Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 9/15/10 at 13:31pm UTC, wrote Djarmel "I like very much the idea, you just defined the time and this...

Peter Jackson: on 9/15/10 at 13:23pm UTC, wrote Jason Signals implying a 'rate of change of position' of something do 'c',...

Djamel H.D: on 9/13/10 at 19:20pm UTC, wrote Hi, Peter "This may of course allow time to gradually speed up as the...

Jason Wolfe: on 9/13/10 at 19:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, While it might look like shadows or planets move faster than...

Djamel H.D: on 9/13/10 at 18:04pm UTC, wrote Hi,Jason The deep adea is to understand the fundamental concept of TIME as...

Peter Jackson: on 9/13/10 at 10:20am UTC, wrote Hi Djarmel It seems the vacuum ground state IS the dark energy level, but...

Peter Jackson: on 9/13/10 at 10:09am UTC, wrote Hi Jason You said "On the contrary, it proves everything. It proves that...

Jason Wolfe: on 9/11/10 at 23:40pm UTC, wrote I hope you will post your paper here. I'd like to read it. I agree with...



FQXi FORUM
October 16, 2017

ARTICLE: Readers' Choice: Much Ado About Nothing [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Feb. 19, 2010 @ 20:21 GMT
If one has an area/space devoid of particles, then this space is vaccum?..the fact there is no particles must mean that space_vacuum is Expanding. Think of extracting particles from a canister/vessel, one now creates a vacuum from extracting vessel particles, where there were particles, the less particles, the greater the vacuum, the more expansion inside the vessel?

Now take this area to be void of say electromagnetic_waves, or an absolute minimum excitation, then one has to class a wavelength as a particle, with no actual "wave" signal?

A small discrete "wave" cannot spread out in real time?..and must have "no" detectable wavelength?

p.v

It should be akin to identifying a single photon from a vast background of photons, to one where the background is effectivly photon free,ie a single photon in an empty area. The Photon rich area must have a signal where the whole photon source contributes to the detected wavelength signal, thus there are more waves than particles. Conversely, in a "single" photon with no other photon noise, it must be detected as a non spreading_out particle, of a discrete minimum wavelength.

Now it is interesting that Jacobson looks into the expanding vacuum Universe?..will the death throes of the Universe be a myriad of stretched wavelengths, or just a single discrete low Energy Photon in a low entropy flux?, and would one be able to distinguish this from the big-bang?

A question I have often pondered is this: Can one envisage Dark Energy as those 2particle" wavelegth energies being ripped apart, out of existence? the accelerated expansion is in effect cancelling out the Universes matter wavelegths?

There has to be two particles of any size in space fro there to be a spacetime?..a single particle in space has "nothing" to communicate to, time cannot surely exist if there is only discrete particles?

This can lead to the fact the Universe is only expanding on "quantum" scales?..not in physical spacetime? Logically the Quantum scale expansion is offset by the fact nothing is creating on macro scales, the Universe creation modes are all in the sub atomic scale, even though we look out up into the cosmos and "see" creation in nebular etc etc. There should be a method of detection in macro Nebular systems, are these area being fed/expanded from Quantum Sclae outwards or are they being collapsed via macro forces?

All very speculatevly interesting.

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Feb. 21, 2010 @ 04:16 GMT
Another nonstandard idea is that spacetime is continuous but not fully differentiable because the gravitational coupling parameter [G] can change by multiples of a very large discrete scaling factor. Thus the value of G would be different for the interior of an nucleus, the interior of neutron star, or the interior of a galaxy.

Although this idea offers the potential for a highly unified understanding of all observable domains and has considerable empirical support, it is summarily dismissed because it conflicts with the "universal" G assumption.

At some point in the future, the physics community might more objectively assess the reliability of the "universal" G assumption, and recognize the real potential of a discrete fractal cosmological paradigm.

Robert L. Oldershaw

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


joel rice wrote on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 16:47 GMT
There was a recent (dec 09) article by GFR Ellis & T. Rothman on Time and

Spacetime arguing that spacetime structure changes from indeterminate to

definite, and that "the arrow of time arises simply because the future

does not yet exist." That, together with some Clifford algebraic questions

about spacetime, seems to suggest that physics might have oversimplified

concepts of spacetime. Seems like more food for thought ?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2010 @ 12:59 GMT
I agree Joel.

And I suspect Ted J may be 'missing the wood among all the trees'. Try this;

If two bunches of protons and/or electrons are in relative motion in a vacuum, lets say they're astronaut shaped, would each have an equal right to say he's at rest other is in motion? SR says yes, So lets look closer;

Take two smaller bunches, and accelerate one to 0.99c. Do they both continue behaving exactly the same? Of course not, one develops a surrounding cloud of crazily oscillating photoelectrons (i.e. filling the LHC pipe to 'saturation' at 1013particles/mm-3. So much for SR's version of equivalence! Yet we still allow troglodyte relativist to keep teaching our children! Why? Because we haven't yet found a consistent alternative, and joined Reality and Locality to unify physics.

But try this; Perhaps the EM wave propagation speed 'C' really is constant, including within and with respect to each local cloud of oscillating quantum particles and the mass it surrounds. At whatever scale of 'Discrete Field' model (DFM) we care to look at.

Does that sound reasonable? Think about it carefully.

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 15:24 GMT
The bunch of fast-moving particles in the LHC is moving relative to an elaborate bunch of magnets and other equipment. SR does not claim an equivalence with a cloud of particles at rest wrt LHC.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 20:37 GMT
Ah! so Brendan, is the void, (the vacuum the particles are moving through), also moving?

If it is an 'immobile' field it was banned in 1915. If it does not exist then S.R. DOES claim equivalence, however big the bunch of protons (not just the 'cloud') is. If Ted Jacobsons Einstein Aether is anything like correct, which I agree it may well be, we must consider it as a 3rd 'background' inertial reference frame, however strong or weak the local magnetic field is.

So, as light does not travel at 'c' wrt the emitter, if there is no field what does it travel at 'c' wrt if there is no receiver yet?

So, for arguments sake, let's say Ted is correct and there a tensor -(dynamic)vector field, how do we acheive Equivalence??? (let's just consider our two floating astronaut shaped bunches of particles in relative motion).

Einstein's 1952 'Discrete Fields' (infinitely many spaces) in relative motion' (the 'dynamic' bit!) could derive it. Can anything else?? Might it therefore perhaps be worth testing?

Peter

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear Peter,

You said, "So much for SR's version of equivalence! " I think you are saying that equivalence breaks down. If you and I are both on rockets that pass each other at the speed .999c, if your rocket has a haze of crazy photo-electrons on it, but mine does not, then I can assume that you are the one who is moving really fast, not me? Is that what you're saying? If this is so, then could you refer me to an article that says that this has been confirmed?

Thanks

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Mr.Ed wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 12:56 GMT
If the light was traveling as either a wave or a particle,or both,could a kind of training or rear ending of photons boost some light ahead of some photons that are traveling independently of those those photons that have been emitted later or behind the initial burst?

What I'm trying to ask if if,for instance,you had two pencils on your desk.One would be short,one would be long.If they were traveling at the speed of light,would the point of the longer,reach,at an observation point,faster than the shorter.

Please bear with me,I'm trying to learn and conceive some of what you speak of.

If I may ask another silly question?Does time exist in an absolute Bose-Einstein condensate?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT
Hi Mr Ed.

Hopefully my reply to Jason has helped. If you haven't read it do so now.

The pencils would be seen at the same time. They couldn't actually travel at 'c' locally (no mass can), but if they're on Concorde, and moving from tail to nose next to a fibre optic cable keeping pace with a light pulse, (0.67c), someone in a nearby balloon could add the planes velocity to the pencils without worrying about the fibre optic cable ripping off the plane as it contracted!

But if you're learning physics don't try to tell anyone that as you'll be failed! It's essential to learn Relativity before exposing precisely what's wrong with it. And Einstein well knew the problem when he said;

"I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (letter to Born '44) And "one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory."

And importantly; "..it must now be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other." ('52).

Brilliant question about time in BEC. I haven't a clue as the best definition I've heard of time is Einsteins; that it exists to stop everything happening at once. For all practical purposes, yes, as there's no motion or energy. The term 'frozen in time' doesn't just apply to relativist academics!

They promised that when a more consistent theory came along, that unified physics, things would move on. It seems they were fibbing as they now seem incapable of recognising one!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

There is an idea that is forming in my mind, it's still a bit murky. But here goes.

Photons are wave functions that are emitted and travel in all direction at the speed of light. They have to demonstrate such flexibility because the universe must always appear to have a speed of light, c, that is absolute.

If, in a given volum of space, 99.99999999999999% of the mass/energy is traveling to the left at some velocity .8c, then all of the black body radiation will be emitted from a center of mass traveling at .8c. The one particle, one part in a zillion, that is traveling to the right at .8c, will emit photons as well.

It's not supposed to be possible to predict where the photon will be detected within an h-bar of accuracy. But is it possible that the photon from the loner particle might experience some pressure for the need to uhpold the appearance of a constant speed of light? In such a way as to create a bias?

I'm talking about physics here. Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 15:17 GMT
21.59 Post.

Certainly Jason; The particle moving to the right cannot do so at over 'c' wrt the 'field' it's in. i.e. If it 'hits' the front of the local field doing 0.8c to the left, then from our observers frame it would slow to 0.2c and it's dragged 'photoelectron' cloud (surrounding it's own tiny field), would increase and oscillate faster.

The photons it emits ahead would shift to gamma and go hardly anywhere, the ones behind would massively red shift, but both would be doing 'c' locally. If you think carefully you may see a link here! The lateral photons reaching us would also do so at 'c', whether or not they had to transform (between frames) in between.

We won't know exactly where any particular photon is any more than we could know exactly where a droplet of air will condense. We just know that where the dewpoint is reached the probability of condensation is increased. It's not rocket science!

(Or is it?)

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 00:10 GMT
Dear Peter,

I hope you don't mind, I am trying to formulate a possible explanation for gravity.

Virtual particles, by defintion, can't be detected. Just as a crazy thought, what happens if every particle and quantity of energy emits a virtual photon (virtual graviton?).

All particles detect these virtual photons. Particles want to be at inertial rest. They will take every virtual photon (graviton?) and perform a calculation which includes (1) how far away did it come and (2) how fast was it moving. Particles want to be at rest with respect to everything around; so that when they emit a virtual photon, that particle will be at rest with respect to the emitted virtual photon that travels out as a wave front.

If there is a planet, star or black hole very close tot he particle, it will receive a significantly higher number of virtual photons (gravitons) that will skew the particle's calculation, giving the appearance that the position of rest is in the direction of the planet, star, blackhole, etc..

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 15:41 GMT
OK Jason, reply to Last Post. 00.10

I think your idea has the same chance of being right a loopy quantum gravity or knotty strings. The latter 2 can't be falsified as they both predict the same as Relativity, unlike the DFM, that predicts superluminal motion, (M87 etc), 3yr plus lensing delays, Voyager anomalies etc.

I did also look brifly at quantum mechanisms consistent with the DFM, but few were excluded. If you'd like to see it check out; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

It does also suggest centres of mass might have zero not infinite gravity, rather like the 5 Lagrangian points at the local centres of mass around our sun/earth/moon etc, system. We constructed a 7m ton symmetrical test bed a while ago and it seemed to check out with microgravimmetry, but difficult to prove anything. It's at Cheops if you'd like to try yourself, but I'm quite busy and don't like wasting too much time on the unfalsifiable.

I hope this has all helped.

As both Einstein and Feynman suggested, It would be simpler to understand if you were 8. But of course seemingly impossible for a 60yr old professor!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 02:26 GMT
Dear Peter,

I think a Discrete Field Theory model would just about send Occam, and his razor, running out of the physics department, screaming. Ive considered variations of DFM; I agree that its a lot closer to the truth then anything we have so far. But if we were relying upon a simple explanation to explain the universe, I suspect that no simple AND complete description of the universe exists.

As for hyper-drive physics, we might have to hire a contractor that actually lives/exists in hyper-space. With our space-time space-ship, and a

hyper-space component of the spaceship, it might be possible to creatively get the two parts to couple in a way that removes our spaceship from space-time.

I wouldn't buy any hyper-drive stock this year; it's going to take a while to figure this stuff out.

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 00:25 GMT
Dear Peter,

Please forgive my obsession with hyper-drives. I believe that it provides a useful tool to help figure out what the physical universe is all about. Causality and conservation of energy are held as absolute in my models; everything else can be changed, but only if I can explain it.

For example, DFM is a usable in my hyper-drive approach. Let's say that I want to build a hyper-drive similar to the ones in the movie Independence Day. I want spaceships that can hover and glide over cities. Allow me to list my assumptions.

First: I assume the existence of a hyperspace that is very similar to our space-time, with c'>>c, and I can change the Planck constant.

Second: Such a hyper-space has its own photons, charges, etc. But that hyper-space is un-coupled with our space-time.

Third: I can control the coupling however I want, so long as I can explain the consequences in some plausible way.

Here is what I get. I need two spaceships, one in our space-time (STSS), and one in hyper-space (HSS). They coupling occurs via a trans-dimensional DFM generator. When the appropriate amount of energy is supplied, the DFM generator can transition the STSS and the space around it, and move it into hyper-space as sort of a space-time bubble. The energy requirement of this transition will have to account for gravity effects, and the mass of the STSS, will have to be converted into an effective hyper-space mass using E=mc2=m'c'2.

The transdimensional energy field will remove the STSS from our universe. That will permit a hyper-drive propulsion system to operate with a very reasonable amount of energy. There is just the energy gap to move the STSS into hyper-space, and the energy cost to shift the gravitational burden from the STSS to the HSS.

For transitions of energy between two universes, I'm not allowed to violate energy conservation. If I do, it will generate a gravity field between the two universes.

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 00:05 GMT
Maybe another way to think of the Discrete Field Theory is that space itself always follows mass & energy. Even if it's dark matter that we can't see, which has a gravity field. I find it hard to explain dark energy which makes the universe expand faster than it should. Maybe dark energy is coming from a spigot somewhere, and somebody forgot to turn it off.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 09:53 GMT
It's 'Model' Jason; 'Discrete Field Model' (DFM) rather than 'theory'. That's because it simply arranges what we already know to build something that works better, rather than postulating any unfalsifiable 'ideas'.

The other key is that, uniquely, it predicts things that the old SR without the DFM mechanism does not, and all those predictions are borne out, solving a few anomalies.

That space always follows mass/energy is pretty well the basis of GR, which the DFM modified SR, allowing quantum fields, does indeed work far better with.

Don't be concerned at not understanding dark energy! It's a bit like the Greeks not understanding electricity. The more we learn about it the better we'll know it, but we may never anyway fully understand it!

Frankly, considering the rut we're stuck in, the chasm between Relativity and QFT, unless the present powers that be in physics can eshew old 'belief' based science we'll probably run out of time before we have a chance to get to know dark energy!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear Peter,

I don't think we're going to run out of time. I think we're going to be stuck here for as long as it takes to figure this out. If physics was logical, we would have figured it out by now. But it's not. It's mathematical, we think.

M87 is far away, luckily. So if the image of the universe was going to become skewed in someway, then the whole galaxy would be deformed and scaled to 6c. Instead, the galaxy obeys c, but the jet appears to cross space at 6c. On the same link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion, what is being described just isn't rational. It's not logical that c should be the speed limit, but the jet travels at 6c.

If you have a frame moving within a frame, multiple times, then something has to give. Transitioning between a 6c frame and a 1c frame has to involve a cost of some kind.

Ultimately, frames have to pass photons back and forth to tell each other that their there. If they didn't, we wouldn't see the jet at all. It would be invisible.

Since people and planets could not survive long enough to observe the oncoming jet, let's just imagine a proton in the eye of some unlucky alien astronomer who is looking at the black hole through his telescope on some space station. He is watching the black hole. And then, without any visual warning, he and his space station are vaporized by the 6c jet of energy.

The proton from his now disintegrated eye happens to observe extreme blue shifting. The proton would begin to experience extreme forces of acceleration as it is accelerated from a 1c frame to a 6c frame. As luck would have it, the jet struck at a slight angle, and kicked the proton to the side, back down to a 1c frame. In falling back to a 1c frame, the proton experienced massive red shifting for a short time.

Technically, the inside of the event horizon should be faster than light. However, anything that falls in should remain within a 1c frame, locally. Even if that 1c frame is very brief.

Does this help?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 17:16 GMT
Hi Jason.

"I think we're going to be stuck here for as long as it takes" - But, as Hawking says, we have to be bright enough to deal with what the universe may throw at us, and if we're stuck in a rut we're not that bright!

"Transitioning between a 6c frame and a 1c frame has to involve a cost of some kind."

True. Each transition is an FM process of wave particle interaction, Doppler shifting the signal. But remember; The information being transmitted to us is about position, it doesn't contain the information in the signal whose relative positions over time we're observing. It's the same as observing a shadow line retreating on a curve. It can do so at well over 'c' without being Lorentz invariant. But the human race is not quite bright enough to perceive that yet.

"..without any visual warning, he and his space station are vaporized"

But as you say, the 'c' stream will have to reach him before the stream doing 'c' wrt the first, so he'd be 'gradually' accelerated. He'd eventually get back into a rest frame, then slowly decelerate (though the jet is over 100 light years long!).

The interesting thing about Discrete Fields is that they actually prove the SR postulates correct - the error was in the assumed mechanism for Equivalence, - which then demanded length contraction and Sagnac invariance! It's really just unifying a dark energy medium with local EM and gravity fields, to unify SR with QM. Perhaps it's all just tooo simple for us! - but I'm impressed you've grasped the concept.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 30, 2010 @ 06:42 GMT
Dear Peter,

"Perhaps it's all just tooo simple for us!" I would be laughing my butt off if my head didn't hurt from thinking about it. Simple? Simple to who? Or what? The more I think about it, I think discrete fields makes sense. I'm trying to wrap my brain around some kind of virtual photon like mechanism that transmits information (probability) between particles. The concept is bigger than my head is; but I think entropic gravity, space, and wave functions have more to do with each other than we suspect. It's as if Information (yes or no/definitiveness) travels at the speed of light; however, maybies and perhapses travel much faster. Perhaps you call it discrete fields, but the way I visualize it, it's like another kind of photon emission/absorption; such that it transmits and receives information.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wlolfe replied on Apr. 30, 2010 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Peter,

The Discrete Field Model basically says that physical matter generates its own space, right? If so, then the hyper-drive becomes simple. Let's call physical matter: matter A. Let's called hyper-space matter, matter B. So B matter generates B hyper-space, and A matter generates space-time.

I build my spaceship with material from both A and B matter. I have some kind of A to B interconnecting matter/force. The inside of my spaceship, computers, Captain's chair, etc., are made out of A matter. The outside hull and the engines are made out of B matter. If the A matter is completely cutoff from the rest of the physical universe of A matter, then B matter (hyper-space matter) can reach multiples of the speed of light (our speed of light).

For such an arrangement, we can now go trekking across the galaxy!

Warp 9 Mr. Sulu.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 2, 2010 @ 18:51 GMT
Hi Jason

Interestingly 8year olds seem to understand it quickest!

They know if they ride their bike on a bus they can't ride it faster, but will get there faster than their freind riding on the road.

Just think of each EM field as a bus that EM waves can only do 'c' through.

The FM process of getting on and off the bus through the turnstile (Doppler shifting) is simple too. We all have FM radio's. If an EM wave has to get past the oscillator it can only do so at the oscillators frequency. We know that already!

Feynman was spot on; "nature will always find a simpler way than man can imagine." and "the answer will at first look complicated but then very simple."

Actaully we could 'anagram' the first to say something like; "Nature can't imagine how simple man will always be found."

It's probably our belief system that's at fault, and that we call it 'science'.

No, sorry, it doesn't support your hyperdrive mechnism. If you really want to chase that you must Focus on M87, Ted J's columnar motion, and fields within fields, and don't be distracted by fools gold or red herrings.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 4, 2010 @ 03:12 GMT
Hi Peter,

"It's probably our belief system that's at fault, and that we call it 'science'."

Perhaps nature is just very very strange. And perhaps we are all slow and hesitant to admit the truth.

I find myself a little bit obsessed by the Discrete Field Model. I keep thinking there is a constant flow of information between particles/waves. Information would transmit, at the speed of light, from the source to the receiving particle. The only constant speed of light would be the signaling that occurs. The speed of light is only relative to the particle or wave that emitted it. This "information flow" is space itself. It's not black body radiation that is causing space. If there were wave function interactions at work, would they go unnoticed? I'm still trying to pin down the difference between information and probability. Physics information really should be definitive (1's and 0's); yes or no...right? Probabilities are really just "maybies", dice...

For the Messier 87 jet, it probably really is accelerated to 6 or 7c. The front end of the jet, traveling at 7c, is also emitting a wavefront at one more c.

I wish there were pictures of something getting engulfed by the jet. That would tell us something about how FTL events interact with everything else.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 6, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT
I hope you don't mind me thinking out loud. So particles of matter basically broadcast to each other using virtual photons perhaps. They broadcast their position and motion to everything else around them. Together, they reach a consensus about what their group motion should be, thus establishing a frame of reference. When something flies by at larger than the speed of light, such as M87, gravitational forces prevent anything from violating the local speed of light requirement. I'll try to articulate that a little better.

I have a spaceship, but I build its hull out of a fast-space-time material, such that this material has virtual hyper-fast photons. This fast-hull material prevents the atoms/particles of the spaceship from broadcasting/receiving position/momentum information from stuff that is outside. The spaceship is isolated. The fast-hull material, interfaces with a coexisting hyper-space, and obeys that hyperspace's laws of physics. If the spaceship is traveling at .5c' where c' = 100c, and someone exposes the spaceship to standard space-time, there will be massive gravitational forces that slow the spaceship down to sub light speed.

Playing around with this example might make it possible to understand the physics of M87.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 20:03 GMT
Hi Jason

J; "Perhaps nature is just very very strange"

No, I've found Occam, and Feynman, spot on, but reality may always seem strange at first when we've had it so wrong for so long.

I find it interesting to read such a varied take on the model. But you do drif off base; J;"The speed of light is only relative to the particle or wave that emitted it".

That's false. 'c' is constant irrespective of speed of emitter. The relationship between wave (signal) speed and frequency is inverse and constant. It then follows that for frequency to change between frames (red or blue shift) the speed must have changed between frames/fields - which it does to maintain 'c' locally across frames in relative motion.

This is logically certain. It's also logically certain that you'll have to read it again more slowly a few times to really understand it because it's too simple.

J;"Probabilities are really just "maybies", dice..." Probablities really may be quite simple Jason. There is a variability range in a wave. Imagine you're floating in the ocean, at any one moment your position may be anywhere on any wave, both your position and the likelihood of water being over your head will depend on where you are and whether youre going up or down. It's only uncertain as we don't know where the peaks are. Nothing could be simpler!

J;"The front end of the jet, traveling at 7c, is also emitting a wavefront at one more c." Technically correct, but within a nanosecond it must be slowed to the local 'c' by frequency modulation by the dense oscillator shock propagated.

J;"So particles of matter basically broadcast to each other using virtual photons perhaps."

Hmmm. A better way to percieve it is in terms of Maxwells magnetic fields. It's oft ignored, but Maxwells equations are local, stay with the core mass, and are at any scale within each other. The field of an electron in a collider moves within the magnets fields, which is within the pipes filed, which is within the earths field, which is within the suns (solar systems)field (heliosphere) etc etc. And all move relative to each other - exactly as Einstein said; "..'space' is actually infinately many 'spaces in relative motion". He just didn't quite manage the leap from sets of co-ordinates to discrete fields.

You could think of it as just another property of Maxwells EM field. The new postulate to complete SR and rid ourselves of all the parasitic paradoxical nonsense is; " The speed of EM waves ('c') is locally constant within all EM fields in relative motion."



And sorry Jason. It won't help you build a practical hyperdrive, and even a hyperhighway would still be very dicey, as you noticed. But it would probably be a little more useful than that if enough of humankind ever became intelligent enough to recognise it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 8, 2010 @ 02:30 GMT
Dear Peter,

Oh, I'm not giving up on the hyper-drive. I'm just trying to grasp what the laws of physics are really saying to us; what the experiments, like M87, are trying to tell us.

"Imagine you're floating in the ocean, at any one moment your position may be anywhere on any wave, both your position and the likelihood of water being over your head will depend on where you are and whether youre going up or down. " Are you talking about probability waves? Or electromagnetic energy waves. In my opinion, probability waves really are electromagnetic waves when there are too few photons too go around. It's like the universe shooting the dice to decide which bill collector to hand the money (energy) to.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 8, 2010 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear Peter,

So when we use a Discrete Field Model, we mean space A moving at some velocity v_A compared with space B moving at v_B...Discrete reference frames.

OK, I have a question. Why are black holes black? It sounds like I'm making a joke, but I'm serious. Answer: the speed of light, c, is just too slow to escape the gravitational force of the black hole.

Here is another question: is the event horizon black all the way down until an observer is centimeters from the event horizon? The reason I ask is because I'm exploring a possible scenario. For a photon of energy E=hf_1, doesn't it give up energy trying to escape out of a gravity well?

If I drop your car into a blackhole (how could I be so mean) as it crosses the event horizon, every particle in your car gets converted into energy, gamma rays, right? After all, shouldn't protons and neutrons give us back gamma rays as energy? But we only see X-rays, which don't have as much energy as gamma rays.

I'm trying to make the argument that photons loose energy when they climb out of a gravity well. I'm also trying to make the argument that two inertial reference frames, A and B, will differ by some gravitational potential energy. I want to use this idea to figure out what happens when that 6c jet comes into contact with some slow moving particles. Yes, I remember what you told me about the slowly changing reference frame. I am trying to relate that to a gravitational potential energy. Basically, some kind of Doppler shifting.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 8, 2010 @ 06:26 GMT
In a deSitter universe, even if we start off with zero temperature, the system will converge to the deSitter temperature. There's no globally timelike Killing vector in deSitter space, and so, no state with minimum energy.

Consider a patch of a deSitter universe with some volume, and let the universe expand twice in size, and now subdivide the volume into two. Does the entropy double? The entropy of each half remains the same as the original entropy, but the total entropy of expanded volume is the sum of the entropy of the individual parts plus the "mutual entropy" describing correlations. In quantum theory, because of quantum entanglement, this mutual entropy can be negative. So, the sum could actually remain constant despite the expansion.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 07:50 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

I looked up Killing vector; the definition has something to do with preserving the metric. I think what that means is that a Killing Vector preserves the distance from Boston to Seattle (3000 miles or so), no matter how you travel it. But you said that there is no globally timelike Killing vector for deSitter space. I think that means the distance between two points, I assume two far away points, is not absolutely required to be preserved.

I have suspected that some forms of FTL travel might change the perceived distance, but I am not sure exactly how.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 8, 2010 @ 06:42 GMT
Peter,

I think I've figured out how hyper-drive physics is set up, and how to unify GR and QM. OK, I'm still excited and haven't entirely thought it through, but it's very simple.

The speed of light c, is absolute. Whether you are an M87 jet traveling 6c or a hyper-drive space ship going 30c, you can still shine your headlights. Now remember, there is no time travel allowed. No matter how fast you go, you can't violate causality.

So you're Captain Pickard, and you're shining your laser ahead of you. Whatever comes out of the HeNe laser, it's moving away from Captain Pickard's head, and is being received by the observer at the speed of light, c. But something funny happens. As Capt Pickard passes the observer, moving 30c, the wave front from the laser are striking the detector at speed c. However, the energy from each peak is going to be smeared out. What was once a laser point is now going to have its energy smeared out into a line, an energy per unit angle (or unit length). Does "smearing" sound familiar? Doesn't quantum mechanics, in effect, smear the location of the particle?

While Capt Picard is approaching, his laser would be massively blue shifted. Likewise, as he passes by and moves away, massively red shifted.

My comment about energy from each wavefront being smeared out, it has a quantum mechanics feel to it.

I'll have to sit down with a pencil/paper and see if I can't quantify it a little better. But I think this way, c remains absolute.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 8, 2010 @ 10:00 GMT
I'd like to take another stab at hyper-drive physics. Let's say that my spaceship has a mass of 100 metric tons. I need to calculate the entropy of my spaceship, basically, the number of protons, neutrons, electrons, ... Each of those particles has to be coupled to its existence in space-time + an interface with hyperspace (one for each particle). I have to multiply that times some coupling energy. I have to be able to generate such a coupling field, one for space-time and one for hyperspace. If I reduce my coupling energy for space-time, then my spaceship vanishes into hyperspace.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 17:56 GMT
Phew! There's a lot there Jason.

J;"In my opinion, probability waves really are electromagnetic waves"

Probability waves are of course a metaphysical description, but seem an obvious probabilistic analogue of the fluctuation of properties in real em waves. The simple model of condensed 'particles' works well with both, perhaps as concentrations of the energy of the dark energy/EM...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 8, 2010 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear Peter,

I do appreciate you patience with me on these topics. When I think about what's happening around black holes, it warps my head. My gut tells me that geodesics will diverge wildly, like rays of light through a glass sphere. I will tread with humbleness around black holes. Before I can trust my intuition, I have to make sure I understand the universes priorities: local speed...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 12, 2010 @ 06:45 GMT
OK Peter, maybe the aliens were a bit over the top. I was using them as a communication prop. But I guess that didn't go over very well. I thought of a simpler way to accommidate a hyper-drive, I'm tyring to figure out an easy way to explain it. I am wondering if gravity potential and/or gravity flux lines might prove useful.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 17, 2010 @ 12:52 GMT
Hi Jason

Sorry about delay. I was off doing some wave and bow shock experiments with my 42 footer.

Your silver box reminded me of 'Unishift'; a machine I 'built' at college. Having accepted the limit of 'c' my hero Cedric Slide (Slide rules ok!) realised that he didn't have to move himself at all to go 'superluminal'.

As there was nothing outside, or 'around' the universe there was nothing to stop it moving, so it would take virtually no energy to move it! All he then had to do was keep himself motionless and move the universe around! The trouble was there could only ever be one machine to do it. He built it and called it 'Unishift'. It was a bit like a short tv remote. It only moved in short jumps as he had to check out there was no space junk to hit him, - the same problem with columnar field motion in gas jets.

The point is we can all invent little boxes. Actually proving they can DO something is different. If I had a pound for every crazy idea that had no basis in reality ..I'd be fatter than Jabba the hut!

Interestingly the gravitational potential thing may have potential elsewhere. See the current new scientist, where they've found what appears to be a massive anomalous shock around a massive object, and postulate it's related to its gravity field. Of course the DFM predicts exactly what they've found, but does that make the gravity field bit nonsense? Perhaps not entirely; If we're continuing Einsteins quest for a unified field theory - there is little to stop the em field of an object being related in some way to the gravitional field, and indeed it's the etherosphere that ensures conservation of energy in the Doppler shifting process.

Food for thought. Combined 3 way local fields, moving with all mass, whose magnitude increases with relative velocity through the interstellar medium, and em waves can't travel through it at anything but 'c'.

Exactly what we observe, except without anomaly. Maybe they have a point.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 17, 2010 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Peter,

I hope you don't mind if I repeat part of my post from the blog. I started with the principle of invariant light speed.

If the speed of light in a vacuum is always an invariant c, which is independent of the state of motion, can't I rewrite that to say the following:

1. All relative motion is made possible by signaling with photons (virtual or real), which move at speed c.

If you all can agree to that. what about this?

2. Space-time itself is emergent.

3. Without the constant flow of photons (virtual or real) emitted and absorbed between each and every particle, there can be no relative position or flow of time between them. There is no final arbiter of position or time; there is no object called space-time. There is only the continuous flow, the constant signaling at the speed of light, by virtual/real photons.

4. Geometry itself in emergent from photons.

Lawrence Crowell has been modeling the surface physics of black holes and the entropy (information content) relationship to surface area. I borrowed some of this and came up with a hypothetical fifth force which I am calling: M2 holographen.

Holographene would be able to pass, block, regulate or translate the information flow that crosses the closed surface around any object. You can also think of holographene as a thought experiment tool to better understand the physics.

Let's say we have a spaceship that is orbiting the earth. For that spaceship to exist in space-time, there has to be a continuous bidirectional flow of physics information between it, the planet below, and everything else around it. The flow of physics information would be in the form of virtual and real photons which move at c. We can easily imagine a closed surface around this spaceship. objects beyond that closed surface will accept and receive virtual photons from the spaceship. It is these virtual photons that make it possible for the spaceship to be physically real to objects around it (like space debris, radiation, meteors, other spaceships, the planet, the moon, etc...).

If I replace this imaginary closed surface with a fifth force called holographene, that holographene is in a position to regulate or even block the flow of virtual/real photons that cross its surface. In this way, it may be possible to hide or cloak the spaceship from view.

It may also be possible to create a type of holographene that can translate "physics information" into hyperspace format. In doing so, the spaceship would be removed from space-time, and become an object in hyperspace; affording it all rights and privileges of a faster speed of light, c.

"I was off doing some wave and bow shock experiments with my 42 footer." Lucky you! Did you catch any fish?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 18, 2010 @ 16:27 GMT
Hi Jason

I was off doing some wave and bow shock experiments with my 42 footer. "Lucky you! Did you catch any fish?"

No, the worms wouldn't stay on the hook. I was testing the Lorentz transformation. At the edges of the Solent the water flows slowly and they're easy to catch. Out in the deep bit the current goes at a hell of a lick. The fish swim along with it at exactly the same speed (call it 'sea'), but are doing v + v wrt me!

Heindrick was wrong. The fish always swim at 'sea' LOCALLY!

So 'sea' is constant, and we can OBSERVE them from a distance doing v + v, but if we try to drop a baited hook in, the bait immediately slows to the local speed of 'sea'.

But the waves were doing a different speed to the water. They always do. (Many don't understand that). And there were waves on waves on waves on waves, superposed at all sizes. But information transfer was all at 'sea'.

Now your holographene;

It looks a bit like a silver box I saw recently - but nice thinking none the less. I think your first postulate is false for reasons of cause and effect. EM waves (whether parcelled up in local lumps or not) don't 'make anything possible', but are 'created by' motion. If they ceased to exist there would be no motion so no energy so nothing would exist.

Then you can travel as fast as you like. (but you wouldn't get anywhere).

Now if we managed to clear a bit of interstellar medium of all its vacuum energy and stuff, get the 2.7 degrees down to zero, then stuff could maybe go through it faster than 'c'!!

In fact, if you carried a big fridge that would do it, clear the interstellar medium away, freeze and/or hoover up the dark energy, and we've cracked it!

We could call it 'Freeze Drive').

Simple enough?!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 22, 2010 @ 02:10 GMT
Hi Peter,

Virtual photons are actually what implements electromagnetism, and coulomb charges. Virtual photons, as opposed to real photons, have action less then the Planck constant. For tactile contact, charges comes close to charges and virtual photons kick in. In fact, virtual photons are carriers of causality.

I'm not sure what to call the universe that we seem to live in. The Ocean of Cause and Effect. The Ocean of kx-wt. The aether. The Giant Universal Photon. Space-time is not a crystal because crystals are hard and not relativistic. But there have to be eigenstates for frames of motion.

Look at the derivation for the Cosmological constant. It was off by some 120 orders of magnitude. I think I know why. Most of those eigenstates go unused. However, when M87 erupts with this humoungously violent amount of energy, those eigenstates fill up pretty quickly, and new space-time is created. In fact, it can be created as fast as six times the speed of light.'

What do you think?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 22, 2010 @ 15:28 GMT
Hi Jason

Interesting thought process, but I'm a firm believer in falsifiable reality, so it's of in a direction I only see as fanciful, based on some iffy assumptions and concepts, like the interesting one that "virtual photons 'impliment' em". Use the word 'virtual' and you're straight back through the looking glass, which is not the way to correct physics!

No, I don't think the energy of the gas jets creates more space time either. You cannot create of destroy matter or energy, only convert it. It is always conserved but it may be spreading out, in which case I predict the 2.7 degree temperature of dark energy field is reducing. If GR is correct this would also make time go faster, (less gravity) so maybe not just something we perceive we imagine!

M87 is all about columnar 'fields within fields' streaming motion, which is very simple. we only observe rate of change of position. Nothing is Lorentz invariant locally.

I've considered your crazy superluminal drive a little more and beleive the 'Freeze drive' can be the only answer. All the time that stuff at 2.7 degrees is there I beleive you won't crack it. But if you can drive a tube through it, or suck it in, use the energy, and chuck it out the back, then you may be in business.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 23, 2010 @ 12:22 GMT
Hi Peter,

I was thinking about that M87 jet. You said "columnar fields" but I was envisioning cylindrical fields, cylinders within cylinders.

The virtual photon implementation of causality might be "looking glass" physics, but it's not necessarily wrong. If particle to particle interactiveness and causality is caused by virtual photons, one has to ask: what frequencies? You remember how the cosmological constant derivation was off by 120 orders of magnitude? That puzzle piece fits. But here is what happens, the virtual photons have to range from a few hertz to 10^18 (gamma rays). There is a range of frequencies (energies) that allow space-time and causality to be implemented.

I mentioned the cylinders within cylinders. In order to maintain the speed of light, those frequencies have to span the cylinder thickness. I'll explain more later.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 23, 2010 @ 16:36 GMT
The reason I am talking about a range of virtual photon frequencies, from f0 to fmax, is because I want to require that the velocity of light is always c within this range. Withing this range, there can be blue shifting towards fmax or red shifting towards f0. For multiple layers of sliding cylinders of space-time, the inner cylinders might be able to reach higher velocities than c, relative to the outside. But they are outside of the range from f0 to fmax, and therefore, they are not in touch causally speaking because there are no photons outside of these two ranges.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 23, 2010 @ 17:17 GMT
Jason

Very good, and yes, cylinders is a good analogue, but what would happen is;

Each cylinder wall would contain a range of frequencies, a 'spectrum', graded from inside to out, because each cylinder lives in a dynamic universe where it's outer skin is doing close to'c' wrt it's neighbour, and being slowed, and the inner skin is effectively doing close to 'c' the other way, and being accellerated by it's inner neighbour with fresh impetus. ('Impetus' being that stuff we had before Newton and 'momentum'!).

But in reality Max Planck rules, and the whole columnar structure (actually Ted Jacobsons word - I used to use the 'stream/flow' analogue) is a graded speed thing, ok, just like the centre of a stream moving faster than beside the banks.

No particle is doing more than 'c' in it's own locl bit of the universe. Have you considered the fact that Maxwells em is only a 'local' theory. It is entirely incomplete when it comes to considering the relationship between the many fields within fields we have in reality. That's where the DFM completes it.

Any more thoughts on my Freeze Drive concept? Shall we develop it together?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 24, 2010 @ 04:08 GMT
Hi Peter,

Freeze drive? Uh, er, well, it's catchy! I don't think we'll be able to transport FTL just by lowering the temp to 3 kelvin.

"Each cylinder wall would contain a range of frequencies, a 'spectrum', graded from inside to out"

Exactly!!! That, to me, sounds like the causality carrying virtual photons. If there are such things as virtual photons that implement relativity for space-time, is it too much to ask if there are virtual photons that implement relativity for a fast space-time (hyper-space)? Find that, figure out how to interface the two, then, whammo! You've got a spaceship inside of a closed surface; that closed surface is treated like a particle in hyperspace. Then, you've got it!

We can cool it down if you like.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 24, 2010 @ 09:38 GMT
Hi Jason

3k isn't low enough. Using e=mc2 it would have to be absolute 0 to get all the 'medium' out of the way to exceed 'c'. Lena Hau's lab at Harvard has already shown we can slow light down to whatever speed we want with supercooled BEC. In theory this should mean there would be no upper limit to mass either. No energy = no mass = no medium = no resistivity or brakes!

Essentially we're just clearing the interstellar medium out of the way, and using it's energy for propulsion.

And forget relativity - SR is wrong, which has misguided us for years. To complete Maxwells equations we need the link between locality (the equations are solely local) and reality that Einstein was latterly searching for. He got it right with his; "space without ether is unthinkable", (1921) and "ininitely many spaces (within spaces) ..in relative motion" (1952). This simply comes from nor letting the frequncy modulation (FM) function of virtual electrons (or 'photoelectons') go to waste. Nature doesn't waste things like that! The FM is what gives the doppler shift and keeps em waves at 'c' locally. Occam was right, it's simple. So, unfortunately it seems, are we!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 24, 2010 @ 21:28 GMT
Hi Peter,

The FM functions sounds interesting; it sounds similar to the frequency range f0 to fmax that I had mentioned.

Aether is a trick subject. Aether (exists-not exists) is like a symmetry unto itself. I have been pursuing the idea that photons (virtual or real) exist as that which implements the laws of motion, geometry, relativity, etc. I see the universe as an ocean of virtual photons, an ocean of light. If there is something behind virtual photons, such as the tessellation of dodecahedrachorons whose vertices and struts give us particles and forces, if such a thing exists, then it was here before the Big Bang, and is beyond our ability to grasp (physically anyway).

Clearing a path that is many light years long just doesn't sit well with me. I think our efforts would be more fruitful in trying to detect a coexisting hyper-space.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT
Peter,

Frequency Modulation function? You mean FM radio? How do you want to use it?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 08:41 GMT
Jason

Yup, FM as in radio. I thought you'd picked that up. - it's classic wave/particle interaction. A single oscillator will change the frequncy of fm waves (back to exactly what they were broadcast at) by using 'c' as the local constant.

Virtual electrons are oscillators (called 'photoelectrons' in accellerator physics). Have you considered when and why they propagate? You're not alone!

In the DFM the reason they propagate proportionally to the velocity of the mass they surround is that the Doppler shift needs to be greater to maintain 'c' in the new field (inertial frame). Obviously their frequency is also proportional to relative velocity between frames. We find them around all mass in motion; the quantum 'clouds' planetary shocks, galactic halo etc. Check them out. Physics is a lot simpler in reality that we thought!

now consider - speed relative to what!!?? Absolute speed is only ever relative to the local background medium/field. If you're sharp you'll have noticed Einsteins need to get rid of the ether 'field' for SR has now, at last, gone away (he brought it back for GR anyway - and said 'space without ether is unthinkable'-1921).

So FM keps 'c' constant locally, because nothing can go faster through the 'dark energy' (or whatever you want to call it) field. So, if we get rid of the field in front of us there's no speed limit - that IS hyperspace!

Freeze Drive would be different to the columnar expressway cleared in advance. It only has to clear the bit ahead of the craft as it goes along, and actually uses the dark energy for power. A bit like a jet - it sucks it in (reducing the 2.7 degrees to zero)and uses that energy to blast it out the back and suck in more.

i.e. Hyperspace is the only type of space without 'ether' or dark energy, and you can use the dark energy to use the space. It doesn't co-exist till we create it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 20:56 GMT
Hi Peter,

You have some interesting ideas I'd like to think about.

"So, if we get rid of the field in front of us there's no speed limit - that IS hyperspace!" Sorry, it is the virtual photons that make motion possible. However, what can be done is to remove the lower velocity velocity, revealing the higher velocity photons, hyperspace.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 26, 2010 @ 00:14 GMT
Peter,

FREQUENCY MODULATED INERTIA

I think I've got it!!! We already know about electromagnetism, photon, light, poynting vector, etc.

I have referred to virtual photons as being something that makes the laws of motion possible, but is not exactly a photon. It's also not exactly a graviton either, but it propagates locally at the speed of light.

But what is it that makes inertia work? What makes objects move in gravitational geodesics? I suppose the graviton (which implements gravity fields) will fill the piece of the puzzle, for now.

You don't need black holes or astronomically large amounts of energy to generate "inertial photons". "Inertial photons" will work like FM, frequency modulated, geodesic like forces. Transduction from electrical energy into gravitational energy would be possible.

By modulating the inerial field around an object, like a spaceship, you can make it weightless, you can also accelerate it.

With large enough field strengths, you should be able to overpower the naturally occurring inertial field. It would be a little bit like having base speakers and woffers under you spaceship. Electrical energy is converted into inertial/geodesic energy; more understandably, "inertial photons" would transmit equal and opposite force as a thrust.

I have said that time travel is impossible. It still is; there are no takebacks. However, it would be possible to build chambers that run time fast or or other chambers that run time slow. There would be hypernation chambers that don't freeze you; instead, they run time such that a 8 week trip might only feel like an hour. Other chambers would do the opposite. No time travel is possible. Aging rates would vary.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 26, 2010 @ 02:23 GMT
Hi Peter,

But how would someone reveal this frequency modulated inertia from the mathematical physics? When debris is falling into a black hole, it tends to orbit in a decaying orbit as it travels around a few times, eventually it falls in. From the point of view of the debris, it's just going along for the ride as it zips around the black hole. If the debris is really a spaceship with a beacon that emits a bright light, the photons heading down towards the event horizon will be blue shifted; the photons traveling away from the black hole have to climb out of the gravity well, they will lose energy to do so, and be redshifted.

The photon will always travel at the speed of light, locally. A gravity well is an acceleration field. Mathematically, the escaping photon will have to give up energy delta U = Int F(r)*ds = h(delta f). What happens to the photon if it runs out of frequency (energy) before it can escape the black hole? Where does its energy go? It's not reflected back down to the black hole, I don't think. That energy is lost to the gravity field. But what does the gravity field do with it? Oops, the gravity field belongs to the black hole. If energy is lost to the gravity well, then that energy is gained by the black hole, even if it's indirectly throught the gravity field, right? Rest assured that the spaceship that is going around the black hole, it will gain kinetic energy as it falls in. It gets that energy from the black hole (it's gravity field). How much energy/mass content could I extract from the black hole before I violate thermodynamics by robbing the black hole of energy?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 26, 2010 @ 04:43 GMT
Hey Peter,

I liked your frequency modulation idea. I wanted to develop it with my idea of Frequency Modulated Inertia. I am copying what I wrong in the blog area.

I would like to measure the time dialation of relative gravitational potential. I want to define a new measuring unit, the Spectrum. A Spectrum is the frequency difference between a high energy gamma ray (10^18Hz) and 1 Hz (or DC).

I want to measure from somewhere above the event horizon of some black hole somewhere to the gravity field of somewhere safe out of its reach. Here is how I will do the measurement. A gamma ray is emitted above the event horizon, it climbs the gravity well, losing energy in the process. Eventually, it will run out of energy at 1Hz, that is 1 Sp (one spectrum). At that position, another gamma ray is emitted and travels higher out of the energy well until it's depleted. How many spectra does it take to get from the event horizon to someplace safe? One or two spectra? Can we take the same measurement inside of the blackhole? How many spectra from the event horizon to the geometric center? I'm guessing maybe several hundred spectra.

It is these spectra that determine relative time dialation. The same measurement can be made for two objects passing each other at relativistic velocities. As they pass each other, it should be possible to measure the number of spectra between them.

I'll explain more later. But I want to call this Frequency Modulated Inertia (FMI).

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 26, 2010 @ 08:53 GMT
Peter,

I think I've got it! I think I know how to generate an artificial gravity wave. You gave me the idea of frequency modulation. Let me explain...

When a photon falls into a gravity well, it's blue shifted, right?

When a photon emerges out of gravity well, it's red shifted, yes?

Is it physically possible to build a machine that will generate a photon? Yes, stupid question. It's called a laser. I want to add a voltage controlled oscillator to my photon generating machine. This VCO has to take a series of voltage ramps (sawtooth?) and feed it into the photon generating machine. Here is the hard part. That photon generating machine has to output photons whose frequency goes from 1Hz to 10^18Hz, in a linear fashion, inside of a second. I think there is a sweet spot at which the photon disappears and the gravity wave emerges.

What say you?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 26, 2010 @ 10:05 GMT
Hi Peter,

Do you think that a small cylindrical magnetic bottle of quark plasma might be responsive to that range of frequencies?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 26, 2010 @ 11:02 GMT
Jason

I love your enthusiasm and don't want to dampen your conceptual fire, but any worthwhile theory must be based on reality, on firm foundations, not quicksand. There is a way ahead, but based on science not just invention!

Take a closer look at 'virtual photons' so you understand them properly before relying so much on imaginary properties. You say; "Sorry, it is the virtual photons that make motion possible". They have indeed been described that way, and may suit your idea but it's a poor, indeed false, conception and description. Look at the Baez description under 'renormalisation', and consider accellerators. Both the accelerated particles and the magnets field grow a cloud of them proportional to speed, and it's their oscillation that both holds the acceleration energy imparted and prevents them reaching 'c' wrt the background field.

Indeed, in a way it is they that PREVENT any motion faster than 'c'! You cannot credibly rely on them as the 'magic bullet' you need.

However. They can only prevent C+ motion wrt the dark energy field. Remove that energy just in front of the craft and 'the universe is your lobster'!

Your FMI is very close to the shift Christian Doppler gave us an equation for. The inertia, or momentum (as they are synonomous) energy is conserved by the shift when the waves, or 'wave packet' photons, move between frames.

Another point - Black Holes; As your photon is starting outside the event horizon we will be able to see it, that is the definition of the event horizon. If it's in our visible range and starts just inside the event horizon; it will be red shifted (FMI) to just below the trigger level of energy our eyes can register. Now we must remember our arrogance! The part of the spectra (spectrum) our eyes can anyway pick up is infinitessimally small compared to the whole! This means the red giants we see may really be mega big neutron stars, but with so much gravity the gamma rays reach us at the bottom end of our visible spectrum. If they're bigger still, or emitt at a lower frequency, they're outside our visible spectrum and we call them black holes. (we can however sometimes pick up infra red and radio frequencies from them).

I think you need to forget the old 19th century 'messenger particles' concept to achieve real 21st century physics.

Lastly - photons can only change frequency by changing speed, which is what they do going into glass and water for instance, and is why 'c' is a constant locally when it changes speed between frames. Take that fully on board and the answers will flow.

I hope this will help.

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 26, 2010 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Peter,

I value your thoughts and ideas; you have no idea how hard it is to find someone with both technical genius and merciful of enthusiasm. With respect to generating gravity waves, I think I am right.

If you stress electromagnetic fields in the right way, the energy will take the path of least resistance to dissipate that energy; they will generate a gravity wave. From gravity waves to hyper-drives, it is just the advancing technical implementation of electronics. The very fact that electrons have clouds is an indication that the laws of physics are not as precise as we expect them to be. If they were, everything would be classical. The laws of motion permit fuzziness, but they will work at the speed of light to dissipate regional stress points by moving energy around to ease the stress point(s). This is where we take the advantage. We have to generate electromagnetic fields that stress space time to the point where it is easier to convert it to a gravity wave. This is my understanding of how that works.

We need a long cylinder of gluon plasma. We are going to turn it into a gravity laser. The quark-gluon plasma is highly responsive to the full spectrum of frequencies from 1 Hz all the way up to 10^18Hz (gamma rays). You have to pump a high voltage AC into the quark-gluon plasma. You are going to use a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) to generate a frequency range that goes from 1Hz to 10^18 Hz in a modified linear fashion. You are going to do this over and over again, like a sawtooth waveform. You are trying to generate the appearance of a photon that gains or loses energy as it would in a gravity field. You are looking for the stress-point at which energy will dissipate more easily as a gravity wave then it will as a photon. Photons operate in both the frequency domain and the k-vector domain (momentum). We can't built electronics that will truly operate faster than c. However, if we are driving the voltage at intervals all the length of the cylinder, we might be able to force the electromagnetic spectrum into such a high stress point that it kicks out a gravity wave because that relieves the stress more easily. If we can do that, we make the major technological breakthrough.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 27, 2010 @ 06:41 GMT
Peter!

Anti-gravity field generator! Are you interested?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 28, 2010 @ 11:47 GMT
Nice plan Jason,

But 2 points.

1. Anti gravity generators may exist. Have you seen the levitating frog? This was no hoax, just Google it. Essentially it was a very strong em field. There is a definite link between the em field and gravitational field we have yet to find. A basic similarity is that they are both representations of physical sets of co-ordinates, or reference frames, and they are and remain locla to the 'parent' mass. em waves won't go through an em field at anything other than 'c'.

2. Study and consider Superconductivity. (check recent Nature Physics). We've now reached a point where it seems energy fluctuations, or 'information', may be able to be transmitted at some sort of phase velocity rather than be limited to wave velocity, which the law limits to 'c'. Lets say you superpose two sets of waves just out of phase. At the right frequency, the observed apparent velocity of the peaks can be over 'c'. A bit like watching wagon wheels rotate backwards in the old cowboy films.

I'm not convinced that gravity waves as such, if they exist at all, will help you, but if you can find a way to get the coded information of a human shaped bunch of protons onto a phase velocity rather than a wave velocity, then decode it, we may be able to beam you up!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 28, 2010 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Peter,

There is a connection between gravity (acceleration fields) and electromagnetism. It is so simple. We will all be kicking ourselves for not thinking of it sooner.

Frequency Modulation is the key. If you have access to an electronics lab, you could easily test it; maybe even put the results on YouTube.com.

This can be done with some electronics equipment. Take a Signal generator, a voltage controlled Oscillator (VCO), power booster and a satellite dish. You're going to need to generate a ramp function on your signal generator. The ramp function will be fed into the VCO. Ramps with positive slopes will generator attraction fields. Ramps with negative slopes will generate repulsion fields. Higher frequencies can be used to "grasp" smaller objects.

Normally, electromagnetic fields would cause the protons to accelerate one way and the electrons to accelerate the other way; like they do in microwave ovens. But guess what happens when ramp functions are used to drive VCO's? You get sloping potential energy gradients that fill the space of the beam.

Forget beaming up. Prepare to be worm-holed up.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 31, 2010 @ 14:35 GMT
Hmmm.

You seem to be going in an interesting direction, but there's still a lot of unproven physics to justify. (I would say 'prove' but that, after Popper and as always, is impossible!).

But I believe at present you'll fall down on the worm hole. I beleive infinities can't exist mathematically for a very good reason; they can't exist. If the laws of physics are the same everywhere then a Lagrangian point will exist at all centres of mass, which must include that of a black hole. The 5 around our planet, points of equilibrium in the sun/earth/moon system, are not unique, they're everywhere.

The microgravimetric survey of the great pyramid at Cheops supported a local Lagrangian at it's centre, which would be the same if it was floating in space, and the same if it was bigger. i.e. at the centre of the earth we'd float in equilibrium (if not magma!). Singularities are just muddled thinking based on lack of good information. There's zero evidence to support them and plenty supporting other models.

I think Ted Jacobsons columnar effect is the real key to superluminal motion, though he doesnt' yet seem to have quite followed through with all the implications yet, i.e. isolating and correcting the real assumptive error in SR.

I have a nice analogue; The 4th 'innermost' set of jaws in Alien - will only ever travel at a given speed wrt the next set out, lets call it 'c'. But if the next set out are in motion wrt the next set, and they wrt the outer set, we can do v+v+v+v. And if it's running at the time we can add another v. And if the local galaxy is moving backwards wrt the spacecraft (or vice versa) wec an add another if we've observing from outside the galaxy. Nothing we're seeing is doing more than 'c' locally, but we can observe it's apparent rate of change of position at well over 'c' without needing Lorentz. (as the light informing us of this reaches us at 'c'). Interestingly Messier 87 and dozens of other gas jets do just that.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 31, 2010 @ 17:42 GMT
Peter

"...but there's still a lot of unproven physics to justify." Experiments come next.

"But I believe at present you'll fall down on the worm hole. " You'll have to wear a spacesuit and a parachute. And if they lose power while your near the top, reentry could get kinda hot. It just makes better sense to use low energy wormholes.

"The 4th 'innermost' set of jaws in Alien " Kind of a gruesome analogy, but accurate. Whatever happened to the Alcubierre hyper-drive?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 15, 2010 @ 11:12 GMT
Hi Jason

Been thinking about it and just cracked it.

Forget worm holes, they're fantasy nonsense, the answer lies in the Fourier Transform, the HFP and WFS.

Beckstein was right when he said a 'final thory must be concerned.... with information exchange among physical processes"

Signals are effectively re-sent by new point oscillators, which gives refraction between inertial frames, but there's no 'backwave, so it really is FM! Think superposed asymptopic waves.

I wonder how much information we can transfer to new particles and re-transmit in this way!?

Sorry not to be exited by your current hyperdrive plan, but this has rather bigger implications.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 18, 2010 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Peter,

You actually eased my mind a bit. I also cracked a piece of the puzzle. The force of a repeating frequency shifted photon is: F = h (f2 - f1)/(c t_ramp) per photon. I want to take this idea and go to work for Rockwell Collins. In this little equation lies the key to transducing electromagnetic fields into force fields. I've been afraid that if this equation gets out there, I'll lose my opportunity as being the only one who knows how to do this. In reality, I guess everyone has their own passionate attraction to physics.

When I said wormhole, perhaps that was a bit dramatic. Cylindrical acceleration field would be more accurate. At 100& efficiency, 1000 watts will lift 100 kg about 1 m/s. One would use significantly more power to get them up to the spaceship faster. It would be like "falling up" to the spaceship.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 21, 2010 @ 18:52 GMT
Hi jason

It may be easier than you think to 'fall up'.

I was looking at the WMAP for the eccentricity predicted by the DFM (it's there in anomous abundance) but noticed they have it the wrong way up!

I checked with ESA's Planck and they've done the same!!

I suppose no-one has told them which way up we should be. NASA did the same with the piccie of th Heliosphere they did; It's going right to left. Now look at the Milky Way and note which way it's spinning (ensuring you look from the top).

Do you see what I mean? Were actually going left to right. Otherwise we'd be going the wrong way round the sun.

You may well say there is no wrong or right way - but just look at all the other planets, which way do you think we should be going? Certainly not the opposite way to everyone else I'll warrant.

The importance of this is that we're all made of antimatter not matter. I know we've assumed we're made of matter, but it's the other way round - that's where we've gone wrong. There really is a difference; It's like assuming the Earths lab frame is universal, it's unbeleivably arrogant and unintelligent to think someone on the other side of the universe would care about how fast and which way our little planet is moving with respect to them! Everyone in relative motion is his own lab. That's relativity.

So, the upshot is, it seems we can fall up with impunity, and without going to Australia, or the other 'matter' half of the galaxy where Australias water would have spun the other way round a plughole. I'll let you have the pleasure of letting the team at the jpl know they have the map the wrong way up.

Love your photon calc. Hope it works, but remember that photons are about to be exposed as short term entities, propagated at inertial frame boundaries by Huygens Principle. This will allow unification.

But you're right. No-one will take a blind bit of notice of your equation as they all have their own beliefs and agendas. It seems Sir Karl Popper was right, we're all doomed as we can't challenge ruling paradigms any more.

Cest la vie!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 06:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

You sound a bit dismayed. Cheer up! Paradigms can be change (corrected).

I've never been very good at tracking the "correct" sign. So I sure as heck can't begrudge WPAP, or anyone else, if they got something upside down. In fact, I think the laws of physics themselves don't specifically designate up or down. Everything is relative to the virtual photons that carry around causalit and information like little mailmen or messengers. That's the only way coupling occurs in the universe; is by photons carrying news everywhere at the speed of light.

My hope is that once the physics community truly gets a better understanding of generating artificial gravity (acceleration) fields, that fusion will come next. With fusion reactors, energy will become cheap. Maybe we can built fusion plants aboard shuttles that can reach a low orbit in space, for a fraction of what it costs now.

There is reason to be hopeful.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 19:50 GMT
Hi Peter,

So it comes down to one simple proposition: is redshift equivalent to gravity?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 11:33 GMT
Interesting question Jason.

I would have said, "certainly not always", but there's another link I hadn't considered.

I'm now quite sure that the extra mass atributable to bodies in motion due to momentum/inertia does propagate the equivalent additional gravity. Particles in accelerators propagate a cloud of oscillators which hold the additional momentum, reducing to zero at rest. This would mean our galaxy edge Halo may reduce if we stopped moving through deep space, but anyway;

As Doppler shift also depends on speed; It gives a direct relationship between gravity and wavelength. So light from a lump of mass approaching us would be increasingly blue shifted proportionally to it's speed, but the light would also be increasingly red shifted proportionally to it's increasing gravitational mass.

Does that make any sense to you?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 06:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

Great to hear from you.

The stress-energy part of the Einstein equations tells us what is included in (what causes) gravity, by virtue of "curving space". This includes energy density, momentum density, energy flux, sheer stress, pressure and momentum flux. These are all of the different kinds of energy that act to curve space-time. I'm not sure if that was helpful...

"As Doppler shift also depends on speed; It gives a direct relationship between gravity and wavelength. " I'm going to reword that in a way that is familiar to me; you can tell me what you think. The change in gravitational potential is proportional to the change in frequency. This much I know.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 21:25 GMT
Peter,

You keep mentioning that there are halos around fast moving particles, when they travel close to the speed of light. I believe that everything is implemented with photons (virtual/real) including inertia. The idea of halos kind of fits with my idea that every particle(every thing) is immersed in an ocean of virtual photons.

What do you think?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 22:14 GMT
Jason

Thanx, I agree, but I've discovered a telling thing about the wavelength frequency relationship; If refraction into a moving medium conserves frequency and energy by changing wavelength (Doppler shift) angle and light speed between frames (the same as into different refractive index media), then we've found the problem with SR, resolved it and unified physics with Huygens-Fresnel, even without a background matter field. Can you see how?

"Every particle immersed in an ocean of virtual photons" I feel you're on the wrong track, until you add the relative motion function. With no motion wrt a surrounding field its surrounded by 1/137th fine structure, at 0.999%c it fills the LHC tube at 1013/m-3. oscillating at gamma.

That's linked with para 1, and frequency modulation with conserved spin axis. it resolves the paradox of the constancy of 'c' irrespective...etc. It's right under your nose, just follow Braggs advice. (my Nobel winning paper is almost done!).

Best of luck with that

Peter

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 00:14 GMT
Hi Peter,

Sorry I haven't gotten back sooner. You present a lot to think about. I do wish you the best with your Nobel Winning paper; I'd like to read it, even if it's not finished.

I've been thinking about photons, light, and high frequency circuits. I was thinking about how phase lock loops work.

Sorry, my break is over. I'll continue later.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 02:19 GMT
Hi Peter,

So every photon is received with velocity c. That probably just means that the phase velocity c = lamda*f, always occurs. In other words, the measured frequency and wavelegth of a photon will alway adhere to c = lamda*f. This would be true no matter what. It doesn't matter if the photon frequency has to be increased or descreased to account for gravity or relativistic motion.

It is true that we really have no idea what gravity is. We do know that gravitational potentials exist. We also know that photons that have to climb out of a potential well will lose energy and frequency. It is also true that light can follow a curved path due to gravity.

"If refraction into a moving medium conserves frequency and energy by changing wavelength (Doppler shift) angle and light speed between frames (the same as into different refractive index media), then we've found the problem with SR, resolved it and unified physics with Huygens-Fresnel, even without a background matter field. "

If the medium/frame is moving, then won't it be at a higher energy? Now, energy and frequency are conserved, of course. If you shine a laser on a spaceship moving away at 0.2c, the received frequency, measured on the spaceship, has less energy because the waves come less frequently.

Likewise if you shine a laser on a spaceship travelling towards you, at 0.2c, the spaceship crosses each wave more quickly, so the frequency goes up.

Yes, I know that length contraction and time dialation effects might contribute. Uh, er... what do you think?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 11, 2010 @ 19:51 GMT
What happened to the font?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 12, 2010 @ 20:06 GMT
Bizzzare. I think we're now communicating in superscript!

Perhaps that suits us.

"So every photon is received with velocity c."

No, not at all - you missed the point, which cantains the answer to life, the universe and everything! It's this;

Every photons is EMITTED at 'c'. - but will be received at any speed subject to the relative velocity of the medium.

Just think carefully about that for the moment. The fine structure at the boundaries of our eyes and all our measuring instruments is electrons. If we jump on our jet bike and shoot off towards some light at 0.2c, our fine 'boundary' structure will receive the photons at 1.2c, but pass them on to us at 'c', (blue shifted). If we go the other way? They arrive at 0.8c but we still get them passed on to us (red shifted to conserve the energy) by our fine structure, at 'c'. Simple my dear Watson.

Do please for Pete's sake tell me you can now see the implications on SR of a quantum mechanism for constancy of 'c' !!

Ohterwise I shall consider abandoning my search for intelligent life.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 05:32 GMT
Please fix the script!!!

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 05:48 GMT
sadfdf a;lfdja;ljfdk

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 05:49 GMT
hey I think I fixed it.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 05:50 GMT
Maybe just one more time

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 09:11 GMT
Peter,

I think you were right about the frequency modulation stuff. For any inertial frame, the frequency will vary from f=0Hz (DC) to f = 10^19Hz (gamma rays). I think my idea makes more sense, photons are both emitted and absorbed with velocity c.



There is no infinite universal Cartesian coordinate system that we can't find. Space-time results because photons are being transmitted and received, even if we don't directly see them, they're there. The frequency and wavelength can and will change to accommodate differences in velocity and gravity. Spatial relationships have to be enforced by the fixed velocity of light. However, gravitational red/blue shifting as well as Doppler frequency shifting can occur to accommodate these circumstances. This is what ties together gravitational potential energy and momentum.

I have to disagree with you about the idea of an underlying medium. If it exists, it cannot be measured. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that. More likely, it is an ocean of virtual photons that across the full range of frequencies from f = 0 to gamma rays. I would entertain the idea that this ocean of photons is not filled with energy, but that would be speculation on my part.

I hope this helps. Or if you disagree, tell me where I've gone astray.

Best wishes,

Jason

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 14, 2010 @ 12:08 GMT
Hmm.

"..tell me where I've gone astray."

You need to heed Braggs advice "its not new facts but the way we think about facts that's important", and Einsteins; "We can't solve our problems with the same way of thinking that created them". Take a step back and re think;

"photons are both emitted and absorbed with velocity c."

Imagine a person has a rocket bike, and the fine structure boundary electrons of his eyes. If he is at rest, the electron will both receive and emitt the photon at 'c'. (on the same vector - as HFP) so the signal is passed into his eye at 'c'. However;

If he then shoots off on his bike towards the source, the photons will be absorbed at c + v, but still emitted into his eye at 'c'. He therefore sees them at 'c', but Doppler shifted.

If he heads away from the source, they'll be absobed at c - v, but still of course emitted at 'c'. So he sees them at 'c', but further apart (red shifted).

That is exactly how Frequency Modulation works. The wavelength is altered back to the original by a preset oscillator frequency, emitting at 'c' whatever relative speed the signal is absorbed at!

The fine structure (constant at rest) electrons of measuring instruments does exactly the same.

That's how energy and frequency are conserved in Huygens Principle and Fourier Optics - by changing the speed and wavelength, refracting the wavefront angle.

Ergo; CSL is explained with a quantum process, unifying physics and removing all the paradox from Special Relativity.

If you still dont see it, take Bragg and Einsteins advice; Clear your mind of preconception, take 3 steps back in your mind for a better 'overview' and visualise it, picture it in your mind, as you read through it again really slowly.

Does that work?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 14, 2010 @ 20:28 GMT
Hi Peter,

What do you think of this?

Since the idea that rapid and repeating frequency shifting generates an acceleration field is based upon the Equivalence Principle, how does one describe the Equivalence Principle in mathematical format? My conclusion is reasoned with logic, not mathematics.

I can say that the final photon energy equals the initial photon energy less the gravitational potential energy changed.

(1)


From this, I could say that the change in photon energy equals a change in the gravitational potential.

(2)


Since the photon energy equals the frequency multiplied by the Planck constant, I can write,

(3)


Then it follows that a change in gravitational potential energy must equal a change in frequency if I substitute (3) into (2) to get,

(4)


I can rewrite equation (4) to get an equation for the Planck constant,

(5)


Equation (5) states that the Planck constant equals the change in gravitational potential energy with respect to the photon's change in frequency. If we check the units, Planck constant is in joule-sec and the frequency derivative of the gravitational potential energy has units of joules/Hz= joule-sec.

In effect, I have the frequency derivative of a gravitational potential equal to the Planck constant.

Does this move us any closer to a unified physics theory?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 15, 2010 @ 02:29 GMT
Peter,

I think there exists an available bandwidth everywhere in space. This bandwidth is 10^19Hz. I think gravity might be a frequency shift, but the details are still vague right now.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 02:02 GMT
Peter,

Are you still there?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 18:46 GMT
Hi Jason

Sorry, very busy, finishing my paper, designing stuff and working on boats. I also couldn't get a handle on the possible importance of your equation.

You've also missed the relavance of mine. Can you do some imagining for me for a moment?;

A spacecraft with a large solar panel is doing 'v' on it's way to Mercury. On the face of the solar panel is the normal fine structure of electrons.

As it heads towards the sun it closes with the photons (or waves if you like) at c + v, they're absorbed by the electrons and re emitted on the same path into the panels (refracted and Doppler [blue] shifted as appropriate), at 'c' wrt the electrons.

The 'c' is of course the new local 'c' of the Solar panels.

Ifthe laws of physics are the same for all mass and all electrons, anything with mass will therefore always measure all light at 'c' no matter how fast it's going and in which direction.

On it's way back to earth going away from the sun the waves/photons will be red shifted by the process but still be sent on into the solar panels (or any measuring instrument) at the local 'c' of the instrument.

Is it really only me, a handful of others and kids under 8yrs old who can see that this finally removes all paradox and unifies SR and QFT!??

If you're interested (which the PR journals of course were not without even a glance; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

Do please let me know how you get on, and do ask any questions. I'm having athink about where your standard Planck gravitational frequency might fit in.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 00:43 GMT
Dear Peter,

You and I are both doing the same thing. We each see something that is so blatantly obvious that we are dumbfounded that other people can't see it. I am confident that you wrote this blog and your paper as concisely and articulately as is ever possible. From the point of view of someone reading it for the first time and/or from another point of view, it is like drinking from the fire hydrant where every drop takes thought. I am grateful to see my reflection.

First, it sounds like you are challenging the Michelson-Morley experiment. Frame dragging, which I'm not sure if they proved it or not, but it's probably true; frame dragging would explain the Michelson-Morely result which wrongfully struck down the aether theory. Stuff about normal fine structure of electrons; what does that do? Blue shift occurs and then everything is ok.

Next, spacecraft with solar panel moves at velocity v, light strikes solar panel from the sun. Electrons detect sun's photons to travel at c+v velocity.

On the way back from the sun, photons arrive at c-v, normal fine structure of electrons stuff happens, red-shift and electrons arrive at velocity c.

Question: how would the electrons know how fast the light is moving? How do they measure it? Do they carry stopwatches and rulers?

If I really can trust my ruler and stopwatch, then why do black holes take forever to swallow up debris? What I mean is why does time dilation occur? Why does length contraction occur? Why do atomic clocks on airplanes run faster than atomic clocks down here on earth? How do I know that any star, planet or galaxy is as far away as cosmologists tell me it is? There is only one velocity that I trust. It is the velocity of light. I believe that c is absolute and is an inherent characteristic of every photon. A photon is like an email with information content. It leaves something and it arrives somewhere. Can information travel FTL? Sure! Yes! Can it do so without requiring a hyper-space? Uh! Can the universe give contradictory results about how far away a planet or galaxy is? Yes.

In my opinion, the aether is an invisible ocean of virtual photons, all of which are moving at the speed of light c, but in all directions. Did the super black hole of M87 spit out a jet that traveled superluminally? The small angle explanation sounds really lame and stupid. But it's 100 million light years away; it's hard to be sure.

Why is the normal fine structure of electrons so important to you're theory? I'll wager a guess. These are the natural characteristics of virtual photons, super-strings and/or the wiggly objects out of which physics and the universe are constructed. When they bubble up from the aether, the universe is implemented with those characteristics.

Does this help?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 01:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

Here is my best guess. The universe is an ocean of light, of virtual photons that are constantly emitted and absorbed. They have descriptive characteristics equivalent to the fine structure constant relationships. As a bubbling ocean of light, they will give the appearance of a solid state crystal tessellation of space-time by virtue there exp^(kx-wt) nature. This optical illusion of a tessellated crystal provides the architecture needed to permit quarks, gluons and leptons to exist. The fact that information content can continually occur, called the past, is a truly amazing feature.

Another characteristic of virtual photons is that they built potential energy topographies whose gradients lead to forces. This characteristic is capable of creating a force so strong that light cannot escape. This apparent contradiction will probably lead to a need for hyper-space physics.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 09:54 GMT
Hi Jason

We must keep trying. You said;

"First, it sounds like you are challenging the Michelson-Morley experiment. .. frame dragging would explain the Michelson-Morely result which wrongfully struck down the aether theory. Stuff about normal fine structure of electrons; what does that do? Blue shift occurs and then everything is ok."

It agrees with M&M, as did Stokes 'Ether Drag' (Michelson wrote to Bell specifically saying that), but Lodge screwed Stokes by making a relativistic frame mistake in his 1893 paper allowing in the Lorentz nonsense. Here's the paper finally posted; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

Electron 'Fine Structure' Constant is 1/137th of all mass at rest, our outer 'boundary' layer. No-one knows why, or what it does.

But First; To simplify, We must first define the problem we're addressing. It's the problem M&M and all had in the 17-1800's, which SR was dreampt up to solve.;; How come we always measure light at exactly 'c' no matter how fast and which way we're moving? and, how come it crosses a given distance of space in the same time no matter how fast and which way the emitter is moving??

Lorentz and SR's solution left loads of paradoxes and won't unify with QM. There's a logical answer that's so simple we can't even see it;

The fine structure of electrons around mass (including ourselves, our planet, etc) convert it to our own local 'c' (Doppler shifting it accordingly) when it meets us.

To achieve this electrons simply do what we know they do; Absorb incoming photons (at whatever relative rate they arrive at) and send them on, into the main mass, at the electrons local 'c'. They don't give a damn how rapidly they arrived, their oscillations send them on their way at 'c' whatever!

Ergo, our main mass will always receive light at 'c', whatever speed it's crossed space at wrt us!

This also works with pure wave signal energy, where extra oscillating particles are propagated locally, as Huygens Priciple, to do the FM speed conversion job.

Background fields are allowed again, which then also explains why it goes at 'c' through space without regard to the speed of the emitter.

The dense clouds of virtual photons only exist at the boundaries between these 'infinitely many' local spaces, or 'inertial fields'. The faster the relative speed the thicker the cloud, just like in the LHC.

If you still don't see it, imagine yourself back at Junior school and read it again, closing your eyes and thinking for 2 minutes between each sentence.

This would only change the whole basis of physics forever a bit.

Best of Luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 21:27 GMT
Hi Peter,

I'm still reading the article and trying to absorb what you're saying. I am certain that we do disagree. I am not certain if it is because one of us is wrong, or more likely, we are looking at the same thing from different points of view.

First off, I believe that the velocity of light, c, is an absolute. I believe that the phase velocity, given below,



is built into the photon in such a way that everything obeys this equation. The wavelength and frequency can change in response to differences in velocity, potential energy, or gravity, but that this equation is even more fundamental than the distance from Boston to LA.

It sounds to me like you are saying that the fast approach towards the sun, at 0.5c will cause the photons to arrive at the detector at 1.5c. I believe that the photons will tell the electrons,

"shut up electron! just calculate the frequency and lambda. There is no 1.5c. You got that! SLAP!!!"

Then the photon will deride the electron about how his ruler and stopwatch don't count for horse hockey.

Gotta go to work. What do you think?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 14:36 GMT
Hi Jason

Even simpler than that.

If the electrons complain when the photons arrive at a rate of 1.5 instead of 1 per 'c' the photons will say; "just get on with it, we're staying at 'c' and not changing our formula, so just emit us into your mass closer together,"

So the electrons do just that, preserving 'c' and the total energy, but by blue shifting the light (emitting them at a faster rate but at 'c').

But you've still missed the $64m point. The mass itself (which the fine structure boundary electrons belong to) then always absorbs the signal at 'c'.

i.e. Light changes speed between all inertial frames (anything in relative motion) to retain your formulae and 'c' locally within each one.

This more simply solves the problem SR was dreamed up to solve!!!! It means we don't need Lorentz- FitzGerald contraction etc etc. and all the paradoxes of SR.!! But the SR postulates themselves are still correct, andit unifies them with Quantum Physics. This is what has been called the Holy Grail of physics.

Please please tell me you can think this through!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi Peter,

Ok, so maybe the photon doesn't slap the electron into obedience. Nevertheless, the electron has to reconcile frequency and wavelength so that they come out to c. This much is absolute.

"Light changes speed between all inertial frames (anything in relative motion) to retain your formulae and 'c' locally within each one." How are we to know that the velocity is anything but c?

I hate to use the word, conspiracy. But there is a "Photon Conspiracy" that forces everything and everyone who observes it to travel at ... the speed of light, c. That is why logic and math don't give you the right answer.

In response to your comment about the Loretnz Fitgerald contractions, I pulled this sentence from Wikipedia. "It reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events."

I have to reaffirm that I do believe that clocks can run at different rates for different inertial frames. As for time ordering of events, if there is a violation, there is still no way to get time travel or to kill grandpa before your born.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 19:50 GMT
Jason

"Light changes speed between all inertial frames (anything in relative motion) to retain your formulae and 'c' locally within each one." How are we to know that the velocity is anything but c?

You still haven't got it, ..Dammit, I don't believe it! The velocity is NOT "anything but 'c'" But it is only always 'c' because it changes speed between frames to be so!

If a light pulse goes through a spacecraft or a moving bus from the back to the front, it will do so at 'c' wrt the spacecraft or bus. Not only do our instruments tell us that but when we time it over the known length of the bus it's velocity is definitely 'c' with respect to the bus.

When it goes through the front windscreen and out, into the different 'background' inertial frame, we carry out the same excercise. We find it doing 'c' wrt the pavement (or the sun if the spacecraft is out of orbit and in the Heliosphere), NOT 'c' wrt the spacecraft or bus any more. Sure it's Doppler shifted, but it's doing 'c' locally.

J; "That is why logic and math don't give you the right answer".

But logic and math CAN solve it! If you represent intelligent life. The light must change speed when it moves between frames, through the windscreen of the bus, from 'c' wrt the bus to 'c' wrt the pavement.

What does light do when it goes from air to glass?

Correct, it slows down and Doppler shifts. What does it do when it goes from glass to air? Correct, it Doppler shifst again and speeds up to 'c' wrt the air. But 'c' wrt THAT PARTICULAR LOCAL bit of air it's moved into, NOT the same 'c' as the bit of air moving with the bus.

When we check it's wavelength in the air ourside the bus we find it is still Doppler shifted a little to the blue. How do you think it's done that? - because it didn't give a flying ***** what the bus was doing once it was out through the windscreen. And it was going to insist on doing 'c' wrt the planet earth (no matter what speed and direction the planet is doing wrt the sun).

There are "infinitley many 'spaces' in relative motion" and light does 'c' through and wrt each, including every bus on the planet!

That means we'll always measure light at 'c' anywhere, without needing contraction, dilation and paradoxes! It's a revolution of simple comprehension.

An 8 year old child can understand the logic, but can an adult??

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
Hi Peter,

I didn't expect to piss you off; but it's ok. Now we are getting to the meat of the issue.

P: "An 8 year old child can understand the logic, but can an adult??"

I'm afraid that your assumption that the universe behaves logically is the problem. The universe is being driven and implemented by something whose properties are absolute. I believe this to be the virtual photon. The photon (virtual/real) is what is implementating space time. The photon has certain properties including:

1. it sets the flow rate of time of atomic clocks;

2. it fundamentally and absolutely travels at c;

3. it sets the laws of physics via the fine structure constant;

4. it defines the ruler and the clock;

5. it defines our 3D space; time as a 4th dimension is owed to the ubiquitous nature of virtual photons continuously manifesting the universe.

P: "But logic and math CAN solve it! If you represent intelligent life. The light must change speed when it moves between frames, through the windscreen of the bus, from 'c' wrt the bus to 'c' wrt the pavement."

Intelligent life eventually has to accept dualities and contradictions that make no sense. Particle-wave duality is a fundamental. The absolute speed of light is as well.

As a side note, there is more than one universe. The speed of light will not keep us from exploring the cosmos. In fact, I figured out how Sub Space radio works; that is, real-time communication across large distances.

When two electrons are quantumly entangled, there is a photon between them. That photon will span the distance, even if that distance gets very long. As such, it will have a wavelength equal to the distance of separation. That photon will transmit vibrations instantanesouly across it, like a violin or a superstring. If quantum entanglement remaines stable for one node, then the upper frequency that is possible is f_max = c/lamda. This frequency sets the bandwidth for instantanesous transmission of informaiton.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 06:39 GMT
Dear Peter,

I hope you're not too angry with me. But doesn't it make sense that physics should be founded upon something absolute? And like I said, just because our universe is build upon solid absolutes, that doesn't mean that there are no coexisting universes with more favorable physics.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 10:45 GMT
Hmmm

I'm not at all angry Jason, just very disappointed, and perplexed at how difficult it seems to see a very simple but new logic staring you in the face. I need to find out how to get it across so your interest is very helpful. I was simply telling the truth about my 8yr old nephew, which indicates the problem is to do with conditioning and preconceptions. - In this case assuming an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 18:06 GMT
Hi Peter,

Somewhere long ago, I picked up a funny little expression: "I will play your silly little game". Let's play!

P:"All normal physics, as always observed, Do you have any problem with that at all?" I'm with you so far.

Question 1:I would think that glass/air/etc., appears to slow light down merely because it just takes light longer to get through the medium. Light still travels at velocity c, but there are absorptions/emissions/path deviations that take time. Every electron in glass sees the electron move at velocity c. It just sees the light moving through many obstacles. Incidentally, the electron may have no clue that it's on a spaceship traveling at .9c into the flow of light; the electron has no idea that the pretty blue light it's seeing is actually blue-shifted light.

Question 2:

The electrons of the block moving towards the light (c+v), see the blue shifted light traveling at c.

The electrons of the block moving away from the light (c-v), see red-shifted light traveling at c.

Question 3: I want to follow your question; if I misunderstand, please rephrase the question. By old medium, I think you mean with respect to the third block of glass that didn't get to go for a ride? If somehow the two rocket sleds could both come around for a pass where I could watch the light as it passes through the blocks, I would see one block fly past me at .9c, then the other block at .9c in the other direction. Both blocks would be length contracted, (less thick then my third reference block sitting next to me). The atomic clock on each block would be slower as well (time dilated).

P:"So what apparent relative speed will they now be doing if they could be viewed from and with respect to the old medium?" .9c in each direction (towards and away) from the oncoming sunlight. But I don't think that's the answer you wanted.

If the blocks happen to give off any light, that I can see, as they pass by, it will be un-shifted light traveling at c. I'll need to bounce the light off of an angled mirror that I'm holding in each hand. That won't change the velocity or the frequency. It will just allow me to see what the glass is putting out.

I'm just an observer with electrons in my eyes; those electrons can receive information from photons. The photons tell me what I see.

What should I look for to tell me how fast the light is moving through the glass blocks?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 21:03 GMT
Hi Peter,

Actually, there is a way to figure out how long it takes light to move through the blocks of glass. If we know the glass' thickness, L = 1 meter, we can set up sensors that will detect entrance and exit of an embedded signal. The sensors will emit photon bursts (maybe just LED's that light up). But then I have to dig up my QM/SR book to figure out how to calculate it.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 18:52 GMT
Hi Jason. We're getting there!

"Question 2:

The electrons of the block moving towards the light (c+v), see the blue shifted light traveling at c.

The electrons of the block moving away from the light (c-v), see red-shifted light traveling at c."

Correct of course, within each local and co-moving inertial frame light does 'c'. It really doesn't give a damn what goes...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Peter,

I agree that the speed of light, c, is calibrated locally. Very large numbers of speed of light calibrations occur all along the highway from LA to Boston. In other words, you are trying to argue that c+v will somehow have to give you velocities greater than c. The best I can agree to is an effective velocity. Yes, I understand that this flies in the face of common sense. However, ultimately, I think the experimentalists know what they are doing. Relativity and QM both suggest that the physical universe is implemented by photons that continually calibrate distance and time according to the speed of light c, such that



P:"So; Light changes speed to 'c' at the outer boundary 'cloud' of every single particle of mass, or bunch of particles (human being, planets etc). "

Light doesn't change it's speed at any boundary; clocks change their speed to accommodate the absolute velocity of the speed of light. I understand that this flies in the face of commons sense, but I didn't design the universe this way. By Occam's razor, it makes sense that the laws of physics are embedded in photons themselves (virtual and real), and the universe is a continuous fountain of these photons; they are continually emitted and absorbed. They transmit causality and generate space-time.

You are trying to uphold the authority of the clock and the ruler against the absolute nature of the speed of light. This is understandable, but it is a losing battle.

As for M87, yes I agree that when super massive black holes belch out a physics anomaly, we should scrutinize it very carefully. But at a distance of a 100 millions light years away, "clocked at 6c" isn't a slam dunk. But if the anomaly really occurred, then it means that the laws of physics were somehow overwhelmed. Locally, c is upheld. But the event was so violent that long distance adhesion to c might have broken down, allowing a true anomaly.

As for Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem and the Huygens-Fresnel Principle, I don't understand the argument for how these strike down length contraction.

I guess the only way to persuade me to your position is to explain why the speed of light does not take precedence over the clock and the ruler.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 17:27 GMT
Hmm. That's what happens, you were very close but then got completely lost! That's why no-one else has seem it before. No, I'm saying the speed of light DOES take preference, over everything, but always LOCALLY, in the reference frame it is IN at any time.

To understand this you must always consider yourself, the observer, effectively 'riding the light beam' and moving with it between...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 19:23 GMT
Peter,

How can you trust your velocities when you can't trust your clock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

When light jumps from one inertial frame to the next, the clock is what changes; the rate of flow of time is what changes.



The speed of light is always c (locally). Transitions between inertial frames merely change the frequency (the clock) and the wavelength (distance).

Even your ruler is lying to you.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 08:33 GMT
Hi Jason

I think we're getting there.

But the whole point of light changing speed is to maintain the speed 'c', which only changes the 'flow of time' to maintain that locally to.

Postulate 1. The laws of physics are the same in all frames. i.e. Time and light go the same speed in all frames. We can never experience time or length differently as they are always constant within our frame. Acceleration is merely a frame transition process. But you're wrong about Frequency. the whole point is that it changes the wavelength and angle (refracts) to PRESERVE SPEED AND FREQUENCY.

i.e. If it slows down, the wavelength must be reduced to keep the same number of waves going past in unit time, and vice versa. this is part of it's beautiful symmetry!

What we see when we observe another inertial frame from outside is different to what we experience in our own.

The Keating story is interesting and fully supports this, even though he succumbed to firm 'encouragement' to modify his final paper (the documents are now public) to soften the firmly 'anti SR' proof of a background field it gave.

NASA's laser lunar ranging (Gezari) papers show the same and are more honest.

But what is important are the implications. As light speed changes locally near any mass (if it's in relative motion' we don't need the 'assumption' attached to SR; that 2 objects in motion in space are entirely equivalent, with no 'speed' wrt a background, so there can be no background field. It is only that which gives rise to all the paradox and prevented unification with quantum physics.

Every single 'thing' creates it's own inertial field if in relative motion with the background field it's in.

Most of our minds haven't yet developed to picture infitely many 'spaces' in relative motion. How are you doing with it?

Peter

p.s. I posted another message to you somewher on here and have now lost it! can you tell me where?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 20:48 GMT
Hi Peter,

P:"But the whole point of light changing speed is to maintain the speed 'c', which only changes the 'flow of time' to maintain that locally to."

I'm having trouble with this contradiction. The speed of light is always c. It never changes. Even for Snell's law, the speed of light is c; but the presence of glass appears to slow it down because light is absorbed,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 17:32 GMT
Hi Jason

P:"But the whole point of light changing speed is to maintain the speed 'c', which only changes the 'flow of time' to maintain that locally too."

J: I'm having trouble with this contradiction. The speed of light is always c. It never changes. Even for Snell's law, the speed of light is c; but the presence of glass appears to slow it down because light is absorbed, re-emitted, it's path is effectively longer because of all of the obstructions it has to go through.

Yes, you are still having trouble with red herrings. There is NO contradiction! The problem is with the way our brains normally work. Read and think slower, and picture it in your mind in 3D;

'C' is constant WITHIN each frame in relative motion. Within the frame of the embankment, (F1) and within the train (F2). The laws of physics are the same within each frame. NOT looking into one frame from another!!! For you to consider the real local speed of light in F2 you must CHANGE FRAMES WITH IT so you are always in the same frame, F2, as the local light. (but see*).

You will have to change speed to do this. SO DOES LIGHT!! Now do you understand the meaning of light "changing speed between frames to maintain 'c' locally in each frame."

It's so simple it's almost impossible for a normal human brain to comprehend.

When you're standing on the embankment light is doing 'c'. If you both jump onto the train (that means both you AND the light) you both accelerate by 'v', so you still find the light on the train doing 'c' as do the other passengers.

Our galaxy is like a giant train rushing through space. Light crosses the universe at 'c' wrt deep space, then changes speed to also do 'c' within the galaxy. We've never before been able to fully understand the concept of inertial frames. As Einstein said (without understanding the implications) there are infinitely many 'spaces' (frames) in relative motion, in fact EVERYTHING is in a different frame to everything else relative motion with.

We've known the boundary process since the 1600's. New waves are emitted at the new local 'c'. Or if you like photons; The boundary electrons collect them all and re-emitt them at the NEW LOCAL 'c'. But now consider*. Our own eyes also have boundary electrons that do this if we're running! so we always measure it at 'c' anyway.

If we're doing 100 in a car we'll measure light at 'c' inside it. Our headlights emitt it at 'c', and it's slowed down on entering the frame of the road to 'c' wrt the road. The Doppler shift is precise evidence of the speed change to the new 'c'.

We will therefore ALWAYS measure light at 'c' everywhere, and don't need to banish the ether do do so. And once you start thinking the model through you find it explains everything!

How's your brain doing?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 19:07 GMT
Hi Peter,

It is good to have someone to talk to about this stuff. There is hardly anyone who can grasp and grapple these topics; even the super-PhD's on the FQXI forum on unable to commingle mathematics and intuitive experience.

I still disagree that light "changes speed" as it crosses from one inertial frame to another. Instead, the frequency and wavelength change. If we ride sunlight as it transitions from empty space to a spaceship moving away from the sun, we notice that the both the frequency gets smaller (redshifts) and the wavelength gets longer. It just so happens that



The initial wavelength and frequency equal the final wavelength and frequency. A change in the frequency changes the progression of time, of the clock.

A change in the wavelength changes the length of the ruler, of the measuring stick.

This doesn't make sense to the part of our brain that implements visual 3D relationships. No wonder it's taken a hundred years to understand this. But atomic clocks can measure these effects.

How's my brain doing? Actually, I think my (virtual/real) photon model, which implement physics relationships, space-time and the absolute value of c, makes it easier to understand. Giving up the ruler and the clock in favor of the absolute speed of light must sound insane. But that is where the universe fools brilliant physicists with very simple relationships.

So why is my approach wrong? Or if it still works, why is it more confusing?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 14:31 GMT
Hi Jason

J; "So why is my approach wrong? Or if it still works, why is it more confusing?"

It's more confusing because it's incorrect Jason, and you haven't yet quite seen the simplicity of the correct reality. Just try, for arguments sake, dropping your (only a blind) 'belief' that light does not change to a different local 'c' when it changes inertial frames. Then read my last post again, I'll see you in 2 mins.

The wavelength/frequency thing is at it's heart. Check a good optics book. Viewing from the correct frame is essential. If we're in a fast glass Maglev train; Light entering the back and moving to the front is red shifted, because it has been accelerated to the new 'c' of the moving train. When a pulse of such light is observed from the embankment it stays at the SAME frequency, despite the greater wavelength, because it does c + v. Think of it in terms of energy conservation. The energy is in the waves. When the light returns to the 'embankment' frame the waves will be compresed back to where they started from.

That will test your conceptual dexterity. But I can actually prove it to you. Get a light speed meter and spectrometer and jump on and off a few trains and buses. That is exactly what we find. How on earth else could it happen? - even with ridiculous paradoxical ideas about time and things shrinking!!

If we consider some photons coming from Betelgeuse, what speed will they be doing when they reach us? A; Our own 'c'!. When we ask them, will they care what speed and direction Betelgeuse or Andromeda is now doing? A; Not a Jot!

But can they tell us what RELATIVE speed Betelgeuse WAS doing when they left. YES! their wavelength tells us precisely.

Once you can picture it, it's simplicity is beautiful and all paradoxes melt away. But it's shrouded at a level above our normal metal capacity, so, if you insist on clinging on to pagan beliefs, you'll never be able to see it and hold it in your mind.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 02:29 GMT
Dear Peter,

What you are really doing is asking for proof that



is absolute. You admit that the frequency will change, but that the wavelength does not.

Let's look at Snell's law and a block of glass moving at some velocity v (down the +x direction). As the train is going by at velocity v, someone on the shines a helium-Neon laser (632nm)at the block of glass on the train.

The block of glass is its own inertial reference frame. So the light will land on the fast moving train, with the block of glass. The speed of light will stay the same, but the clock on the train runs a little slower because of time dilation. As the light reaches the glass, the frequency will redshift (get smaller) and the wavelength will get larger. By the way, haven't you ever jumped on or off of a moving train before? If you don't plan for it, the train will accelerate your feet right out from under you. It does the same thing to light.

Snell's law:



The velocity v1 and v2 are effective velocities. In other words, as light moves through glass, it still moves at c, but there are obstructions, refractions, and obstacles that slow it down to what appears to be a lower velocity. In this situation, c = lamba * f does not have to change to uphold a constant velocity.

But when the light transitions between the inertial reference frames, the wavelength and frequency have to change to uphold



Gotta go back to work.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 18:13 GMT
Hi Jason

J:"You admit that the frequency will change, but that the wavelength does not."

The exact opposite Jason! I'll expain why, but don't try to read it in a hurry or after a drink!

What we must learn to do is always decide which of 3 'frame options' we're viewing from. (1) Embankment. (2) Train, or (3) co-moving (changing frames with the light to view from each). This makes it very difficult for our limited brain power to grasp and hold on to.

But we also must remember 2 more things; It's different depending on which way (2) is moving. And the final nail in our mental coffin is that a different 'n' is the final variable. That last trap got you in your post! To stand any chance we must first clear our minds of 'n', so we'll consider a train, with the same medium inside as out.

I'll schedule out the 2 'direction' scenario's and results from the 3 frames.

A. With light entering the train from the front;

Viewed from (1) f Conserved, Wavelength Reduces, Speed c-v. [All 'aparrent']

Transitioning.. f INCREASES, Wavelength Reduces, Speed 'c'. actual in both.

Viewed from (2) f Conserved, Wavelength Reduces, Speed (in(1))c+v aparrent

B. With light entering from the rear;

Viewed from (1) f Conserved, Wavelength Increases, Speed (in(2))c+v apparent.

Transitioning.. f REDUCES,! Wavelength Increases, Speed 'c' Actual in both.

Viewed from (2) f Conserved, Wavelength Increases, Speed (in(1) c-v apparent.

That takes a bit of thinking about. Essentially; When our viewpoint transitions with the light c = fxLamda When it doesn't, we're only seeing apparent change of position over time. The light signal carrying that information to us from the other frame does so at 'c', so no postulate is ever broken, and neither length contraction or time dilation are needed to explain invariance of 'c'!!

That sheds a very different light on how we currently translate the postulates.

Without the observer also changing frames light energy propagation rate actually apparently change between frames to do 'c' within every frame no matter what it's speed or direction. i.e. We've joined locality with reality.

But every bit of light in the universe will alway truthfully tell you it's doing 'c'. Spectroscopy will tell us what speed the original source was doing.

I do hope your brain can cope, most apparently can't!

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 20:47 GMT
Hi Peter:

P:"It's more confusing because it's incorrect Jason, and you haven't yet quite seen the simplicity of the correct reality. "

Here is the problem I have. An absolute speed of light fits the experimental data.

Do you agree that atomic clocks run slower in a gravity field versus free fall?

Do you agree that time slows down for objects falling into a black hole?

Do you agree that E = mc2?

General Relativity and Special Relativity ... work!

If c = lambd*f wasn't absolute, then GR and SR wouldn't work.

Let's have a race. I will stand embankment and shine a He-Ne laser at the target sensor at the exact same time as you do.

You will ride the train at v = 0.9c towards the target sensor. You will shine your laser at the same time I do.

Whose laser beam will reach the target sensor first?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 20:24 GMT
Peter,

Just because general relativity is true, it doesn't mean that M87 didn't spit out a jet of energy at 6c. It did. But it takes something as powerful as a super massive black hole to cause a "velocity disinterested aether" to slip and move with a velocity of its own.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 14:33 GMT
Hi Jason

Interesting. I knew the 3D juxtapositions were hard to follow, but they're harder than I thought.

I'm agreeing with absolute 'c', but the experimental data largely fits two models, one poorly, with irresolvable paradoxes (SR with co-variance assumptions) and one perfectly, without paradox(SR without those assumptions, but with the fields of GR and a quantum mechanism)....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 06:39 GMT
Peter,

I just took a closer look at Special Relativity, specifically, the relativity of simultaneity. My gut tells me it's bogus nonsense. But what if there are experiments that confirm it?

Yes, I can accept the idea that there is a preferred inertial reference frame, one where the clock runs fast. I am comfortable with the idea of the clock running fastest in the slowest reference frame. But the idea that both clocks run slow for two spaceships that pass each other... There is definetely a screw up here.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 06:42 GMT
Would anyone like to defend (explain to me) the simultaneity of special relativity due to velocity? There is a contradiction that needs to be looked at.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 16:11 GMT
Hi Jason

You'll find thousands to defend SR to the death! And thousands more insisting it's inconsistent. Don't go there!! Remember Einsteins own word; "we should never desist from seeking...etc" and "I hope someone finds a better solution...etc". I have an easy route for you. Forget 'time' completely for a mo. It's only a confusing additional dimension.

The reason he had to remove any 3rd frame 'ether' for SR was to explain the constancy of 'c' "irrespective of speed of emitter or observer." It boils down to 2 astronauts in space in relative motion. He had to find a way they could be entirely equivalent, so they could have no 'velocity' with respect to anything apart from each other, each having an equal right to say he was at rest and it was the other who was moving.



But the paradoxes it raised would never go away (despite putting our heads in the sand!) and it kept SR divided from QM (and even GR!). But it's now so entrenched as a pagan belief it can'r be challenged. That is without (as Popper said) a replacement ready to take over. But we've never had one.

Until now.

The trouble is, although it's so simple it can be understood by an 8yr old, it's also too conceptually complex for the normal brain capability of anyone with mathematically based physics training to cope with. If you can imagine yourself as an 8yr old I can try what works there.

Imagine a bus, on a large ferry, driving back and forth. Your mate Andy, at the back of the bus, shines a torch forward. Does that light care how fast or which way the ferry or bus is moving? or will it do 'c' with respect to the bus? Answer 'c'. Correct, as observed.

Your mate Ben is at the front of the car deck, shining a torch towards the back. Does that light care if there's a coach nearby, moving or not, or if the ferry is moving one way or t'other? Same answer, No, it does 'c' wrt the ferry. Your mate Chris is in a boat fishing as the ferry passes and sees the lights flashing up and down through the portholes. Does the Ferry shrink as the torches are turned on? What speed will he observe it mioving with respect to A the Bus B the Ferry C Him?

The simple fact is that everything in relative motion is it's own inertial field, and there's a quantum boundary 'conversion' process to explain constancy.

How are we doing?

peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 19:48 GMT
Hi Peter,

I am trying to comprehend (glance beyond my own pre-conceived beliefs) at what you are saying. I would hope that others would do the same.

Yes, locally speaking, c is a constant for all observers.

Yes, inertial frames exist.

I am taking a closer look at "fictitious forces". They remind me of my invention, the frequency shift-photon.

I believe that the Equivalence Principle really means that:

a. gravity,

b. centrifuge centrifugal forces, and

c. linear acceleration forces

can all be attributed to the frequency shift-photon.

Like I've said before, I am pursuing the idea that the photon (virtual/real) can explain everything in physics.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 04:42 GMT
Peter,

Do you think your inertial frames and the Higgs field have anything in common?

Second question: do you think that Higgs field compression/shock waves might explain

(a) Inflation theory (the first few superluminal microseconds of the universe) and

(b) the M87 superluminal jet that was belched out at 6c?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 02:05 GMT
Peter,

I've got it. I've figured it out. At the moment of the Big Bang, there were a lot of little particles created, and one big Higgs particle. That big Higgs particle is what we know of as space-time. Think of the metaphor of lots of eggs and one egg carton. This Higgs field is responsible for gravity and the slowing of the atomic clock deep into the gravity well. The Higgs field is in equilibrium with the virtual photons, very similar to chemical equilibrium between reactants and products. The Higgs field is a big froth of wave functions.

Are you interested?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 04:32 GMT
Peter,

There really is something quite similar to the aether. It's called the Higgs field. The Higgs field is some kind of a huge wave function the size of the universe. This what causes gravity. You can never be at rest with respect to the Higgs field, but you can be at its lowest energy (fastest time).

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 14:35 GMT
Hi Jason

J; "Do you think your inertial frames and the Higgs field have anything in common?"

Certainly, but only in that there is certainly a field in space. I see no evidence for the Higgs particle, indeed au contraire, and am confident it won't be found. 'c' can only ever be 'c' wrt a local field.

J; "Second question: do you think that Higgs field compression/shock waves...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 16:26 GMT
Hi Peter,

Great to hear from you.

I'm starting to get a pretty good picture of what is happening with the physics.

Let's start with the Higgs field.

1. it's everywhere in space;

2. it gives particles their mass.

I'd like to add some additional characteristics to it:

a. Higgs field manifests the vacuum potential and froth of virtual particles;

b. Higgs field causes conservation of momentum to be operational;

c. Higss field causes GR and gravity to occur

d. Higgs field is really that which occupies empty space;

e. Higgs field is just a really big infinitely complex wave function (where non-locality is acceptable);

The wave functions of the Higgs field are generally not energized; thus virtual particles and waves. However, they can become energized into the form of photons. Photons give rise to particles via creation/annihilation particle-antiparticle pairs.

These wave functions are the precursors to photons. They implement relativity (all observers measure velocity of c, locally).

Gravity causes photons to frequency shift anyway, red shift or blue-shift. But the reverse should be true: RF generation of a repeatedly frequency shifting signal will induce an acceleration field.

Gotta go to work, will blog more later.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 16:54 GMT
Hi Peter,

I agree that we won't discover a Higgs particle. Personally, I think that the ubiqitous Higgs field, which causes GR and gravity to work, is a very large gravitional object unto itself. That is the Higgs particle. We are inside of the Higgs particle.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 17:49 GMT
Hi Jason

Now that's lateral thinking outside the container load of boxes! I think you go way off track sometimes, but then find little nuggets like that one. Of course the Higgs field (some may call it ether) has mass, and ergo gravity.

But now consider this; The one BIG field is just the biggest of many. Every collection of matter has a complex Electro/Magnetic/Gravity etc field attached to it and moving with it. i.e. there is a lump of mass at the centre of every 'Higgs' field, of which there are infinitely many, all moving within and around each other.

Also; J; "These wave functions are the precursors to photons. They implement relativity (all observers measure velocity of c, locally)."

We need to bettwer define 'impliment', as it gives slightly the wrong picture of the process. I've just done a post to Georgina in 'Paralel Universe on your i phone' which you should read. It's part of my search for intelligent life in the cyberspace of this galactic spiral arm.

To help you impress, the solution is; that the Lorentz transformation was never needed in the first place to explain CSL and unify physics, so nor is length contraction and all the resulting paradox! But can you 'join the dots'?

Best of luck

Pz~=kk0^7#

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

If "implement" is not the right word, any suggestions?

Also, I'm a little puzzled why we don't need the Lorentz transformation. I thought that was an established observation. Just as atomic clocks on airplanes are tested and observed. Are you throwing out time dilation?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 21:25 GMT
Hi Peter,

I've been taking a closer look at special relativity. I'm trying to figure out what kind of "aether" they disproved. Like I said, I think that the Higgs field is responsible for relativity. SR has the finger prints of photons (light), but how does it dodge the "no aether" observation?

As near as I can tell, aether is to photon as water waves are to lakes and oceans. So an aether that directly manifests waves leading to Light, doesn't really work. Therefore, photons have to have there own independent existence as objects unto themselves. They don't need the aether.

But then what is the Higgs field? There is still some kind of "wave-function froth" that causes Relativity to work. Wave functions are of the form:



The argument of e^ix always reduces to an angle between 0 and 2pi; in other words, it doesn't matter what went into the angle. In this respect, the details of x and w are hidden. In the same way, the exact position of the aether is similarly hidden.

That probably doesn't make much sense. I'll try to clean that up.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 09:47 GMT
Hi Jason

You ask "If "implement" is not the right word, any suggestions?"

Waves "can become energized into the form of photons" as you correctly said. This energisation, at medium/frame boundaries, forms the 'particles' that emit the new waves AT THE NEW 'C' OF THE NEW MEDIUM. (All proven physics).

In other words; the waves new length/frequency 'evidences' the actual...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 16:11 GMT
Hi Peter,

I am massively confused now.

First, what does CSL stand for?

Second, you said: "The LT has NEVER been actually observed, neither has it's key 'length contraction' component." Arg! What!!! We've been at this for over a hundred freakin' years! What do you mean Lorentz Transformation has not been experimentally established? What the HELL!!! I can't guess the right pattern if the experimentalists aren't doing their freakin' jobs!!!! I'm not a professional physicist. I just have a habit of daydreaming about physics while I'm at work (which probably sounds really bad). I look for patterns from what I remember learning in physics, I have a BS in physics. I did find a paper that challenges the Lorentz Transformation. I will look it over.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/lorentz/index.html

You said, "Time dilation due to motion and due to gravity are different. " I can get photons/Higgs field to explain everything using Equivalence Principle. If you separate TD due to motion versus gravity, then we end up with nothing. As it turns out, I can use photons to turn the Higgs field (a.k.a. space-time) into a causal-interface. Basically photons are bi-directionally passing information/momentum/energy between an object(particle/spaceship/inertial frame) and the rest of space-time via the Higgs field. Photons drive the whole universe and the laws of physics. The birth of the universe (Big Bang) was a very bright flash of light (photons), which created the hadrons and leptons. Only up and down quarks are stable. All of the other quarks are unstable and decay into up/down quarks. This process creates electrons.

To tell you the truth, I'm going to require experiential evidence.

I'm not mad at you. I'm just kind of pissed off that the experimentalists can't settle these issues. Is the Einstein Tensor equation even right?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 19:10 GMT
Hi Peter,

I found a better article about the Lorentz transformation. It's better only because it states the two postulates, one of which is wrong.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/teaching/Lorentz.
pdf

1. The equivalence of all inertial reference frames and

2. the invariance of the speed of light.

Actually, #1 is correct for non accelerating frames of reference. Gravity is considered to be an accelerating reference frame because of the Equivalence Principle.

#2 I happen to agree with, but you think it's wrong.

Mmm...

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 21:44 GMT
Peter,

I found a great link that supports time dilation and length contraction.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relat
iv/muon.html#c3

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Peter,

Here is another link that describes how GR and SR work well for the GPS sattelite system.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Uni
t5/gps.html

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 09:23 GMT
You must dream less and concentrate Jason!

I do NOT disagree with EITHER postulate. and CSL is Constant Speed of Light.

Ant the experimenters HAVE been at work. It's just that all results conflict with the STR (but not GR). I could give you a heap of doctorial papers and experimental evidence challenging & 'disproving' the LT. There are a few key experiments here.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ and one more of many; http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502007v6 Experimental evidence of the ether-dragging hypothesis in GPS data Authors: Masanori Sato.

And don't believe the GPS propaganda, that even nasa knows is nonsense. The best of many here is probably; http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2

You really need to look at these as they expose the obvious flaws in the ones you cite above.

Not a single bit of evidence supposedly 'proving' LT and the STR has been falsified and all has been taken apart, and NONE of the contrary evidence from space exploration etc proved incorrect. It also CAN'T POSSIBLY WORK with QM! The old paradygm ONLY still rules as it's still in the text books, warts, paradoxes and all, and because we've never found a more consistent solution to the CSL to replace it!! And as Popper said, its a humal weakness that NO paradigm will ever be replaced till there's a better one to replace it.

That's what makes the Discrete field Model so central and important, it's the first falsifiable solution ever that explains CSL, AND in a quantum friendly way.

And it's reeealy simple! - and Einsteins was sooo close to it when he died!

We only have to remember that EVERYTHING in relative motion with anything else is in a different inertial frame, apply the postulates to that, and identify the (well known) quantum mechanism at the frame boundaries.

But mainstream physics is so deep in a rut, drowning in muddied waters, that it's unable to escape. It can't even remember the problem let alone find the solution!!

Thus my continued search for more intelligent life.

Am I having any luck?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Peter,

For 100 years, we've been debating the particle-wave duality. Only now, it's elevated to a whole new level. You are arguing that the aether/inertial frame sets the speed of light. But quantum mechanics says the speed of light is only governed by c = lambda*f and is independent of the medium.

What if both are true? We have particle-wave duality. What if we have aether-no aether duality. What if photons are creating quantumly entangled pathways framework/structures that look like inertial frames?

I have a head ache now.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Peter,

Just curious. If I bolt down a laser and fire it at a fixed place on the wall, I can mark that place with a marker. Next, I place a spinning super conductor below and around the laser.

Can I get the spinning superconductor to frame drag the aether/Higgs field in such a way as to make the laser miss or deviate from where we marked it?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 17:04 GMT
Hi Jason

You need to slow down and think a little more clearly. The medium ALWAYS dictates EM wave speed, glass, water, air, gas, etc. c=lambda*f always works with a medium or not. It's just modified by refractive index 'n', which is set at 1 for space. The only question is; IS the vacuum a medium.

Absolutely all experiments point to a 2.7 degree dark energy Higgs or whoever quantum field interstellar medium. Only the STR said it couldn't be 'immobilile' for the purposes of light, in offering a solution (if paradox ridden) to constancy of 'c' (CSL).

But now there's a better solution to CSL, that bridges the chasm with QM, so there's absolutely no reason to continue 'ether denial'!

There was a typo in my earlier post, it's SilBerstein. I've just come across this paper backing up Stokes-Planck ether, which my DFM just adds the finishing touches and proofs to;

http://www.wbabin. net/historical/ silberstein2. pdf> recent

Eclipse Results and Stokes-Planck Aether

Then, when you've visualised an inertial frame simply as a moving bus, just look up any good Optics text book to solve duality, either classically or quantum, with Huygens and Ewald-Oseen extinction or simply electrons re-emitting photons at 'c' in new and co-moving media.

And you don't need fancy spinning superconductors to bend light! Look again at the experiments in my last paper and you'll see some much simpler ways!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 00:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

I can buy the idea that space-time/Higgs field/aether is a big froth of wave functions; the inherent property of wave functions is that they don't give you exact measurements, they give you dice, chance and probability. What I cannot go along with is the idea that photon waves are ripples in an invisible pond. In other words, the absolute velocity of light, c, makes sense. If wave functions are the "invisible pond", then it's nothing like what we imagine as a calm slow moving pond.

By the way, you said, "And you don't need fancy spinning superconductors to bend light! " Does that mean that the laser cannot be deflected. Gotta go, girlfriend is dragging me out of the house.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 15:41 GMT
Hi Jason

They're not 'photon waves', they're simply pressure fluctuations of EM energy, running through the field. (Higgs, Dark energy, EM, call ut what you may).

If you did am Optics course you'd learn that photon particles, or AE's 'wave bundles', are condensed when waves (phase) coincide as the energy is equal to the square of the amplitude. This happens at changes of media (n) and, (not such a core concept), changes of medium velocity (frame boundaries). That's Huygens-Fresnel, (new oscillators at the interface), Fourier optics etc. which is all well proven and extends to Ewald-Oseen Extinction etc.

The only problem seems to be it's mainly dorks take optics courses! If cosmologists took them they'd see this;

The remaining non extinct wave travels at 'c' with respect to the NEW medium speed!

The quantum analogy is, the boundary electrons of the new medium re-emit the photons at the NEW medium speed.

Therefore there was no reason for Lorentz to have resorted to contraction, or Einstein to have needed to ever 'remove' the ether to explain constant light speed, confounding us with perpetual paradox. (actually he knew that when he said 'space without ether is unthinkable'). And the missing quantum link with the postulates of SR has of course also now been found.

But it still seems I'm searching for the intelligent life who can understand that, or actually, for a way of explaining it that anyone with reasonable intelligence can understand.

I really thought you'd got it, but you keep reverting back to the distorted picture/viewpoint you started from, from which the solution is invisible. I'm beginning to feel it needs the problem itself better clarified before the solution can be seen.

Does any of that help in the slightest?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 02:47 GMT
Hi Peter,

You said, "I really thought you'd got it, but you keep reverting back to the distorted picture/viewpoint you started from, from which the solution is invisible. I'm beginning to feel it needs the problem itself better clarified before the solution can be seen."

In order to "fix" relativity, you have to show clear evidence that it's broken. Then, you have to show that your solution will fix the problem.

I was talking to my girlfriend about light/wave-functions. I came up with this analogy. Photons transmit information/causality by traveling along a super highway/road system made out of wave functions; I call it the Higgs field; it can also be called space-time. This wave function Higgs field has energy levels that correspond to a gravitational potential energy. Strangely enough, these energy levels control the clock (flow of time) through time dilation. Time dilation is related to frequency shifting.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 18:19 GMT
Hi peter,

You asked: "Does any of that help in the slightest?" Well, I'm a truth seeker. By looking more closely at your argument, I will either discover an error in my ideas or an error in yours. Here is the score...

1. I can answer the question: what are the working/operational elements of physics? Physics is NOT made out of mathematics because nobody has ever measured a math...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 17:42 GMT
Hi Jason

You said; "In order to "fix" relativity, you have to show clear evidence that it's broken. Then, you have to show that your solution will fix the problem."

That's fair. But I only need to refer you to the chasm between QM and SR and ALL eminent physicists, NOT complacent student text book physics). Einstein searched for solution, and trying to link 'Reality' with 'Locality'] saying; the problem "can't be solve[d at the same level of awareness that created it" and "We still do not know 1000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us." and "we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation". (1940) "I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (1944) and "The important thing is not to stop questioning."

Feynman also said it would take a new way of thinking, Penrose etc, and now Hawking called it the 'Holy Grail' of physics. They are chalk and cheese. The reaosns are comprehensice and complex, but it's all about SR's paradox ridden solution to CSL, (including contraction) removing the fields we know exist and allowing no possible quantum basis for CSL.

SR's solution is; Consider 2 astronauts in space in relative motion. Each has an equal right to say he is at rest and it's the other that's moving. In ohter words, there is no physical way of telling what speed anything is moving in space. But since space travel and accelerators all the evidence says we CAN tell the difference! and we CAN measure absolute velocity by speed x distance! (just look at NASA data - Gezari papers, etc etc). But no-one has yet found a quantum freindly alternative that allows a background field to rid us of all the paradox. So we're still in total confusion.

As Essen said, SR has been a great cause for delay in developing science. We need the solution soon!

So.. You should now forget all your amateur (sorry - but true) largely wayward and unfalsifiable preconceptions and focus on the key issue, which will lead to more answers than you could shake a stick at!

The answer will be a quantum mechnism that will make all our speed measurements of EM waves or photons come out to 'c', no matter what speed the emitter or observer are doing.

Simple really. But it needs focus on the real issue. The problem has been that everyone goes off on tangents chasing red herrings and getting lost again in the mist of confusion! Can you see and do that?

Peter

Oh, and PS. I forgot about bending lasers; I can do it simply by waving at them. You can too. Everything with an EM field (i.e. everything with any condensed matter, i.e. everything) bends light to some extent. We could even make it go in circles if we could build enough enormous electro magnets! (apparently CERN etc already have).

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 20:43 GMT
Hello Peter,

What you call the aether, I call the Higgs field. The Higgs field is nothing but a gigantic wave function (solution to the Hamiltonian). The two slit interference pattern is really no surprise because the Higgs field permeates both slits anyway. The wave function is already there. Single photons (or electrons) travel as waves along the wave function; the wave function is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 10:30 GMT
Hi Jason

Yes, I still do like the way you think, even if it is often wayward.

Subject to terminology I agree you're now largely on the right track, apart from one glaring wrong turn that will prevent progress.

Length contraction, never demonstrated and the cause of most padadox, was 'invented' to explain something that can now be far better explained. The reason you find it 'beyond my grasp' is because it cannot logically exist.

If I observe Concord flying past with a glass tube wave guide firmly fixed to the side, and light pulses are sent along it from tail to nose; It it the whole plane that shrinks when the pulses are observed? Or is it just the wave guide that shrinks? and if so, are the passengers warned about the expolsive decompression they'll suffer when the wave guide rips itself off the fusilage!? There are many much better falsifications, but we'll stay a race in denial until we recognise an alrenative.

You actually almost solve the riddle yourself asking; "are inertial reference frames related to wave functions?"

Yes. Very much so. But you need to get a bit closer to reality as a 'function' is simply a formulae. The Doppler shifts we observe don't occurr when they meet a formulae in space! There is a real mechanism the formulae describes mathematically.

Here's the relationship; When a signal moves between inertial frames (co-moving media) it's wavelength (space) and frequency (time) vary to conserve the energy. Imagine you're floating at rest in space observing a fishtank moving towards a light source. From your viewpoint wavelength is reduced inside the tank to conserve frequency (blue shift) and you'll observe the 'rate of change of position' as 'c'. But if you're inside the tank; you'll observe frequency conserved and wavelength reduced (maintaining 'c' in your frame).

Even with above average intellect you'll need to think about that and picture it carefully many times to understand it! One you do, IF you do!, you'll then need to consider yourself accelerating between frames, in which case you'll see frequency increased to balance a wavelength reduction, to conserve 'c'.

I'm worried if you'll manage it as your derivation of red shift in your post was wrong, if the two are approaching the wave peaks would 'close up' on meeting, which gives blue shift NOT red shift.

This will need a lot more focus than you've shown so far! But it will be worthwhile, So treat it as an intelligence test, not a springboard for another flight of fancy!

Remember CSL is always valid LOCALLY. We CAN see c+v so contraction isn't needed and physics is really quite simple.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 18:03 GMT
Hi Peter,

Yes, I suppose my thoughts are often wayward. In my defense, I am looking for practical and useful ideas, solutions and experiments. I was looking at the Feynman lectures. I wanted to learn more about refractive index and Fermat's Least Time principle. I can see quantum wave functions written all over the optics. The quantum waves already have a course laid out for whatever laser or beam of light that might happen to fall upon the optics. It is important to remember that this wave function already existed, it was created when the lens was created. This optical wave function moves with the lens. If we want to say that the lenses wave function is similar/same/identical to its inertial reference frame, I can entertain that idea. The lens' wave function extends to infinity. And yet, if we cast a shadow over it (put it in a box), that wave function vanishes.

If I am going to talk about optical systems (O) moving towards/away from light (laser) sources (S), I need to calculate from a start position, where O and S are at rest with respect to each other. In order to calculate what happens when the O and S are in relative motion, I need to include the effects of acceleration. Beyond that, I would have to take classes on relativistic optics.

As for the Concorde flying along a wave guide cable, recall the admonition, "Believe only half of what you see..." The plane only looks like it length contracts relative to a stationary observer (a bird sitting on the cable).

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 11:16 GMT
Jason.

You weren't thinking; Does Concorde suddenly shrink for a few secs when the pulses are being sent then get bigger again!?? It simply doesn't work! Look up the NPA to see the truth about SR from many of the top professors worldwide.

Rather than have to deal with acceleration (GR and curves) in your experiment it'd be far less confusing considering two identical optical systems side by side, but one in motion and one not.

What you'll find is, as the (correct) SR postulates say, that light goes through each optical system at precisely the same speed with respect to the system itself. You could have a hundred systems on any vector, and you'd find the light in each cares not a jot which way the universe or any particular bit of it is going wrt the system it's in. In will damn well do the speed of that wave function locally and to hell with anywhere else!

You will of course always find it Doppler shifted in accordance with it's motion, but it will always be doing 'c' (or Cn) locally.

Even better. If you move the source, you'll find the velocity of light crossing the space to the optical system doing 'c' wrt the space NOT the emitter! Again this is what SR says, and this bit is correct. What is INcorrect nonsense is the assumption that there is no 'medium' in that space for light to be propagated 'with respect to!' (demanding contraction). What on earth does light do 'c' wrt if not the emitter or an intervening field?!! It's total nonsense.

But now we know light moves in the new optical system with respect to the sytem we no longer NEED to deny the medium in between. that optical system will always measure it at 'c' anyway! Job done.

This is not current mainstream physics, but I think you can now recognise that it's true, and how it can solve all it's problems. Or is the whole world really going down with dementia!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 14:30 GMT
Hi Peter,

You said, "What is INcorrect nonsense is the assumption that there is no 'medium' in that space for light to be propagated 'with respect to!' (demanding contraction). "

Well, I've been arguing that there does exist such a field. I am calling it the Higgs field because "aether" is unpopular to the physics community. How fast does this Higgs field move? Ugh! I feel like this is where I drink the Koolaid. Well, there's probably some average velocity of the Higgs field that can be treated as v=0. But any such Higgs field velocity can be easily overruled by something more massive.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Jason

Good. Now you have a solid foundation, but remember, though I've shown it CAN be consistent with the SR postulates a background field is NOT consistent with the popular interpretation of SR.

It turns out this is due to the incorrect additional assumption made to explain CSL, that any motion through a vacuum is undetectable and all motion is only 'relative' That error has been the cause of all our problems.

You've also hit the nail on the head discussing 'velocity'. But here's where you need to think very slowly and carefully;

Imagine the field is the EM field, 'attached' around all mass. The Earths EM field extends to our planetary shock, and EM waves go through it at 'c'.

BUT. Before those waves arrive at the shock (the field 'limit') they are going through the Heliosphere at 'c' wrt the SUN. And outside the Helispheres Termination / Bow Shock they're doing 'c' wrt the galaxy. (This entirely explains the Pioneer/Voyager anomalies).

In other words, locally, the field does average V = 0. And obviously each local field represnts an inertial frame. Light is propagated at 'c' wrt each field, so has to Doppler shift to maintain 'c' locally through each boundary.

This is as Einstein said; "space is actually infinitely many spaces in relative motion". and every massive object is "spatially extended." right down to a bunch of protons in the LHC, which form their own 'shock' cloud when they accelerate.

Take another slug of Koolaid, close your eyes, and visualise the 'infinitely many 'spaces" in relative motion. Einstein only fell short of working out how it worked in reality by the merest whisker!

So; Back to M87 etc; stretch those spaces into 'tubes within tubes' by blasting a stream of particles out of an EM vortex, and we could get across the surrounding space at over 6xC with less risk of called a crackpot!

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear Peter,

What you are calling the E&M field around all mass, I am calling the Higgs field. The Higgs field is a "froth" of wave functions that is also observed to be the vacuum energy, and is responsible for the Casimir effect. Empty space is never really empty. It still contains wavefunctions which I call the Higgs field.

This Higgs field is calibrated to the speed of light c. This Higgs field is what causes SR and GR. Additionally, it also causes mass, m = E/c^2. The Higgs field (which is a froth of wave functions), will somehow manage to enforce that all observers observe a ray of light to move at c. Even if a high velocity rocket (v = 0.9c) with a fancy optical system, you can't get light to travel faster than the speed of light if you're still "connected" to the Higgs field. As the rocket's kinetic energy is increased, it's inertial frame will experience length contraction and time dilation. As long as the Higgs field around the spaceship is connected to the Higgs field of the universe, it cannot make light go faster than c.

To do that, the spaceship has to "sever" its connection with the universal Higgs field.

If a spaceship can repel the Higgs field around it, than that space-ship becomes a "particle" or object in hyper-space.

I'm not sure what is happening with M87. Yes, it is traveling FTL, but I'm not sure why.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 19:02 GMT
Hi Jason

I agree. You were winning, but tripped at the 2nd last hurdle! Why on earth would we need length contraction if there is a Higgs field!? It only needed to be invented to explain CSL with an empty vacuum.

It's never been observed. And, if it exists, how come that fibre optic cable fixed to the passing Concordes fusilage doesn't suddenly rip itself off to contract when a light pulse is sent through it, or Concorde suddenly 'ultrashrink' for a moment then go back to normal shrinkage when the pulse stops!? It's both logical and mathematical nonsense, and it's all that's left to confuse you.

Imagine M87 etc jets as fast flowing streams. No molecule is allowed to go past it's neighbour at more than 1mph. But, from the bank, the centre of the stream is moving at 7mph. It's in a different inertial frame so we CAN observe it at C+V realtive to the bank. But the light signal telling us that fact is recieved by us at 'c', as it's in our frame when received.

Wade out to the centre and measure the molecules immediately next to your skin and they'll only be doing 1mph.

If you float, you change inertial frame to theirs and you find their V = 0.

It's the only solution that meets all observation without paradox. Please tell me, what isn't simple and logical about it?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 00:31 GMT
Hi Peter,

I've never heard of anyone detecting light, in a vacuum, in which the product of frequency and wavelength are different from c. For light traveling in a vacuum, the speed of light is



If this equation was not valid for light traveling in a vacuum, then astronomers would have known about it decades ago. Do you have any articles about light detected from space, in a vacuum, which does not uphold this equation.

This is what upholds length contraction.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 16:17 GMT
Oh dear Jason.

And who told you that?!

Someone quite dim with no concept of inertial frames!

Of course the equation is correct, and if you believe that 'Reflection' supports the theory that there's another universe behund each mirror, then it "upholds" length contraction. But it 'proves' nothing!

If you watch me sail my boat downwind, the waves are very long from my frame, but frequncy low. If I change inertial frames by turning to head back upwind, I find the frequncy increases but wavelength reduces. The product is always 'c'. And it's the same whatever speed I do in whatever direction.

But I don't have to contract from your our ANY viewpoint. Indeed as I get 'c' even if I go very slow, or indeed stop with respect to you and measure the passing waves, which actually logically DISproves the proposition that it 'upholds' contraction!

So be more careful just believing what mainstream pulp fiction tells you and rely more your brain! Many can't ..but I beleive you can.

So.

Back to the scenario and question in my previous post.

..Anything else that isn't simple and logical about it?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Peter,

I am pursuing the truth wrt inertial frames and the speed of light. In fact, I bought a green laser on Ebay so that I can run some experiments. I asked you about



for a reason. Your response was,"Of course the equation is correct, and if you believe that 'Reflection' supports the theory that there's another universe behund each mirror, then it "upholds" length contraction. "

On the contrary, it proves everything. It proves that all observers see the same velocity for light no matter where it comes from and no matter how fast one is moving.

The photon is a remarkable object because its frequency conserves energy via



and its wavelength conserves momentum through



The photon is the connection between momentum and energy. That is part of the reason why I favor the photon as that which implements the laws of physics, together with the wave function.

Water is not the right medium to describe photon. The medium has to be a froth of wave functions. Wave functions are "the group of possible solutions" to the Hamiltonian (Schrodinger) differential equation.

Water does not fit the bill. Wave functions are, inherently, waveguides for photons and for other fundamental particles. Wave functions have conservation of energy and momentum built into them. Wave functions explain why two slit diffraction experiments work. Wave functions are the reason why QM bats 1.000 (100%).

Wave functions allow you to build energy levels which can provide for gravity wells. Since wave functions only provide the framework; photons have to do the heavy lifting. When they climb these gravity energy wells, they redshift. That is why atomic clocks slow down inside gravity wells. That is why GPS satellite systems really do prove that relativity works.

This froth of wave functions is called the Higgs field. In its absence, relativity doesn't work.

Don't be light Stephen Hawking who has to destroy physics (the conservation laws) in order to brainwash his congregation of misguided physicists.

report post as inappropriate


Djamel H.D wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 22:47 GMT
Hi,Professor Ted

Does the vacuum regenerate itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart? Could a growing vacuum explain dark energy?

The answer is absolutely YES. I'm publishing a paper on the subject soon,it's about the nature of time and maybe helps other researchers like you self Professor to redefine some existing concepts in modern physics,so the understanding of nature can be more clear and close to its nature.

Thank you Professor Ted Jaxccobson

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 23:40 GMT
I hope you will post your paper here. I'd like to read it.

I agree with you that, "... the vacuum regenerates itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart"

I would add that

1. the vacuum energy;

2. the Higgs field;

and

3. space-time;

are all manifestations of the same thing. This giant Higgs field froth of wave functions that permeates the universe.

In addition, I believe that it takes on gravitational energy levels which range from the normal flow rate of time, down to full time dilation (time stopping)/event horizon/extremely high gravity associated with black holes.

Gravity, vehicular and centrifuge acceleration (Equivalence Principle) all cause time dilation effects.

Would you care to comment?

report post as inappropriate

Djamel H.D replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 18:04 GMT
Hi,Jason

The deep adea is to understand the fundamental concept of TIME as nature it self use it.One of my "postulates" is evrything physical and nonphysical acte and react equally with the fabric of SPACE, and this give a new adea about TIME as we know it (evrything is evolving in time).Time is sort of fabric of space behavior wich affect what is in it (Energy/Masse).I see the adea of SPACE-TIME can not explain the mystery of TIME,EXPANSION and CREATION of matter.

If you have any TIME to use for research,it will be good even worth to look at the nature of space not space-time.

Thnk you Mr. Jason

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 10:09 GMT
Hi Jason

You said

"On the contrary, it proves everything. It proves that all observers see the same velocity for light no matter where it comes from and no matter how fast one is moving."

That's been claimed and disproved as oversimplistic before Jason. I'm disappointed about your naievity (though you're not alone). Consider this;

There is a big difference between 1. Observing an 'apparent rate of change of position' of something far away (relative your viewpoint), and 2. Measuring EM wave signals received in your own frame. - which always produces 'c'.

It is accepted for instance that if you observe 2 planets moving in opposite directions at around 0.75c they WILL appear to be doing approx 1.5c relatively.

If you are ON one of those planets. The apparent rate of change of position of the other MAY be 1.5c, but the light signals advising you of that information will cross the space between you at velocity 'c', and you will indeed measure them at 'c'.

Eckard has other examples. Like the rate of progress of light or egress of a shadow moving across a curved surface. That rate can be apparently greater than 'c' but NOTHING is actually moving faster than 'c' LOCALLY, and the information reaches you at 'c'.

There's much misunderstanduing by the dim I agree, but that's what the SR postulaes actually say. Physics is the same, including 'c', IN all inertial frames. This means it doesn't have to 'appear to be' the same when an event is not ocurring in our own frame.

The signal information reaching us (at 'c') is NOT evidence that an event in a different frame broke that law and did the 'c' of OUR frame instead!

You need to understand that before you can break away from 100 year old mainstream schoolboy physics and understand inertial frames properly. If you can't take it on board let me know as it'd mean I can do no more here.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 10:20 GMT
Hi Djarmel

It seems the vacuum ground state IS the dark energy level, but a more consistent view on your other point may be that space time is not pulled but 'pushed' apart, or expanded, BY the 'dark' energy potential/condensate from which matter condenses.

This may of course allow time to gradually speed up as the average gravitational density of the universe decreases with expansion!

Do post a link.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 19:05 GMT
Dear Peter,

While it might look like shadows or planets move faster than c, you can't use shadows to signal because light (absence of light) still moves at the speed of light.

For the M87 event, the best I can do is to figure that the Higgs field slipped/moved or was disrupted somehow.

I've already told you that I think that shift photons can warp space-time (Higgs field) with very reasonable amounts of energy.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 13:23 GMT
Jason

Signals implying a 'rate of change of position' of something do 'c', but they do not require that apparent rate of change itself to represent 'c' or any particular speed with respect to your inertial frame.

The signals telling us the front of the shadow has crossed a planet at a rate equivalent to 3xc are sent at 'c' and arrive at 'c', after crossing the field between at 'c'. But that doesn't have to force the edge of the shadow to slow down!!

I'm really disappointed you can't see the logical distinction! Don't feel bad if you really can't, because that's precisely where most of humanity has failed so far! and precisely where the road to the solution lies.

I am on the other hand gobsmacked by Djamel, who seems to have seen it all with astonishing clarity straight away! As Bragg said, understanding physics properly isn't about new discoveries it's about changing views to give the correct perspective on what we've already discovered.

I hope you persist, but you must slow down and think more carefully!

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Djamel H.D wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 19:20 GMT
Hi, Peter

"This may of course allow time to gradually speed up as the average gravitational density of the universe decreases with expansion!"

I like very much the idea, you just defined the time and this allow us to (after doing more effort)to merge the two pillar thiories of modern physics.

Thank you Mr.Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 13:31 GMT
Djarmel

"I like very much the idea, you just defined the time and this allow us to (after doing more effort)to merge the two pillar theories of modern physics."

That was genius! I'm on a mission to understand how to best explain or demonstrate this unvelievably simple and obvious unification solution, and have failed miserably so far. Just a few have seen it, and each by a different route.

You seem to have seen it from the absolute minimum of evidence, though can I assume you read the posts above? and perhaps one of the papers? Or maybe you were close or on that road anyway? I'd be really interested in your background and perception.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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