *perceive* as a leading edge organization, because that perception feeds their funding stream of corporate and alumni largesse.

So you would dare ask a courage freelance journalist like Zeeya to become a functionary for your -- or anyone else's -- opinions of what science should be? There are already too few Zeeyas, and too many Murdochs. When the ratio is reversed, the world will be safe for informed opinions.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Peter CM Hahn wrote on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 23:47 GMT
Foamy Ether Theory (FET) proposes that the Big Bang did not explode separate particles (or strings) into the vacuum of empty space. Rather, the explosion resulted in a continually expanding foam (or three dimensional web). FET is based on the assumption that the entire universe is comprised of foamy ether that is expanding in a void. The curvature of space-time is the manifestation of distortions in the foamy ether and atomic particles are kinks (or knots) in the foam.

FET is a model that works extremely well in explaining many of the conundrums that persist to this day (i.e. wave-particle duality, gravitational-inertial mass equivalence, GR and QM incompatibility, nonlocality). For more conundrums, see FQXi article: The Persistent Failure of a Two Substance Paradigm.

A complete description of FET can be found at: www3.telus.net/foamyether/ This site contains many images and actual computer simulations that show how foamy ether works in explaining all of the forces of nature. FET also makes a bold prediction that current interferometer based gravitational wave detectors (such as LIGO) will fail, and offers an alternate design that will work.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Warwick Morgan replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 01:22 GMT
You might look at Zeeya's article in Nature of a few days ago, which I believe to be free to view, at least as of now, http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-the-origins-o
f-space-and-time-1.13613
. She lays out several of the current approaches to tackling space-time, some of which I take to make the distinction between space-time and matter relatively minimal. I find the devil in such things is in the construction of both tractable and beautiful mathematics and in proving or calculating enough that other people can see that there is some hope of it being useful.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 03:04 GMT
Zeeya should have made that the article to this comment thread, since it seems very much what she is working on. Though there might be some proprietary issues.

This is the post I put on the comment thread there, since it gives a thumbnail sketch of my model of reality, or rather where I think the current model leaves the tracks. (Stuff I've said here many times.);

"I think the most...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

adel sadeq replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 03:29 GMT
Hi Hahn,

May I ask a few starting questions,

1 what is your ether made of?

2 Why does it bend, and what is the law for its bending?

3 I don't see them behaving in a quantum manner. How does the hydrogen atom look like?

Thanks.

Adel

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Adel,

You said you read my essay 'many times' and would get back. I hope you do. Your site address only led to 'cache file' (whatever that is) with no simulations. Can you post a live one one using the 'link help page' link above?

Peter WM,

From what I could understand of your paper I agree you're in an important part of the forest and on one of the right non-linear tracks. I...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Peter,

Not sure what you mean by "time itself." By my view, time is simply a form of measurement, like temperature. Whether we are measuring electromagnetic signals, rotations of the planet, a swinging pendulum, or waves hitting the beach, it is a way to compare/measure the rate of activity/change. Just as temperature could be molecular, atomic, or the employment rate.

The conceptual problem is that our brain functions by producing a sequence of insights/thoughts and this too is a similar progression, but it is only one thread in a tapestry of thoughts and actions, all serving to balance one another, not all going in the same direction. Thought is a form of action and for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That's why we have wives and girlfriends. ;-)

As well as liberals and conservatives, capitalists and communists, etc.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Peter Warwick Morgan replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Hi Peter J. I remember seeing your FQXi competition papers in the past; in any case, I looked again at your last three. How would you think they might affect the mathematics of the paper I posted? Does your way of thinking suggest any critique? Alternatively, how would you think its mathematics might affect your approach?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 11:00 GMT
Peter WM.

As I showed why mathematics can't yet model nature I'm afraid I'm the wrong man to try to analyse yours. I point to recursive sets, equivalent to 'sample spaces', as a way to chase down and at least reduce the gap between manipulation of symbolic cardinalisations and the evolution of nature itself.

It's the non-linearity that's important, as recognised by the non linear Schrodinger (NLS) equation. The spread function is what gives the continuously dualistic effects of EM energy propagation.

I get the impression your derivation is well on the right tracks but you would have a much better Idea than me of how compatible the maths is with the geometrical and empirical approach founding and guiding my own route to truth. Thee are some concepts I describe which I don't think you've yet recognised. But what I do think is that if our work IS compatible then it's power should emerge as the CUBE of the parts.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 15:30 GMT
John,

I suggest certainly not like temperature! That is my point. Where temperature is the quantification of a real physical property, which changes with changes to the measured 'oscillation rate', time is NOT! If we change that oscillation rate (where emitted by what we call a 'clock') we do NOT measure a change in some mystical property called 'time', only a change in a local oscillation rate. That is the important difference missed.

Time itself is only metaphysical and stays the same, whereas the physical EVIDENCE of an emission somewhere which was 1 second long, can be tampered with as much as you please as you're only tampering with the 'evidence', not the original fact.

I'm not sure you'll be able to discern the subtlety easily as you are, with all apologies, highly 'entrenched' in your own way of looking at it which may be partially valid but does seem to exclude many other with validity forming the holistic picture. I'm suggesting that time cannot be likened to 'anything' else because it is not a 'thing'. It IS a universal measure of duration, but no light or noise emitted necessarily has any faithful relevance to the period at the emitter once 'at large'. i.e. What we currently CALL 'Time' CAN BE DOPPLER SHIFTED! What we measure in some other frame is not then of course 'time' itself, which is invariant.

I'm sure you'll at least see and agree an analogy; 'Time' on the clocks of 3 people is co-ordinated and equal. But if one was approaching another at high speed the 'signals' from the other watch would simply be Doppler shifted, so the rate changed. We then need a new term 'apparent' time, which then defines SR's 'co-ordinate' time. But the rate of time (and watches) for all observers is unaltered. This very simple fact entirely eludes current theory and causes untold havoc and confusion.

Did any sense emerge from that?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2013 @ 17:08 GMT
Peter,

" If we change that oscillation rate (where emitted by what we call a 'clock') we do NOT measure a change in some mystical property called 'time', only a change in a local oscillation rate. That is the important difference missed."

I agree there is no mystical property called time.

"'Time' on the clocks of 3 people is co-ordinated and equal. But if one was approaching...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 2, 2013 @ 18:13 GMT
John M,

"nothing can exceed the speed of light" ??

The speed with which two wavefronts, that are propagating in opposite directions, increase their distance is 2c.

I would rather say, the speed of energy propagation cannot exceed the value c. Light propagates with from emitter to the receiver. Let's clarify the question what does the speed of light refer to?

It does not refer to the emitter alone, not to the receiver alone, not to an observer, not to an absolute space. Read my endnotes.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 2, 2013 @ 18:42 GMT
Eckard,

Doesn't "The speed of light" refer to a measurement?

So if your measuring device is traveling at the speed of light, all internal action is stopped, thus its clock is stopped, so it measures everything, even light going the other direction, as zero time.

Only an external viewer would see them as approaching each other at 2c.

?

I'm asking, but this had been my understanding.

It is my own sense that this implies an absolute space, since it is only against this completely inertial frame that any of this makes sense. Otherwise you could have two frames approaching each other at the speed of light and each of those frames would contain motion within them, as though they were stable, but then they would both contain activity that exceeded C in an outside frame.

I think we will eventually need to rethink space, but I can't even get anyone to consider time as an effect of action and it is the future becoming past, so I don't want to start an even bigger argument.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 1, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear Zeeya,

If you have children or grandchildren, you will observe what I see an increasing loss of distinction between virtual reality and reality. Do we really need more and more alternative models of reality as to possibly save our preferred theories? Perhaps, you felt that your recent article in Nature on theoretical physics and the origins of space and time does too much focus on mathematically based theories rather than on the question how realistic they are.

Set theory and Hilbert space were welcomed as alternative to Euclid's definition of point and continuum and to Salviati's insight. Meanwhile, the mainstream even denies that the other way round Euclid, Galileo, and Shannon are still serious alternatives to the virtually endless search for new alternatives to a qualified common sense notions of logic and reality.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Roger Granet wrote on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 03:19 GMT
Zeeya,

Hi. Thank you for the invitation to discuss unconventional ideas about reality. I've discussed my view of reality in past FQXi essays but would like to briefly summarize them here.

1. Reality, including space and time, seems to me to be the same as all the stuff that exists. Therefore, to answer the question of why there is reality (incl. space and time), we need to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 09:38 GMT
Zeeya,

Things are already moving, with findings published challenging old assumptions; Superluminal quasar pulse speeds, refraction curving light in galactic space, etc. The only thing not really fully presented yet is the coherent ontology properly resolving them all relativistically. Perhaps best to get editors used to the new realities before considering publishing how they all fit together. What do you think as a journalist? Is the world really ready yet?

My main question to you was hidden in my multi-post of Aug 31st. I re-post it here as I wouldn't wish to breach your conditions;

"Zeeya

Nice idea, and nice little Nature review. I can't really describe the discrete field model here as key elements have been both published and web archived on arXiv. Of course now the science data flow has surpassed the (Shannon) channel capacity available it's reached 'optical breakdown mode' (an information overload state) so two effects emerge, It is no longer 'joined up', and, as Peter M points out above, new theories, however superior, have virtually zero impact, lost in the 'noise'.

My essay this year does describe a way of 'decoding' the noise with a more intelligent 'IQbit', but even a high place in peer voting here may not overcome the 'theoretical inertia' indicating a possible end to our evolutionary cycle. However, I commend your sentiments in starting this blog so much that I would like to describe at least one key aspect not so far specifically presented, opening one of the doors to the rest and unification; Dark Matter. Please let me know if I may do so without breaching your conditions."

Please do also advise if you've actually read any of my last 3 essays (all top 10 in community scoring) and if not, if you can?

Many thanks, and best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Dammit, logged out again, Twice!! That was me above and to you Zeeya. Is it beyond the wit of the un-intelligent Qbit to have a system that flags up when it's pushed us off the bus?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Sep. 8, 2013 @ 19:14 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have to admit that I haven't had a chance to keep up with all of this year's essays -- so I will have to go and check yours out. I'll also go back and check out your previous essays (I probably have seen those, but a while ago).

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 15:53 GMT
Since Zeeya opened the floor to use her recent Nature article (which was excellent, BTW) as a springboard -- I would like to comment on what I think are the most promising research directions in the figure titled "Fabric of Reality", and why:

The figure's "clue" -- describing the mechanics of Hawking radiation -- constrains our physics of information to a one-dimension channel, a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 15:55 GMT
Still paying dues to the login gremlins. 'Twas I.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 4, 2013 @ 19:07 GMT
Tom,

I can only agree, though I'd have expressed it differently. But then as you're also describing some key sections the DFM ontology I'm rather bound to.

Some significant evidence rather problematic for the alternative popular mainstream doctrine is now emerging. What's notable is that they're from NASA HST and Fermi data and in the most mainstream of journals. The descriptions are carefully termed as none of them yet have or address any coherent ontology recovering SR. You asked me for novel predictions and correspondence with observation. These are yet more.

The key links are in my post to John M above (Aug 31 string) but I re-post here with the third link;

First; findings of 'apparent' superluminal motion, from NASA Mayer HST 2013 superluminal confirmation paper, and Fermi; MNRAS Paper confirming up to apparent 46c.!! (see post to John for links, which won't re-post!)

Also findings from the new VLBA of lensing in the ISM via refraction from moving plasma, exactly as the DFM predicted (see 2011 essay; '2020 vision').Pushkarev et al, VLBA confirms lensing from ISM plasma refraction

Do tell me if further explanation of the findings is required.

Best wishes,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 4, 2013 @ 20:01 GMT
Thanks, Peter. I still fail to understand, though -- as we've discussed before -- how you can get continuous measurement functions from your discrete field model (DFM). I'm not saying it can't be done; however, it would have to be explained in strict mathematical terms to convince me. Even a reference to a theorem would help.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 19:42 GMT
I believe the solution to the "reality" problem is completely solvable via a combination of Thermodynamics and the properties of special relativity. I have formulated a physical theory which as an extension to GR, would make it completely compatible with Quantum Mechanics and then simultaneously provide a solution to every paradox with which I am familiar (superposition {see my topic/scope limited...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Coleman replied on Sep. 3, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
My apologies, FQXi somehow logged me out before I posted the above.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 4, 2013 @ 17:55 GMT
Steve,

Not uncommon. I've proposed a 'slow down and think' era to replace 'shut up and calculate'. Your theory sounded as if it has commonalities with the model of discrete fields I've successfully developed in my last 3 essays here, but reading it I find it seems not to. I'm not sure how I missed your essay this year, I did my best but only managed abut 2/3rd! To save me checking a very long list, did you read and comment on mine?

May I also ask, if there were TWO pairs space buoys side by side, and before the ship passed by the string was cut. Would one set contract and one not? If both, then I assume all space also contracts, so the theory may seem to becomes paradoxical and non predictive.

In fact I find I disagree with the starting assumptions that; 1 Any 'body' can reach ~c, and 2, That anything can be 'measured' except by direct interaction. My essays construct the coherent logic of that if you wish to read them. Do give me your views.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Steve Coleman replied on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Peter,

I love your proposal on the new era. To show my support I have downloaded your essay paper and will be spending time with it, to think. I would be interested to learn more about your discrete fields concept, but I'm sure they are independent concepts from my own.

You are correct in that the spacetime itself contracts, so what the buoys attached string is doing is quite inconsequential. I find no paradox here, and it does predict many things and in fact answers a lot of open questions from unexplained experimental evidence. I'll be writing a paper to address these issues in the near future, but for now I'm focusing on my paper for a proposed thermodynamic extension to GR. Solving the 'galactic rotation curve flatness' and 'excessive redshift of the expanding universe' gets my top priority for now. Entanglement, double-slit, and superposition will have to wait.

As for your disagreement 1), I anticipated that, and my addendum argument #1 addressed that exactly. True, no mass can go the speed of light, but the ship was just an analogy for a wave/photon, depending on what one is arguing. The ship was used just to better visualize yourself in a photons reference frame, nothing more.

For disagreement 2), I would contend that without external interaction you could still measure your own clock. A photons trip from point A to point B, no matter the distance, will take exactly zero time (assuming empty space) in its own reference frame. We as experimenters can never use the photons clock to carry out any experiment, so we never see or measure things from that perspective. That is exactly the point of my essay paper. Just because you can't do it, personally or experimentally, doesn't mean there is no effect in the photons own reference frame. There are some experiments that can only be performed in the human mind.

thanks for your comments.

Steve.

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 5, 2013 @ 20:55 GMT
Question for everyone having login issues: Do you know how quickly you are getting timed out?

(It sounds like you are getting timed out ridiculously quickly, which is not supposed to be happening. We're trying to figure it out now.)

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 6, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
Zeeya,

It did leave me timed in for at least an hour, earlier, but then I was logged out for switching the page.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 6, 2013 @ 01:55 GMT
Also I was getting an edit button for a few weeks, but now it's gone. JM

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 6, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT
Zeeya,

I haven't timed it, but have now left it to simmer for just over 3 hours, 2 since my last post, and the bottom line says I'm still logged in. Le't find out.

While writing, I'm hoping for a response to my post(s) to you above.

Best Wishes

Peter (J)

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 8, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT
Hi all,

The sudden and unexpected logout issues should now have been fixed. Let me know if it is still a problem.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 9, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
Zeeya,

You seem very proficient with the magic wand! I stayed logged in for a few hours.

Thanks also for your note above. I'll await your opinion on raising the dark matter of dark matter. Using it in my own magic wand seems to let us recover Einstein's (though not everyone's it seems) Special Relativity from the confirmed superluminal quasar jet pulse motions. (see my replies to Tom, Sept 4).

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Sep. 9, 2013 @ 13:07 GMT
It is sometimes better to listen to the conversations, although as Eckard said, "one's brain gets tied in so many knots, trying to figure out what others are saying, what their assumptions and or models are, how they are interpreting…" and so as Peter J suggests, even if he sometimes breaches his own postulate, I have resolved to 'slow down and think' instead of 'shut up and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
Akinbo,

"Let us, leave the issue of medium or no medium till the first issue raised by Einstein is doubtful or doubted."

Thank you! That is the *scientific* component of Einstein's result. No superfluous philosophy -- simply the correspondence of a mathematically complete theory validated by a physical experimental result.

"Using geometric boundaries or borders cannot help because it is itself space, else I will be asking you next what the boundary is made of, how long it is and what will again 'separate' its constituents?"

You raise good questions. The same or similar question, I think, led Wheeler to his claim that "The boundary of a boundary is zero."

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 9, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT
Akinbo

....whether there are experimental observations...THAT ARE influenced by the translational velocity....

Not that I'm aware of, but there are (probably) numerous examples where the short answer misleads a reader to think so. We all remember the textbook reason for why a stick placed into a basin of water looks bent; ie. that light 'slows down' in the medium of water molecules. That's not what SR says, as Tom properly points out. Light velocity remains constant, the spacetime of its waveform is altered by the molecular medium which is after all a gravitational domain.

At face value SR is commonly approached from a valuation of Lorentz invariance, but you can't spend just one side of a coin, and on the obverse is Maxwell's determination of the natural relationship between 'c' and the proportion of strength of a magnetic field and that of the electric field which induces it. The inverse square law is the operative on the Maxwellian side which reduces to a harmonic series, while on the Lorentz side the operation reduces to an exponential series. I think that is where a lot of confusion sets in.

My favorite example of 'experiment' proving SR is that area on the soffit above a south facing window that needs repainted a decade before the rest of the house because of the UV deterioration resulting from defraction by the window glass causing the time frame of a wave event to expand in correspondence to the space frame contracting. Consequently the wavelength is shorter and the amplitude is greater, and there becomes a greater amount of frequency of Ultra Violet waveform deflecting at the refraction planes and exiting upwards toward the bottom surface of the soffit. That couldn't happen if the velocity of the light wave train itself 'slowed down'. That is what Tom is saying about the postulates of SR being a complete set. It's bootstrapped. Cheers, jrc

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 9, 2013 @ 15:48 GMT
Akinbo,

A very well phrased series of observations and questions. If I may;

I think the issue with Relativity isn't whether it is mathematically accurate, but why. When you peel away the entirely reasonable propositions that everything we measure is interconnected and there is no general physical frame, as assumed with aether, there is this logically extreme notion of the four...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 9, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Akinbo,

OK, I'll slow down a little. There's much new to visualise clearly and derive.

Firstly your question; "whether there are experimental observations relatively to the earth as the body of reference, THAT ARE influenced by the translational velocity of the earth?"

Yes of course there are, very many, and not only since space exploration. But none breach Einstein's SR...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
You see, I blog from sub-Saharan Africa, the darkest part. Some call it underdeveloped, some say it is the third world. We don't regard this as derogatory because it is true. We don't see snow, we eat natural foods, not processed or genetically modified. Another important feature here is that our atmosphere contains a lot of dark matter, maybe that is why someone refers to this place as the dark...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Akinbo,

You and your friends are not the only ones suffering a crisis in physics.

It seems it is turning out to be more simple than anyone figured, but all the work(and jobs) is in complex solutions.

To paraphrase the old margarine commercial, "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
I'm no longer allowed to post at Peter Woit's blog, so I thought I'd post the most recent comment to the above link here:

"Bob Jones says:

September 12, 2013 at 6:50 pm

String theory is not mathematics, I agree with you about that. But it’s still *mathematical* in the sense that most of the time string theorists do not even attempt to postulate new physics. Instead, string theorists are generally interested in conceptual questions in quantum gravity and applications to formal problems in quantum field theory. They’re not coming up with new laws of physics but deducing consequences from the theories that are already known to be relevant for describing nature."

So basically it's thirty years of reducto ad absurdum and nobody gets it?

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Anna Thomas wrote on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 20:38 GMT
I have a question for Peter. I've been trying to understand your Discrete Field Model and it seems like you have managed to remove the need for Lorentz transformations (from your earlier essay). Is that right? If so, how do you deal with determining the speed of objects in difference reference frames relative to each other?

Anna

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 17:48 GMT
Anna,

The Lorentz Transformation gets a real mechanism to drive it. So no need to rely just on metaphysical mathematical gymnastics. Maths can't make physical things happen, like change (Doppler shift) wavelengths. I didn't get to describe the mechanism in any of the essays as the DFM fundamentals must come first. I have done elsewhere, but lets answer your question;

Firstly we must...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 21:18 GMT
Briefly:

This thread from Richard Lewis's spacetime model of electromagnetic phenomenon whether as linear propagation or as loop quantization does invite a lot of wild hairs needing waxed back into the thread, but I would like clarification on that model in regards 'The Nature of Light'.

What physical shape would be described by the math of the model so that in the framework of work-a-day Euclidian space, the wave set up in spacetime would produce the electromagnetic response in any particulate matter it encountered. I think the idea provocative and well worth pursuing, but...

If we envision the wave as a linear progression of a transverse wave, and limit it to a distance either side of the line of direction, how would it be possible to rotate it around that 'center' line and it give rise to the electric and magnetic fields? Those fields in Maxwell's determination are at right angle to each other and 90 degrees out of phase. Rotation of a spacetime wave 180 degrees around it's axis would produce the opposite direction of polarity and the wave would negate itself. Does the model describe a 3D wave event along a time axis which would operate like the transverse of a longitudinal wave with the rise of amplitude plotted as the circular propagation of a transverse wave, like a pebble dropped into the center of a round birdbath? That, I'd buy. Thanks for sharing, jrc.

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 16:56 GMT
re: Tom to Akinbo

...uniformity of physical laws is preserved by a mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation.

That is the ticket. It probably isn't reiterated often enough. The concise criteria is the limiter of technical definition of terms which makes it workable. It's a survey marker, not a trick question. Nor is it the end of the story.

Once again, Tom, I can't thank you enough for the challenge to my own degree of ignorance with the link to Wald's paper. "Elapsed time on a curve" is the dynamic, in high performance racing that's where torque catches up with horsepower and the revs that sustain torque. It's like a roulette wheel with the ball speeding opposite the direction of the wheel, as long as the ball's momentum lags behind the wheel's it will follow the rim. But once the ball slows to relative stop with wheel rotation and picks up enough of the wheel momentum to start to roll in the same direction, symmetry is broken and the ball falls down off the rim. Far Out! jrc

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 17:29 GMT
Thanks for the vote of confidence, John C. Wald is a favorite. Maybe someday you'd like to tackle his collection (as editor) of University of Chicago lectures, *Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics." It's in the literature where real physics is done -- if one is not aware of it, one falls into the trap of imagining things, like John M's out of thin air claim that relativity theorists don't deal with thermodynamics. (!)

Very nice illustration with the roulette wheel!

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 15:32 GMT
Pete,

At least we know the elephant's name is not Euclid. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 17:06 GMT
JC.

Agreed, The elephant's 3D+t and curvy, but only one real t, the rest are fake!

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 19:02 GMT
Peter,

I've been thinking (however questionably) for some time, that the ambiguity that breeds all these 'red herrings' simply evolves from an instinctive desire to arrive at an understanding of whatever natural relationship must exist for light velocity being *that* specific velocity, from the direction of nil extension of time up to an equivalent 'c' extension. Given that any velocity less than 'c' is relative, a ground up approach would itself be relative.

I'm not sorted out enough to be confident in conveying the idea, but it seems we would have better definition, if not also results, by taking an approach to the 'rate' of time extension from instantaneous down to equivalent 'c'. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 19:51 GMT
John C,

Ground up is OK, but solid foundations are much harder to find. I'm not sure I grasp your thought process but think I know what you mean, and I agree, all is relative.

But I've found a far simpler solution works. Come down 6 storeys with me to bedrock and check it out.

Lets assume the ions we find everywhere in a vacuum, the foundation of matter, each has 1). A rest frame, 2). The job of keeping em fluctuations going and 3) Do so at one speed, (relative to the frame of each) whatever the relative 'arrival' speed. We'll call the emission speed 'c'. Each bunches of particles at rest relatively then forms a 'discrete field' (model - DFM).

Now play with that scenario in your mind for a bit and see if you can stop it resolving every single anomaly and paradox in physics. If you have any dynamic visualisation skills I predict you will fail completely. But careful where you point it; all confusion and stupidity melts away. (But it won't go through the deep shifting sand of oblivion the heads are buried in!)

As you say all velocity less than c is relative, but so is c itself. You can't measure something without interacting and changing it's speed to max c.

Let me know how you get on. My last 3 essays build it up to above ground level.

Best wishes.

Tom.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 19:55 GMT
Ooops, what a Freudian slip! Those shifting sands of oblivion meant I forgot my own name for a moment!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 23:19 GMT
Interesting paper on the effectiveness and limits of math

"And that is Abbott's main point (and most controversial one): that mathematics is not exceptionally good at describing reality, and definitely not the "miracle" that some scientists have marveled at. Einstein, a mathematical non-Platonist, was one scientist who marveled at the power of mathematics. He asked, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?""

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.htm
l#jCp

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 10:12 GMT
John M,

Maybe Abbott's promised tutorial will exemplify the "Ineffectiveness of Mathematics"? I wonder if his EE students will need it.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Eckard,

They would seem to be in his camp, but he would be providing ammunition for their future.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 02:10 GMT
Hi John,

Good points to raise. Re http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.htm
l :

1) "And that is Abbott's main point (and most controversial one): that mathematics is not exceptionally good at describing reality":

Clearly regularities, i.e. information categories, information relationships and information balance, exist at all levels of reality. But...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 22:25 GMT
OK Pete, I see what your meaning of discrete field implies. That is pretty much how I visualize things, and why it's so difficult to keep any kind of generality of spacetime from coming apart at the particles. A solution to the problem of how to account mathematically for a quantity of energy precipitating into a rest mass having a continuous variation of density which would be in accord with...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 13:04 GMT
John RC,

"difficult to keep...spacetime from coming apart at the particles." Impossible I'd say. 'Spacetime' means quite different things to different people. After all the nonsensical interpretations that many still cling to Einstein ended up precisely where Minkowski started;

"not 'space' but infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion" This gives the discrete inertial system or 'field' model (DFM). The particle interactions then divide them.

I could't penetrate far through the haze into your sample jar, so best to offer some simplifications which I think are compatible with that and the above.

Inertia is simply gyroscopic. It's not then bizarre finding a ton weight accelerating under G at the same rate as a pea. Imagine a ton of spinning gyroscopes fixed to a framework. Then beside it one tiny peas shaped gyroscope. Which is easiest for you to accelerate by pushing? Correct, the tiny one. So why do we expect gravity to do the opposite and accelerate the big one faster?

That shown the fundamental error sin all our assumptions. Errors we've become so familiar with that most are unable to challenge them. I did and a very simple model emerged, but it seems most can't so confusion remains.

If you wish to see the model you only need to read the essays. The limit on propagation speed of EM waves is then simple and relates to minimum wavelength gamma, which is at optical breakdown mode plasma density. (I'll post the link to the paper on that if you wish).

Best wishes

Peter

PS. It will make perfect sense to you when you read it but if you don't then also 'rehearse' it the whole dynamic will evaporate as our neural networks don't have a pre-set default mode to 'hang it on'.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT
Pete,

Actually I'd like to have a link to your papers, it looks like what you are developing is what gets too complex for me after the rationalization of the volumetric determination for rest mass energy distribution in what I've modeled.

Beg pardon... the brief synopsis of method for determining distribution to density variation was just that. It starts with a simplistic...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
John,

'Domain size matters' Right. Space 's' moving within larger space 'S'. Always a local background reference frame for defining the concept 'speed', but one that moves within it's own larger background.

This is the hierarchical structure of Truth Function Logic I refer to in my previous essay. They are written as conceptual so called 'toy' models as mathematics can't expose the logical dynamics. In sequence the last 3 are here (all top 10 finalists, but overlooked as they don't use current assumptions). I've just posted the fqxi links to Petcho, but here are the less abridged versions;

2020 Vision

Much Ado About Nothing

The Intelligent Bit

An optics based fuller picture is here, finally explaining why reflections from a moving mirror in a vacuum do c wrt the vacuum frame not the mirror; arXiv;

Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.


When you've waded through those ask for the LT derivation link and any other areas such as the cyclic cosmology emergent. The mechanism is dead simple. Unravelling all the present complex confusion is less so at first.

Best of luck. Do report back with any questions or comments.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
Pete

A clarification, please on the 2020 article. Right off you state axiomatically that the 'speed of the wave' is resultant of the refraction index. This is consistent with Fitzgerald whose contraction is of the wave, not time. The way I read the various experimental methods which are cited as evidence that 'light slows down in a medium', is not Lorentzian. The velocity of propagation is not altered, it is still celeritus. The wave contraction due to (pardon) quantum effects in and of the medium, computes as a lower velocity that does not really distinguish between the speed of the wave and the velocity of propagation. That ambiguity is inherent to LT, Lorentz packed the same amount of electric charge into a smaller volume and declared density equals mass. If you measure the strength of the charge by inverse square law, why would it behave as an average density of charge within a smaller volume?

The shorter wave is still propagating its volumetric change at the same velocity along the same timeline, through the media. It's extension physically of that volumetric dimension along the timeline is reduced, not the volume of it's wave event, nor it's constituent energy quantity. It's more analogous to compression than to velocity.

I'm trying to digest a bit at a time, so don't take me too seriously. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 23:29 GMT
John M,

My guess is that what you are trying to say is something like:

- we have current knowledge of fundamental reality represented/symbolised by law of nature equations. These equations don't necessarily imply any further equations.

- to go further than these equations you need a philosophy of what these equations mean. For example, if you philosophise that a multiverse exists, you will create a new set of equations (consistent with the original law of nature equations) to represent your ideas, and then look for evidence that might confirm these new equations.

- that is, to progress the equations, you definitely need a philosophy.

Cheers,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 16, 2013 @ 00:03 GMT
Lorraine,

A life without a philosophy is a fish without water. Even physicists have one, they just can't measure it and part of their philosophy is that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Silly, but true.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 16, 2013 @ 17:12 GMT
Peter Jackson

I think I see where your criteria must rely on quantum averaging, and for that sort of regime perhaps Lorentz transforms are well suited, they sure worked well for Einstein in relation to averaging mass with measurable volume such as in our own solar mass. Incidentally, you may be putting yourself outside modern convention more than convention excluding you. NASA theoreticians...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 03:11 GMT
John M,

I agree. Re "part of [physicists'] philosophy is that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist ":

There are things that can't be measured, but we can represent them either with words or symbols. E.g. I contend that physical reality is actually made out of not only things that can be measured, but things that can't be measured: the "+ - ÷ x" and the "=" found in law of nature mathematical equations represent non-measurable aspects of reality. These symbols can't just be swept under the carpet and ignored: if they don't live in a Platonic realm then they must represent a real part of THIS universe. (We might philosophise about what these symbols might imply about the nature of reality. I contend that they represent information relationship and information balance.)

Zeeya,

The non-measurable aspects of reality are the basis for a GENUINE alternative model of reality. There is nothing genuinely alternative about multiverses, living inside a computer game or loop quantum gravity etc. etc. because they are all just another set of equations with another set of interpretations of these equations: but they never examine what an equation actually is. Seemingly they all assume equations are given and non-decomposable; they turn a blind eye to the above mentioned non-measurable aspects of equations. Yet equations clearly consist of modular components, e.g. "+, -, ÷, x" and "=": so it is unlikely that what equations represent just arises whole and complete ex nihilo.

So I contend that unless a theory accounts for the "+ - ÷ x" and the "=" found in its equations, it is incomplete. It is a misrepresentation to propose e.g. a multiverse or a computer game universe: actually what is REALLY being hypothesised is a (multiverse PLUS platonic realm) or a (computer game universe PLUS platonic realm).

Cheers,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 10:39 GMT
Lorraine,

Keep in mind that factors and functions are nouns and verbs. Since math is conceptual compression, I would argue the ultimate theory of everything is; "Stuff happens."

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 13:19 GMT
"I would argue the ultimate theory of everything is; 'Stuff happens.'"

John, isn't that kind of like hanging an empty frame on a wall and scrawling in the middle, "your picture goes here"? :-)

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
Tom,

Exactly!!!! That's the reality of the non-platonic view. Everything is not just a poor copy of some ideal, but arises from the essential. Which is activity in space. Stuff happens. ;-)

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 13:25 GMT
A correction to my post to you on 9/16, I got apples and oranges mixed with the delay and wavelength rate of change in the second paragraph towards the end. The rate of delay can rebound going from greater to lesser refraction index, not the wavelength. There's a fine example of why math is an essential tool to check yourself for commutative property in redistribution of terms. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 17:35 GMT
J.C.

Hmm.Your struggle with optics is not uncommon. I have foundations there as does my co-author J.M. It's really very clear and consistent once rationalised, but easy to trip up on the way. Just think 'signal propagation speed' to avoid confusion. For instance you suggest;

"Upon exit from refractive medium, transiting the refraction plane, the wavelength does not 'stretch' back out...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT
Pete,

Thank-you for the clarification and info on the rebound, I thought I was wrong.

Let me digest this some, I seem to remember a TV program that briefly presented Hau's experiments, super-cooled media as I recall.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that GR results in defining time dilation at distances from an inertial body provide the means to eventually define a discrete field. Not unlike Faraday's results providing Maxwell with the real field intensities from which to unify the EM field. The utility in formalizing

those GR results in a linear equation to equate energy density (field intensity)

with distribution of energy quantity should not be objectionable to theorists simply on the grounds that GR is formulated on a curved surface. The results of GR are there at the ready, why not use them. Still, that formality must be addressed to provide the geometry between discrete fields (particles and charge definition) to apply SR. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 19, 2013 @ 14:03 GMT
J.C.

The problem Maxwell's equations don't resolve is the failure of Snell's Law and 'Fresnel' refraction at the near/far field transition zone (TZ). We still only have entirely anomalous 'Fraunhofer refraction' and 'virtual photons' there, with all the 'non-linear' optical effects such as Kinetic Reverse Refraction (KRR), termed 'bizarre' under present interpretations.

This is one area the DFM interpretation and mechanism proves to coherently resolve, recovering Snell's Law and rationalising Special Relativity, QM, KRR et al. Consider the matrix I mailed you as also representing the state changes at Maxwell's TZ. All will then fall into place. But you do need to apply your intellect not just rely on old assumptions.

What you've seen are glimpses, but you're still mainly held by the marshy mire Popper characterised old theory as founded on.

You have a head start as you trust the answer exists and want to find it.

Best wishes

Peter

(PS. If anyone else wishes to see the matrix just ask).

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 19, 2013 @ 16:03 GMT
In the Alternative Models of (other people's) Reality category, now that the Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs thread has quieted for the moment, it has long seemed to me a vortex of opposing factions pulling on the inevitable loose ends of each other's models and going around in circles. With the repetitions and deletions it was as though scratches appeared on the record and it started to skip. (Whoever titled the thread must have had a similar feeling.)

I provide this as one small anecdotal analogy for the fact that while vortices frequently appear in nature, their mathematical projection to infinity, commonly referred to as singularities, never does, because this is a physical phenomena that occurs when conflicting elements exchange energy and is thus created and absorbed by this larger context. So whether it is atmospheric situations of cold fronts moving over warmer air, or galactic formations of contracting mass interacting with expanding radiation, or people in conflict, the action is ultimately cyclical. Only on small scales does it look linear.

As for locality, vs. non-locality, could it be a manifestation of bottom up/linear and local, vs. top down/systemic, non-linear, scalar processes?

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 22:09 GMT
Examples of this effect;

Chasing the black holes of the ocean

"According to researchers from ETH Zurich and the University of Miami, some of the largest ocean eddies on Earth are mathematically equivalent to the mysterious black holes of space. These eddies are so tightly shielded by circular water paths that nothing caught up in them escapes."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-black-holes-ocean.html#jCp

Datin
g our galaxy's dormant volcano


""It's been long suspected that our galactic center might have sporadically flared up in the past. These observations are a highly suggestive 'smoking gun'," said Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, who was one of the first people to suggest that black holes generate the power seen coming from quasars and galaxies with 'active' centers."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-dating-galaxy-dormant-volcano.h
tml#jCp

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
John,

Great AGN jet link! A paper I have in review predicts just that, except with evidence the 'eruption' was more severe then they assume, and 6Bn years ago not 2.

You characterisation of the ideas here was very personal, but the vortices agreeing with my prev 2 papers. However, from where I sit there's no; "opposing factions pulling on the inevitable loose ends of each other's models and going around in circles" at all! If only! The DFM is presented here to be scientifically falsified. It's had none! Only verification. It seems rock solid if not fully polished, which I suppose is good. It's just had questions (and one entirely 'belief' based objection with no objective science - from guess who!).

There are a number of people going round in circles slowly getting closer to understanding it. Akimbo and JC are closest. With respect John you've been circling for far longer with very slow progress as your focus has been fixated elsewhere. I look at all other 'theories'. They're nothing like as complete or solidly evidenced, but have interesting aspects and consistencies. I commented on 'hidden likeness' with your time view long ago, but that seems to to produce far less (O?) tangible resolutions of anomalies.

I couldn't decypher your last line. I sounds very similar to the concepts in my last essay but a bit woollier, to me anyway. Can you be more specific?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 19, 2013 @ 19:14 GMT
Pete,

My internet provider did not for some reason, transfer the attachment of the matrix reference chart. One thing I am curious about in particular is to what extent today's quantum mechanics picture has evolved beyond Bohr's original hypothesis which in non-technical presentations portrays the 'quantum leap' as an instantaneous event. Does it not seem practical for the wavelength emerging from change in energy state of an atomic mass to be a function of the time interval of the rest frame in which that change of state occurs, expelling the quantum of each waveform? jrc

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT
J.C.

I've just sent the full matrix of kinetic changes. Hope it get's through this time, but I may have to talk you through it, or post the commentary. It's in my main draft paper but none of the published ones yet.

Yes I agree with your comment. QM's assumptions haven't changed, and I think Neils would turn in his grave! When he said physics is about 'what we can say' he didn't assume we would make progress on that front!

Now we can say a particle can be a toroid on a certain axis, his basic assumption of quanta with 'no structure apart from spin +1/-1' can be advanced. We've been a bit dim witted not allowing it to do so, as that's when all the answers emerge, as my latest essay.

Copenhagen is still the most popular interpretation, but with only 50% support (latest poll of Qphys theorists) with 5 others in the frame! In fact it appears SR can live in Copenhagen quite happily when reduced to Einsten's version "entirely contained within the postulates"(1952). Only the odd tiny different and well falsified assumption is needed!

But somehow this appears invisible to most. Actully not invisible, as when described it can be seen as logical, so my last 3 essays have performed excellently. But by the next day it's drifted away as there's nowhere in most neural networks to hook it onto and retain it. It can be reduced to 'sound bites' but too many to remember are needed to make the solid ontology. It needs a video or two, which needs funding! If you have any other ideas do let me know.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 21:36 GMT
Pete

Maybe the problem is not what is 'invisible' to some, but more importantly what is visible is that 'the fabric of spacetime' is cut from the same cloth as the ether. Perhaps Einstein felt it was as far as he dare go in his day without being laughed off the stage when he recounted his imagining himself riding a light beam, and time 'stopped'. If time stopped why doesn't the light beam? Rather, the more closely we approach the speed of light, the more closely we approximate the limit of the rate time can extend. Time passes us all by, but at that speed!? There is the result (not transform) of GR time dilation. And the point in spacetime that light wavelengths are relative to is that limit of rate of time extension, for whatever reasons it be that equivalent of celeritus. Yes, thanks much, I have the charts in a folder safely. jrc

report post as inappropriate


David Vognar wrote on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
In the following thought experiment, I consider a given universe in which there are dual directions in which the universe is expanding, both outward through the cosmological constant and inward through the implications of entropy. At the outer level, the universe incorporates more and more microstates, increasing entropy. At the inner level, no matter how far the universe expands in smaller...

view entire post


attachments: entropy.pdf

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Peter Jackson

Pete, I just received and downloaded the charts, thanks they look neatly constructed and give a good start point. Not surprisingly, in hind-sight, I've found good introduction instruction on near and far field phenomenon in the category of 'diffraction' rather than refraction. Very provocative! That is the 'zone' that needs clear distinction in the seeming paradoxisms that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 09:23 GMT
JC.

The failure of Maxwell's equations to recover Snell's Law at the Near/Far field transition zone (TZ) is a skeleton in the cupboard swept under the carpet with all the other anomalies. As I've said before, we now need a new Sherpa Tenzing to guide us across the carpet, and no-one's managed it yet!

As Neil Turok believes about the failure of theorists, including theoretical physicists at the LHC; "The reason why they failed is that they didn't introduce NEW ENOUGH concepts." But all are to blame. I sent Neil (and most others) a note pointing to where the solution seemed to lie, but not even a response! Clearly too much background noise, so the answer, though right before our eyes, is still hidden by beliefs and assumptions, buried in a pile of assumed crackpottery and an Alpha-Lyman forest of mixed metaphors!

Once you understand the matrix chart the whole simple picture should clarify. The quantum mechanism that gives GR and implements SR, all at the TZ, which them forms the domain boundaries, with the LT (gamma) as a simple quantum by-product.

I won't post the whole commentary, but the Fig caption is here to help with the 3 different observer cases; In each case only the observer in the propagation frame finds REAL c. Other speeds are in a different class, and arbitrary 'apparent' not propagations speeds (like the cars coming the other way down the road). They only become 'real' speeds once interacting.

"Frame Transition Effects of the Discrete Field Model. Observer O1 is in the incident or 'local background' frame. Observer O2 is at rest in any other frame in relative motion. 'O1+2' represents an observer accelerating from frame 1 to frame 2 with the EM signal (equivalent to our consideration of Doppler shift).

Let me know how you get on. (If anyone else would like the (DFM) matrix please just ask).

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
JC,

I replied about curved space-time derivation from discrete fields which you asked about above; ("I'm now curious as to how your model comes to expanding the angle of incidence into the angle of refraction"). I'd lost this, so I think it's in the Q&A string, but briefly (for the static case, or see my last years essay);

As this years essay; the toroidal electrons/ions (which I...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 15:16 GMT
Pete,

Real quick because I've got things stacking up. Thanks for the pointer in assimilating the matrix, I need to get my head wrapped tightly on Observer 2 then I'll be able to follow. That's the thing about the Galilean revolution in providing theory construct with a common path which when followed, leads to a conclusion which can be rationally understood in a like manner whether everyone agrees or not. Personally, I've got a lot of 'homework' to catch up on. jrc

report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 14:14 GMT
Tom,

"I appreciate that you think my argument over definitions is circular; however, all definitions *are* circular, i.e., self-referential. That Newton defined mass in terms of inertia and Einstein extended the definition to energy makes their definitions operational rather than mathematically formal, which is only consistent with *all* definitions for physical phenomena.

I'm trying...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
I can't edit my message so I point out that in the quote I gave, the repeated missing s on indefinable is my error.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 15:54 GMT
From Sears & Zemansky "A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured."

Yes, James. That's what I told you -- physical definitions are always operational, never formal. The "set of rules for calculating" is formal, and it's called a theory.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Tom,

"Yes, James. That's what I told you -- physical definitions are always operational, never formal. The "set of rules for calculating" is formal, and it's called a theory."

You have to understand right from the beginning that measuring distance and time does not involve theory. Measuring mass does not involve theory. It is the choice to make mass an indefinable property that is theoretical. Lets stay on this point until the difference is made clear. The empirical evidence of acceleration is not theoretical. The measurement process of acceleration is not theoretical. The standard for mass is not theoretical. Instead of saying you told me so, please address this question: What is the justification for making mass a fundamental indefinable property? This is where we will find out what your interest really is. Stay with the reason for not defining mass. We can move on after this first step is dealt with.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT
Peter A. Jackson

Pete, digesting what you present as an alternative to a standard model in the treatment of phenomenon across a difference in refraction index, it seems to me your argument boils down to something like this. ... Physically, we can not simply take the change of translational speed in one medium to that translational speed in another medium as instantaneous, which is the conventional treatment theoretically. Rather, the transition zone must be treated time-wise as that deceleration of the waveform in a higher refractive index being equivalent to an acceleration of observation from one medial translational speed to the next.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then that would be best to present immediately in concise terms in the first paragraph of any abstract. Just an editorial comment, I grew up in a smalltown weekly newspaper family, It's good practice, ain't it, Tom. Not that the sophists don't always chime in that logical argument is all well and good, but what carries the day in political persuasion is that you tell people what they want to hear, which is neither leadership or representation just a free ride. Ellsberg Lives, just not very well. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 10:57 GMT
JC.

I agree 'sound bite' explanations work well. Observer dependency (acceleration) is one option, also linking SR and Copenhagen. But it then needs the prohibited 'dependency of +v' explained, which then needs the process at the lens explained.

The problem with a 'ontological construction' is that like the Eiffel tower, no one bit will stand up alone. There is also a problem with...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Pete,

Firstly; I see what you mean about 'equivalent'. Later.

I'll go back and read your post fully, but I wanted to point out that the view of Eiffel's tower on approach impresses it's form from which then the axiomatic structure is given place and proportion. That region to a distance away from the electrostatic boundary of either emitter surface or receiver surface that is experimentally well established extends outward to equal of two wavelengths. It is in that near region where matter and energy transmute. Permit me...

What passes for www.journalism@someblog.etc is lacking two w's. (And to my mind, no little ethic.) The task in editorializing is the allocation of space and managing the layout on content, which is limited to the "Who,What,Where,When, and Why" rule. So introduce your axioms onto a form that answers "What". It is about ...? Where do I find a point of departure?

It would be more succinct to say that your DFM is an alternative 'in' the standard model 'to' the treatment of relative translational speeds of light in media of different refractive index, but this has ramifications that greatly reduce apparent complexity, and predictivity that is randomly anomalous to observation, that arise in conventional treatment of a change in translational speed as an instantaneous event. That refinement to the standard model extends to applications in all manner of matter and energy interaction providing a substantiated predictability.

Give the reader an peg on which to hang his hat. We're literally talking about the transmutation of energy and matter at light velocity. Just don't scare 'em with that right off. Lay it out for them. cheers jrc

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 18:43 GMT
Pete,

Apart from my earlier post, and in regard to 'delta n' and 'delta v' it occurred to me that while the wavelength in the far field can be predicated on the time interval in the emitter frame, that does not mean that the two wavelength dimension of distance in the near field is equal to two wavelength time intervals. It would naturally be one wavelength time interval relative to the emmiter frame and two wavelength direction intervals relative to the far field wavelength time interval. Thereby the two lambda distance is of

2(1r) and each 1r is one side of an r^2, or 'tau', as proper time in the emitter frame. It is only the electrostatic field intensity that decays by inverse square of distance in the near field, as it does in the far field. The magnetostatic field intensity decays as the inverse cube of distance in the near field, while 'evanescent' or internally reflected waves that do not emerge from the emitter, decay at an inverse exponential rate with distance. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 11:04 GMT
JC,

"Light changes speed between moving media to do c locally". How's that for a headline?

Of course it's incomplete, we should use; "to conserve c locally", and "dielectric" media, and it's always c/n in the 'bulk flow' frame, but at n=1 that IS c. and we MUST make the distinction between delta n and delta v, and also that it's speed BETWEEN all particles is c...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 13:19 GMT
Peter,

Your position is that time dilation is a visual effect? In other words, the observer sees something changed that has not changed. I know that you say the wavelength changes. This is common in variable speed of light theories. My question pertains to the clock. It only looks like it has changed its rate? Does this mean to you that the Lorentz transform for time dilation describes an illusion? I am asking about the clock and not the wavelength of the received light. Thank you.

"On the 'time' thing. The easiest way to consider it for sure is that the rate of 'TIME' itself does not change anywhere, it is a universal NOW. What changes all the time is the physical EM emissions from things we call 'clocks'. If one wavelength takes one 'second', then moving from the near to far field, (or reaching ANY observer doing some speed other than that of the emitter), an observer at rest in that field will see the apparent rate of time changed. Only the wavelength, or 'length' of the signal when at c, has really changed. Getting used to that is like learning to drive; only hard at first."

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
James,

No. The LT is a real physical non-linear effect at domain boundary crossings. All clocks keep on ticking at the same rate, the only change is to the emissions after emission. Does the simple logic emerge?

To understand the (Lorentz Transformation) LT we need to look closely at how these new 'car' things work. Let's take a DFM automatic, and the 'torque converter'. Essentially it's a box filled with fluid made of particles. Changing viscosity changes the relationship of the motions each side of the box. So at each end of the box the particles are in a different state of motion (rest frame), or 'doing different speeds.'

A DFM 'two-fluid plasma' shock has the same dynamic { two-fluid plasma.}. The details are a bit technical but each particle absorbs light and re-emits it at c in the particle frame. This in NOT the same as VSL theories, and all observers at rest in all frames will find light propagating at c, but even when NOT at rest, the LT at their lens surface fine structure means they can only measure the CHANGED lambda, and again find propagation at c (read c/n). (That 'insight' is unique to the DFM).

The complex mechanism is linear (but with non-linearity) and involves instant propagation and 'charge cancellation' over the Debye length (standard plasma physics). The non linearity (Lorentz Factor) relates to gamma (max energy density) and related 'optical breakdown mode'. For those interested it's 'anomalous' to present theoretical assumptions but is standard quantum optics and all explained, published and web-archived on Academia, or Phil's archive here; Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation.

I hope that answer is complete enough (but I've omitted any Q-Gravity).

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 14:29 GMT
Peter,

"No. The LT is a real physical non-linear effect at domain boundary crossings."

Ok. You apply the transform only to the received wavelength. The normal use of the transform is to apply it to the clock. Your position is that the Lorentz transform for time dilation has nothing to do with the clock.

When a clock moves horizontally to the earth either with its rotation or opposite to it as on an airplane, does the clock change its rate and if so why?

If a clock is raised up in a gravitational field, does its rate change and if so why?

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 19:55 GMT
Pete,

Paint it, and you can sell anything. So whether I accept your definition of the speed of time or anything else, I think your presentation would still be most easily grasped if you introduced it simply by talking about the model itself and give a brief overview of the difference between near and far field. What the model does is examine the transition of the translational speed of light from one medium into another as an event in time. Then point out that in many applications theoretically the transition is treated as instantaneous which can lead to results that are anomalous with regard to both prediction and experiment. Loose as much jargon as you can in the intro, it will get thick enough in the nuancing of axiomatics. Avoid headlines, let it speak for itself. jrc

p.s. If I go back to my workbench of Euclidean dimensions in the safety of my perfectly background independent void and turn on the light, what happens if light does not move as fast as time allows? On the one hand if light is slower than time then I will be forever left in the dark fumbling for the switch. On second hand if light is faster than time the switch will already be illuminated by the light I switch on.

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 29, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Pete,

Thank-you, I stand corrected as much as I'm capable, much of this is new to me. As to the EM fields being 'particle based' I quite agree that they are the 'stuff' of matter, field intensity is analogous to energy density. The peculiarities of their behavior in the near field suggests that they are responsive to both inertial frames of electron and quantum energy volumes. In the near field it is very much like time and space adjust to an optimum volumetric parameter prescribed by each energy quantity. Fascinating. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 1, 2013 @ 08:09 GMT
Admittedly, I have problems to understand Peter Jackson and also James Putnam who cryptically wrote: "That misuse of the word time is relativity theory's error. To make it clear: When I use the name 'time dilation' I am only using it as a name. I do not believe that time dilates."

In German, i.e. in Einstein's native language, there is no distinction between Geschwindigkeit in the sense of the scalar "speed" and the vector "velocity". While the latter obviously refers to a point of reference, the speed seems to be something absolute. Well, there is no negative speed as there is no negative distance too. Nonetheless, don't speed of light in vacuum as well as distance in space necessarily refer to the difference between two tacitly chosen points of reference: starting point and endpoint? There is certainly no otherwise preferred reference on condition other influences or observers are not involved. I do not support the idea that reality can be judged by what an observer sees. Peter is perhaps right in that the universe is strictly speaking not an empty space. However, does this fully explain the observable behavior of electromagnetic waves? Isn't the reemission theory an emitter theory?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 2, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Eckard,

James's comment wasn't cryptic. It properly distinguished between 'TIME' itself, from which we 'divide' equal periods of one Earth orbit; from the signals of mechanical contraptions made by man to 'keep pace' with it.

We then have TWO things that can change without affecting 'time', both the 'rate' of the toys we build AND the rate at which we come across their emitted artifactual signals. We may designate both as giving only APPARENT time.

When we check back how long it's taking Earth to rotate, once our intellect has reached an adequate stage, then it will become clear how nonsensical our assumptions have been. See the conversation with Tom and James above.

You're knocking at the door with 'points of reference', but 'speed' is only 'absolute' wrt the each emitter INSIDE it's near/far field transition zone. (Maxwell's TZ). At the 2-fluid TZ it's changed to the 'far field' emitter reference datum c.

We may then think of c always as a local propagation SPEED (as SR) but one that changes when the next 'LOCALE' is in motion, to also be c there. (Doppler shifted). I have advised this takes much careful thought to first visualise, then assimilate. In the past you dismissed and ignored that advice. Perhaps if you also read the above posts carefully it may help this time. I'm trying to find a better way to explain the hierarchical kinetics. I hope you may eventually help with that.

One idea I have is that to make the clear distiction with 'emission theory' we call it 're-emission' theory. Once beyond the near field/TZ the speed has NO relation to the original emitter. Does that help visualise the DFM dynamics?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2013 @ 16:11 GMT
James,

Spot on (almost); A+. There is however no energy conservation issue because considering Time; my particle we'll call 'T' or 'Tom' receives the energy yours (we'll call it R or 'Ray') at different wavelengths, but can only compute frequencies, so 'gets the energy quicker', i.e. the energy it took your 1 second to emit arrives in 0.9 secs' Tom will then have more energy 'per second' than Ray emitted.

You can't give Tom any proof apart from logic, so he will, correctly believe all propagation is at c and has no access to anything other than propagation. So there are two DIFFERENT 'kinds' of speed, real and relative, but Tom makes the wrong assumption as he hasn't access to the information he assumes he has, the relative approach speed.

In practice? the DRM solution; If theorists simply use the (relativistic of course) Doppler shift equation for 'wavelength' not the one for 'frequency', as we've found essential in optics and astronomy. All the scores of paradoxes and anomalies evaporate.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
Einstein's Elevator

The following is an analysis where it is assumed that the force of gravity is constant and not decreasing with height. This is done to favor Einstein's elevator example. Quoting myself:

"The example is of a sequestered scientist inside a windowless elevator. The point stressed is that there is no way for the scientist to determine whether he is feeling the effect...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
We know there's a difference between gravity and acceleration, James. Einstein's result is that gravity and acceleration are *equivalent* physical phenomena.

They are.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
Another way to demonstrate the fact is through curvilinear acceleration -- artifcial gravity.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 16:04 GMT
The Force of Gravity

Quoting myself:

There is a claim by Einstein that because a person in free fall experiences no sense of being under the influence of a force there is for him no force of gravity. He is merely doing a natural thing as explained by the General Theory of Relativity. In General Relativity, the force of gravity does not need to be explained any more than does the experience of moving at a constant velocity with no resistance.

This claim, if correct, gives gravity a different nature than all other forces. Since gravity actually has the same nature as all other forces then Einstein's claim must be wrong. the error he made was to ascribe something to gravity that belongs to all acceleration. In principle, any body undergoing pure acceleration will feel nothing. The cause of the acceleration is not a factor if the acceleration is pure and complete in its application.

There is something felt during most accelerations so what is it? What is felt is distortion and compression. If a body is pushed on one side only, it will undergo compression. If a body is pushed at one small part only, it will undergo both compression and distortion. We feel the effects of changes of distance between our molecules and atoms. We feel nothing if all particles in our body accelerate in unison. During free fall due to gravity, in the ideal situation of assuming a constant gravitational force, all particles accelerate in unison. Of course we feel nothing. Analogous cases could be made for electrical and magnetic forces.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate