Search FQXi

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.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/11/12 at 8:02am UTC, wrote Dear Israel, You: "the expectations in the outcome of the MMX are...

Israel Perez: on 12/11/12 at 7:22am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard In your document you wrote: t_ABA = (2d/c) sqrt(1+r^2)...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/10/12 at 6:32am UTC, wrote Dear Israel, You made a first decisive mistake when you wrote "t_ABA-t_ACA...

Israel Perez: on 12/10/12 at 3:47am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard You: The desperate search for any explanation to the...

Israel Perez: on 12/7/12 at 17:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Eckard I'm sorry for not replying soon. These days I've overwhelmed...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/6/12 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Israel, Perhaps you need some time to check "The mistake by Michelson...

Israel Perez: on 12/6/12 at 15:36pm UTC, wrote Dear MV Vasilyeva Thank you for your comments, they are very encouraging....

MV Vasilyeva: on 12/5/12 at 21:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Israel, congratulations on getting your ideas recognized....

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez [refresh]

Author Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

According to Karl Popper assumptions are statements used to construct theories. During the construction of a theory whether the statements are either true or false turn out to be irrelevant in view of the fact that, actually, they gain their scientific value when the deductions derived from them suffice to explain experimental evidence. Science is enriched with assumptions of all kinds and physics is not exempted. Beyond doubt, some assumptions have been greatly beneficial for physics. They are usually embraced based on the kind of problems expected to be solved in a given moment of a science. Some have been quite useful, some have not. Some others are discarded in a given moment and reconsidered in a later one. An illustrative example of this is the conception of light, first, according to Newton, as particle; then, according to Huygens, as wave; and then, again, according to Einstein, as particle. Likewise, once, according to Newton, a preferred system of reference (PSR) was assumed; then, according to Einstein, rejected; and then, here the assumption is reconsidered. It is claimed that the assumption that there is no PSR can be fundamentally wrong.

Author Bio

Holding a Ph.D in physics since 2010, Dr. Israel Perez is an active researcher currently performing at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. His main field of research is experimental condensed matter, particularly, he is focusing his efforts in the study of the electronic properties of High-Tc and iron-based superconductors. During his spare time he also does research in the philosophy of physics and mathematics. Recently, Zeno's paradoxes have become his prey. He is the author of several articles and essays in both fields. As before, this essay should not be taken superficially.

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT
Hi Israel,

You wrote: "...the second postulate of special RT cannot be and has never been experimentally tested."

I am not so sure. When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c). This (Doppler effect) is experimentally tested. The speed of the light waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c' and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 06:34 GMT
Hi Pentcho

What I mean is that the second postulate assumes that the one-way speed of light is constant but experiments actually measure the two-way speed of light. Therefore, no experiment has measured the one-way speed of light. I hope you understand this. Take a look at my references for details.

With regards to your comment you're talking about the classical Doppler effect. This...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Hi Israel,

The formula f'=f(1+v/c) gives the RELATIVISTIC Doppler effect when v is low enough. If you don't believe me, see this:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 06:45 GMT
Israel, if in a gravitational field the speed of light varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), which is in fact a prediction of Newton's emission theory of light, then in gravitation-free space the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the observer relative to the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v. See...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 23:10 GMT
Dear Israel,

Very clearly and succinctly written essay. Extremely relevant to the competition question, and insightful.

Feels like you've really put a few things straight that needed saying, with no messing around. Science and its aim, "laid bare" was one of things that resonated with me.(I have talked a bit about truth and science as I see it with J.C.N Smith in my essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 04:47 GMT
Hi Georgina

Nice hearing about you again. Thanks for your comments. I'll take a look at your essay and your thread. As I can see there are too much essays, I will try to keep up with the development of the contest as much as I can.

As you can see, there are many things to say about this topic and one has to fit them to just 25 000 characters. So one has to summarize the whole story. Sorry for that. But here I am to try to add the missing 100 000 characters.

Let's see what comes. Thanks again you for your wishes, I wish you the best too.

Israel

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 06:51 GMT
Hi Israel,

you have nothing to apologise for. You have done a brilliant job of fitting a lot of important ideas into your essay. I hope it will be inspiring to lots of people.I was not implying that your essay is lacking in any way but expressing my impatience to see change, resulting from the kind of understanding of science and its wrong assumptions that you have talked about. I will be interested to read whatever else you add here.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Hi Georgina

Just to thank you for your clarification.

Israel

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear Israel Omar Perez,

I enjoyed your essay immensely. You present a view that I have considered to be the likely case, and believe it comports very well with my first two FQXi essays. Reinterpreting the warping of space as change in the density of the field is extremely significant. Your essay is very well written, simple and clear, and I hope you do well in this contest. There must be something in the water in Saskatchewan.

I invite you to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, for still another perspective on the gravitational field (the gravitomagnetic aspect thereof).

Thank you for a very stimulating essay,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your comments. Definitely the view of space as a fluid can drastically twist our present views of the universe and make a lot of progress for science. I'm quite convinced of this.

Good luck

Israel

Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 07:23 GMT
Dear Isreal,

It's interesting to me that we both live in Saskatoon, we've both submitted essays to this contest that argue for a preferred frame of reference, and that we've never met! I liked the way you set out your argument: beginning with an epistemological discussion, then moving on to discuss the historical development of the physics, and how that could have been different since a preferred reference frame is theoretically allowable, and then concluding with some considerations to support the assumption of a preferred state of rest. In your final paragraph, you mention that ''the expansion of the universe would need to be reinterpreted in the light of this new paradigm.'' Actually, standard cosmology already assumes an absolute rest frame. In my essay, I've argued that absolute simultaneity and the assumption of a cosmic rest frame should be revisited and reconceived more relativistically, since they are described in the most trivial way possible in standard cosmology. Maybe we could meet up sometime to talk about these kinds of things. In any case, I'd be grateful if you read and commented on my essay.

Good luck!

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Hi Daryl

I'm also surprised to see your post. Thanks for reading my essay. It would be nice having a meeting, I am working with the so-called beamteam, please send me an email to be in contact: iop998@mail.usask.ca. To be honest, I'am not well informed of the details of cosmological models so it would be great to take a look at your essay.

Certainly the implications of the PSR are very deep, and the price to pay for the shift paradigm is too high that most theoretical physicists are not willing to entertain.

Good luck too

Israel

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thank you for a very well written and accessible essay. I was immediately interested in what you had to say due to your abstract being so simple and informative. I appreciate your knowledge of physics history with the mental concepts that our early great scientists held and the way these ideas came in and out of favour over the years. It was most enlightening. I did notice that my own essay topic, Newton's assumption of isotropy and the weak equivalence principle, was merely touched upon though. I have a new angle on this with regard to real data and have pursued an exotic matter hypothesis which has been most fruitful. I would much appreciate it if you would take a look at what I have discovered, Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality.

The very best of luck to you,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Hi Alan

I really appreciate your comments. It would be interesting to read your work, I'm sure that it'll enrich the reader's view. As I mention in my essay the physical interpretation of the data may depend on the theoretical system under consideration. I think that the present data have been interpreted according to the prevailing paradigm, this is the natural way but as time went by, the new observations started to form a complex puzzle that became harder to reconciliate with the fundamental assumptions. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why theoretical physics has been in crisis for the last 3 decades. But reinterpreting data means that old present theories and models must be abandoned. This is the most difficult part.

I wish you the best too

Israel

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Hi Israel,

You suggest the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field but do not treat the problem quantitatively. So let me ask you a question (I have already asked it to James Putnam who also claims the speed of light is variable):

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

The questions: c' = ? ; L' = ?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
Hi Pentcho

Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
I do not know what happened but my previous reply was a failure. I'll try again

Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
I do not know what happened but my previous reply was a failure. I'll try again

Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v is less than c. Now, the calculations of the paper are made in the presence of gravitational fields. If we appeal to the equivalence principle, we are saying that the calculations assume a non-inertial system of reference (NIS). So, let's not mix things. In inertial systems of reference (ISR), in which space is assumed isotropic and homogeneous, the speed of light is always c relative to an observer at rest with the light source. If an observer moves relative to the source he will measure the relativistic Doppler effect. I agree with this. But for NIS the speed of light changes its values from place to place. To a certain degree, I agree with your result, namely

c'=c(1+gh/c^2)

but recall that it comes from an approximation (v

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Doctor Pérez,

I found your essay to be absolutely absorbing. Unfortunately, as I clumsily pointed out in my essay Sequence Consequence, I still have to question why scientists ignore the reality of what exists here and now in favor of trying to prove abstract theories about what ought to have been in the mystical historical there and then. For instance, just as oxygen has to be present here and now in order for one to be able to breathe, it is evident that visible light has to be present here and now in order for one to be able to see. Real visible light cannot have a real constant speed separate from the surface it is striking in order for it to become visible and that is why visible light is always present here and now while one is looking.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Hi Joe

Thanks for your comments. You should consider how physicists work. Most physicists no longer deal with direct "observations" detected by the senses but by measuring instruments. So, physicists interpret reality from data and some fundamental conceptions. Some times it's not a matter that they ignore the "reality" it is that they do not even envisage it. Some other times it is that they have to simplify their theories and disregard many important factors, like temperature or the gravitational influence. If they considered these factors the theory would become so complex to be handled. The more variables and factors you assume in your theory the more complex it becomes. For this reason, physicists look for principles and for this reason they even make false assumptions.

Physical theories are built on the basis of mathematics, because one has to quantify the reality. From mathematics physics acquires its abstract character. You should keep in mind that qualitative observations are not satisfactory for the exact sciences. If you cannot quantify you cannot find the correct mathematical model and then it is harder to use this knowledge for technological applications.

This is, in a simplified form, my view. Science progress very slowly finding strong pillars. I think this is one of the most difficult parts.

It would be great to take a look at your essay, as you can see there are many interesting works to read.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Israel Perez

I enjoyed your essay - it shows clear thinking on every level, and is not afraid to defend the usefulness and importance of the Newtonian concept of absolute space AS. Einstein was 'too clever' in presenting his elegant and seemingly foolproof system in SR. His system avoids AS by saying that the speed of light is constant. But by abolishing AS he abolished the ether, and his Leyden lecture on the ether clearly shows he regretted this later.

Your thought experiment about supposed knowledge of physics in 1898 is to the point. It shows how physics 'could have been'. I can add that the gulf between QM and GR could have been avoided had it not been for this 'too cleverness' of Einstein. He has created obstacles in physics because of his photon-as-point idea which as I discuss in my fqxi essay Fix Physics! is the basis of the probabilistic interpretation in QM. And his warped spacetime in GR is unnecessarily complicated and anti-intuitive. As I have been advocating for years for example in Beautiful Universe Theory , Eddington's refractive index idea should replace GR's unnecessary complexities. I am glad that you too have accepted the usefulness of this approach. I can add that even before Eddington Young had such an idea in relation to optical refraction at an open aperture. Another great 19th c. concept that Einstein swept into oblivion is that matter is permeable to the ether to use Fresnel's phrase, and the related idea of Hertz' that everything (matter and ether) is 'electrical'- concepts that are also, together with AS, inherent in my theory.

Congratulations on a job well done.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT

Thanks for your stimulating comments. I agree with your view in the sense that Einstein knew how to avoid the PSR. In his lectured at Leyden Einstein gave some strong arguments against the aether assumption which due to the lack of experimental evidence were quite convincing for the mainstream of physicist. The acceptance of his theory was based on the fact that the theory was a very powerful predictive tool and this is what physicists exploited. I hold that intuition cannot be ignored in the construction of a physical theory, and I think that most people agree that absolute motion is plausible and quite natural. The famous Newton's schollium still remains engraved in my mind. I see no contradiction in his line of thought. He was even aware that, it may be impossible to detect absolute motion, but nevertheless it cannot be disregarded.

Now, if we really wish to make historical justice, the credit must be conferred to Descartes. Newton's vision was inspired from him. Descartes had the conception that the aether was really dynamical, this was the cause of the motion of celestial bodies. Newton knew this very well but he decided to assume the aether static to simplify his theory. From ~1730 to ~1770 astronomical problems were solved following Descartes' approach in France and Newton's approach in England. At the end, Descartes approach was discarded not because it was incorrect but because it was more complicated (similar to the case of the geocentric model).

Certainly, if relativity is not accepted as a physical reality but only as a geometrical model, then one can argue that the marriage with QM is an illusion. Thank you for the invitation to read your work. I will take a look at it ASAP.

best wishes

Israel

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Israel,

Einstein's brilliance is the greater because of his intellectual honesty. He was always thinking back about the implications of his theories and if need be revise them. I think his attitude to the ether was ambivalent as you point out, but he needed it for GR in order for his grid of clocks and measuring rods to work (I am paraphrasing his words).

I agree with you about Decartes and highlighted his ideas about ether (together with his amazing illustration of the ether vortices) in Section 2.3 of my Beautiful Universe paper. Maxwell's gear-like mechanism to model electromagnetism in vacuum suffered the same neglect that befell Decartes' idea. My Beautiful Universe lattice of nodes with angular momentum in units of (h) are my way of recasting these ideas into modern physics.

Your sentence "if relativity is not accepted as a physical reality but only as a geometrical model, then one can argue that the marriage with QM is an illusion" is too general to understand in the context of what I said. Are you objecting to what I said about the need to reexamine some of Einstein's other ideas as you have done for AS? I am not saying relativity or QM do not work, but that they works despite their being so abstracted from the simple physical way I think Nature works at the tiniest level, a level that assumes the absolute space idea that you have so ably defended.

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT

Definitely Einstein was very smart, there is no doubt about it.

I am not objecting what you said. I just meant that maybe there is no need to unify Relativity and quantum mechanics as many physicists believe today. Both theories have been very useful as a mathematical tools, but, particularly, I think that relativity is not the only theory to account for the observations. I have seen a couple of other theories that do the same work as relativity.

Israel

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear Israel,

I truly enjoyed your essay. You have exposed with exceptional clarity some of the flaws in reasoning that led to abandonment of the preferred system of reference hypothesis.

I completely agree with you that the constancy of the speed of light is not experimentally founded. If a preferred system of reference existed, then any effect on the speed of light attributable to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 20:51 GMT
Hi Daniel

It is nice to read your view. Thanks for leaving you comments. Due to the lack of space in the essay, I could not clarify that, within the context of special relativity, the PSR cannot be experimentally detected only for interferometric experiments realized in vacuum. However, non-vacuum experiments might show a positive result. My reference 17 (section 3, Eq. 14) exposes the steps of a very simple experimental procedure to roughly estimate the absolute velocity of an inertial system of reference (say the earth) relative to the PSR. Certainly, I dismiss gravitational effects, etc. If we consider temperature, angular, and gravitational factors the problem becomes very complicated. However, in principle it appears to be feasible. Some experimental works, following this approach, have been reported elsewhere. The measurements are in agreement with the velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation. Unfortunately, they are not recognized by the mainstream of physicist. Most of the physics community assumes that the PRS assumption and the material fluid are dead.

With respect to the one-way measurement of the speed of neutrinos or light, I have reservations. My investigations have shown that no experiment can measure one-way speeds of any physical entity unless you have an adequate clock synchronization (which implies the knowledge of the one-way speed of some physical entity, and thus this is a dead end).

Finally, I agree that the speed of light is only function of the properties of space, and it would depend on how you construct your theory.

I will look you essay ASAP. Good luck in the contest

Israel

james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 05:00 GMT
Hi Isreal,

I haven't read your essay yet, but I am responding to the comment you made above. This is the the comment you made that I have issues with; "With respect to the one-way measurement of the speed of neutrinos or light, I have reservations. My investigations have shown that no experiment can measure one-way speeds of any physical entity unless you have an adequate clock synchronization (which implies the knowledge of the one-way speed of some physical entity, and thus this is a dead end)."

One of the first indications that the velocity of light was finite was observations of the moons of Jupiter. It can be determined relativily precisely when the moons of Jupiter will eclipse each other, or pass in front of Jupiter, or behind it. In the 19th century they were using this fact to determine a universal time relative to London, or Paris, or what have you. The issue that arose that called this into question was that when the earth was on the oposite side of the Sun from Jupiter, the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter arrived 16 minutes later then when the earth was closest to Jupiter. That is a one way measure of the velocity of light without "adequate clock synchronization". I'm sure there are others.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 21:57 GMT
Hi James

Thanks for your comment. In my investigations, I have considered most experimental techniques. Roemer approach is well known to me. And it is very controversial due to the fact that people assumed a system of reference at rest with respect to the sun, but time measurements are realized on Earth. So they are presupposing a clock synchronization a la Newton. The same time on Earth and the same on the sun, Jupiter, etc. Most authors who claim that this is a one-way method do not show convincing arguments against this and no detailed calculations. The Roemer approach is ambivalent. You can judge it from different perspectives. You can see Io moon as a mirror reflecting the sun light. In this sense it is clear that light goes towards the moon and then backwards to the earth (this resembles Fizea-Focault approach). The other way of seeing this experiment is based only on the variations of delay times in the moon positions (determined by the orbital period) and the difference of the distance between the Earht and Jupiter at different positions of the Earth's orbit. But like I said they assumed the Sun as the reference frame and not ther Earth. If you have any references where the calculations are explicitcly shown please send them to me, I will be glad if you can convince me that Roemer approach is a one-way measurement.

Best Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Israel,

Congratulations on another clear and logical entry. As you mention to Georgina, it does tie into a much larger field of inquiry. It is quite breath of fresh air to read Eric Reiter's and your essay together.

I happened to be discussing the very issue on a blog devoted to Julian Barbour's work, From Time to Shape. To save scrolling through, here are some relevant...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 22:08 GMT
John/Israel:

I fully agree with the statement - ""motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place."

This has actually been vindicated in my paper - “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. The proposed GNMUE model integrating the physics of spontaneous decay with special relativity and Newtonian theories successfully predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies, resolves dark energy and dark matter problems, eliminates big bang singularity, and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories describing the inner workings of quantum mechanics (The marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity is not an illusion but a confirmed reality via the proposed GNMUE). In this model, the PSR or Newtonian fixed space and time occur only at V =0, wherein relativistic effects are small and gravity effects dominate. As V gets larger and closer to C, space and time dilate due to the dominant relativistic effects (and diminishing gravity effects) and PSR in AS dissolves into GPR following special relativity. At V=C, space and time dilate to zero with no clocks or distances remaining within a continuum of the eternal and omnipresent un-manifested (zero mass) laws of the universe.

This confirms that motion or V/C is a fundamental quantity, above absolute space and time.

Please read my detailed post below and my posted paper for further details.

Regards

Avtar

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear John

Thank you for leaving your comments. You touch so many topics which is difficult to talk at length about all of them. I just would like to make some comments about some particular things that you outline.

You: The presumption of space arising from a singularity is based on this idea that space is created by measurements of objects and actions.

Me: I assume you're...

view entire post

John Merryman replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 02:24 GMT
Israel,

Thank you for the reply and advice. Given the enormity of the situation, I have to stick with making predictions of what will be discovered, rather than experiment. Some of the recent observations of distant galaxies and galaxy clusters ,which push the boundaries of current theory: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

As for the idea of cosmic rays condensing into interstellar gases, resulting in a gravitational contraction, while they haven't been able to find dark matter, there is an excess of cosmic rays on the perimeter of this galaxy.

"motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place. The problem is that no one understands motion or change. This is one of the most difficult things in physics."

Actually I think I offer a clue to this in my essay. By deconstructing our misperception of time, I place motion within the equilibrium of space, with time as emergent effect.

Sorry for all the links, but they are generally interesting, if you haven't already seen them.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear John

I found very interesting the links you sent me. Thanks for the information. As I mentioned before change and motion are very difficult concepts to grasp. I will take a look at your essay ASAP.

Israel

John Merryman replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 02:00 GMT
Israel,

You're welcome. Good luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Israel,

First, I'm glad that you and Daryl are now in touch. Next, as indicated in my comment above, I find this statement fascinating:

"So, within this context, the warping of space can be physically reinterpreted as the change in the density of the material medium."

from Xing-Hao, Ye, and Lin Qiang -- Chinese Physics Letters 25: 1571-1573 (2008).

I do not have access to Chinese Physics Letters. Do you have an alternate reference. I can't find one. Also, are they the only people to treat this topic? It seems like a very important issue to me.

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 02:22 GMT
Hi Edwin

I leave you a couple of useful references:

Dupays A et al 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 161101

Ahmadi N and Nouri-Zonoz M 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74

044034.

More complete theories are already well advanced but unfortunately not accepted within the mainstream of physics. Please take a look at my reference 19, there section 9.2 gives an comprehenive set of references about this topic.

Israel

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 03:15 GMT
Thanks for those. I've already read 19 (once). Any other references on this topic would be very welcome. Thanks again.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Hi Edwin

Sure, no problem.

Israel

T H Ray wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Hi Israel,

I agree without reservation with Popper's view of science. It's a mathematician's view, after all -- that some premises are better suited to some problems than others. That a mathematical model is independent of physics, and only realized as useful to physics in the correspondence of the mathematics to the results of a physical experiment (Popper adapted this position from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth).

Your well argued hypothesis of a one-way measurement has the earmarks of a seminal idea. A few months ago when the faster-than-light neutrino controversy was in full swing, I argued that unless a two-way measurement could confirm that putative result, we could never be sure of its physical reality. That is impossible in principle, however. So I get your point that such an hypothesis might be deemed superfluous without actually being superfluous. I.e., it would meet Popper's criteria of metaphysical realism.

That's why I think that topology is the most useful mathematical framework to address foundational questions. We need the property of orientability to deal with one-way phenomena. I hope you get a chance to visit my essay site ("The perfect first question") to see why.

Best wishes in the competition.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Tom

Thanks for you comments, they are very welcomed. You have summarized my view very well. I consider that Popper's view is highly influential for scientific work. He is still one of the basic references in a epistemological paper. It is unquestionable.

You touch an relevant topic, the topic of truth. Actually, I have been studying the criterion of truth. I mean how can we know that something is true or false. This topic is interesting to me for several reasons.

As to the speed of neutrinos, I agree. A comprehensive understanding of the speed of any physical entity cannot be attained without the acceptance of absolute velocity. My reference 17 shows that if in a measurement, carried out in an inertial system in motion relative to the preferred system, the absolute one-way speed of the entity is close to the speed of light, the observer in motion will measure a value slightly higher than c, say 300 100. This effect is only a problem of the geometry of your experimental setup. If you change the geometry you will get a slightly different value. The reason for this is because of the length contraction that undergoes the apparatus. Another reason is the orientation of the setup relative to the motion of the inertial system. Please take a look at my reference 17 for further details. Of course, there are some many other factors that could affect the measurement like gravitational, temperature, etc. So, the task of measuring with high precision, as it is required for the case of neutrinos, becomes really challenging.

Indeed, topology gives a different view of the universe. Though one should be reserved about the physical meaning that can be extracted from topological approaches. I appreciate your comments which have been very inspiring.

It would be nice reading your essay. As you can see there are so many. I'll check it ASAP.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 08:04 GMT
Hi Israel,

Don't you declare Einstein a moron if you object to his Leyden lecture as if he simply overlooked what you now found out? I didn't find any hint to an insight or even an experimental result that was not yet known to him.

What about Akerlund's Roemer argument, I recall that it was treated in detail by Gift.

Good luck

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Hi Eckard

No, I cannot say Einstein was a moron but quite the contrary, there is no doubt he was very smart. But sometimes our own convictions fool us and make us believe wrong assumptions. Sometimes we do not realize our own mistakes until someone points them out. He denied the PSR based on his own convictions even when he knew that the PRS was not at variance with the principle of relativity, this is clear from the Leyden lecture. He found his own arguments to convince himself that there was no material aether (only gravitational). Poincaré and Lorentz were very well aware of this. For instance, the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction was not a mere hypothesis, it is the realization that rigid bodies do not exist in nature, all bodies deform when are subjected to forces or temperature changes. Einstein considered this hypothesis as unsubstantiated, because he could derive it from his theory. His view was more geometrical than physical.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of Akerlund's Roemer argument. I would be happy if you could quote it or leave the reference. Thanks a lot for your comments.

Good luck in the contest too.

Israel

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
Israel,

You should be aware of Jim's Roemer argument. Didn't he tell you here and yesterday that Roemer's observations of Jupiter moons led to the insight that light propagates with limited speed and these observations were no round-trip experiments?

What about your attempt to correct Einstein in excess of his own self-correction in 1920, I quote from his Leyden lecture: "... the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,

consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,

namely, its immobility." If I understood your essay correctly, you are calling this immobility PSR. Einstein continued to know well that the PSR and his PR exclude each other. You seem to disagree. If you are correct then the proponents of Einstein's PR will perhaps be happy with you as their most brilliant PR manager. I regret that your essay is, with its only six pages, a bit too cryptic as to fully persuade me.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 01:30 GMT
Hi Eckard

Thank you for your comments. I am sorry, when I read your previous post I didn't realize that you were referring to James. I apologize for this.

As to the Roemer' argument I have exposed some arguments in reply to James. The Roemer's approach is controversial and I have analyzed a couple of reports who claim to have reproduced Roemer's measurement of the speed of light on a table top experiment. In my reference 17 I showed that this is not the case. I asked James for some references with explicit calculations of the experiments and he has not replied my last post. As well, I would appreciate if you have any references on this topic.

Another example of this is the Bradley's approach. Many people claim that the one-way speed of light can be determined from the classical aberration expression, i.e., tan (theta)=v/c. The problem here is, how we measure v? v is the speed of the earth relative to what? To simplify the calculations astronomers assume the speed of the earth around the sun or any other arbitrary reference system. Is this correct? If one determines v relative to jupiter one will get a different value. So, I ask: is not the expression suggesting that the speed v is the absolute speed?

On the other hand, I would like to add that Einstein denied the PRS because he thought there was a contradiction between the PR and the PSR. However, a universe deprived of a PRS only leads to a series of paradoxes. Once the PRS is restored the paradoxes fade away.

As to the extract, indeed I call the immobility (from a macroscopic viewpoint) the PSR. One can say, that this is the Lorentzian aether, an immovable and homogenous substance. But considering the action of massive objects, the aether is no longer homogenous and immovable. So, I appeal to Descartes's aether which Newton simplified as immovable. Even at the microscopic scale, quantum mechanics has shown that the vacuum is not immovable. Several other theories also hold that the vacuum can be assumed as a particular state of condensed matter. So many evidences from cosmology, to quantum mechanics, to condensed matter seem to suggest that PRS and the material fluid are the right assumptions.

In relation to the length of my essay I see no relevance in the discussion. Why do you point out this? The limit was 25 000 characters, they are compacted in 6 pages.

Finally, in relation to your comment "cryptic" I will be glad to elucidate any inquiry you may have. As far as I can see you seem to be in agreement with Einstein. So, I would appreciate if you could tell me if I am wrong and where I am wrong. I may be erred, but despite this, unquestionably, only the body of experimental observations will decide whether Einstein was wrong or not.

Israel

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
Hi Israel,

I hope you won't mind if I list the acronyms. Thanks.

PSR-preferred system of reference

AS-absolute space

GF-gravity field

GPR-Galillean princip relativity

ISR-inertial system of reference

LP-laws of physics

RT-relativity theory

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 05:50 GMT
Hi Jason

I just wonder the purpose of listing the acronyms. Thanks

Israel

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Hi Israel,

I just wanted to have the list of acronyms to refer to as I read your paper. I like your paper. It is well written, clearly articulated and interesting to read. I am sympathetic to your view that there is a medium of some kind. But I have to take issue with you that a preferred system of reference exists. I assume that a PSR has an absolute clock and an absolute reference frame. A Galilean reference frame is philosophically appealing, but it turns out to be incorrect.

I thought that your closed circuit argument was a clever way to undermine experimental evidence for RT. Unfortunately, the GPS satellite system, which works very well, uses and confirms GR and QM to a high degree of accuracy.

Nevertheless, it was a good paper.

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 04:15 GMT
Hi Jason,

"I assume that a PSR has an absolute clock and an absolute reference frame. A Galilean reference frame is philosophically appealing, but it turns out to be incorrect."

An absolute time and an absolute reference frame does not necessarily mean Galilean relativity, which the argument I've given in my essay may help you to see. Furthermore, as Israel has correctly pointed out, relativity theory is not inconsistent with a preferred reference frame, which is therefore not an "incorrect" assumption to make---only Einstein argued that it should be superfluous from the point of view of relativity, since SRT *can* be derived without it. The problem is therefore to reconcile Newtonian intuition with relativity theory, and furthermore, to justify that upon the basis of scientific evidence.

Cheers,

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Jason,

Just few comments from a PicoPhysicst.

1. Preferred system of reference (PSR): Preferred system of reference has always been there and will continue to exist. It is the reference system realtive to which the observer is at rest. In most of our arguments we also believe the observer is at origin that enables use of different co-ordinate systems and easy interpretation of mathematical formulations.

2. Ether was a very different concept so was earth at center of universe.

3. There are many more assumptions that come to mind which are at core of mechanics - whether Newtonian or relativistic. First and foremost of them being the assumption of uniformity of space.

In the essay 5-Dimensional Universe we describe the universe as 5-dimensional with time dimension mapped in drift direction. This not only provides constancy of speed of light as well as seen as a proof for uniformity of space.

Thus time and one of the dimensions (in the drift direction) have conformal mapping and thus measures to same number. The ratio is unity - giving speed of light a character of universal constant.

If we try to meditate on means available to measure distance and time independently, we will find that is not possible without bringing into picture constancy of speed of light.

Now since drift can be any of the three directions, we have uniformity in space at least at micro level. (PicoPhysics believe it is limited to micro level, at macro level it is not uniform due to disturbance caused by presence of matter).

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT
Hi Vijay,

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Israel:

I enjoyed reading your well-written paper making a case for reviving the PSR based on its “usefulness”.

First of all I agree with the conclusive statement in your essay:

“The PSR assumption constitutes a paradigm shift that would demand a drastic change in the way of conceiving the present universe. Well established facts such as the expansion of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 05:35 GMT
Hi Avtar

Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments. From what you say I am curious about your work, it appears that we have some points in common, I will read it ASAP. I just wonder whether your theory besides explaining some of the most important problems in physics makes new unobservable predictions. I would appreciate if you could make some comments.

As to the aim of science. I would like to make a comment to state my point. I think that one should acknowledge that humans cannot be omniscient, if this were true there would be no more questions to answer and we will control nature at will. This leads me to reach the plausible conclusion that humans will never understand how nature really works. I wish you were right but I cannot overlook the previous statements. I may be wrong, in such case, I would appreciate also if you could persuade me of changing this belief.

Best wishes

Israel

Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear Israel:

1. You asked – “I just wonder whether your theory besides explaining some of the most important problems in physics makes new unobservable predictions. “

Yes, some new predictions of my model include the evidence of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 06:11 GMT
Dear Avtar

I thought I had the impression of having replied this post. I am sorry for this.

From your words, I can see that you are suggesting that one day I will change my position or opinion about it. However you agree that humans will never understand nature.

You: To me, a science that cannot reveal purpose to the universe and life in it, is a purposeless science; a science that cannot reveal beauty is an ugly science; and a science that is limited to the inanimate matter (particles) alone is a science of the dead.

I think you are right that science is gaining more appreciation from its followers, but if what you say is true, then science will become some sort of religion.

You: Science is ready for the next frontier – consciousness or free will if it has to progress any further. Consciousness or free will is the fundamental reality that must be the foundation of science, until then it is all building castles in the air. Free-willed decaying of the beliefs and mindset is essential to realize this fundamental reality of the universe.

What you suggest about consciousness as the next step of science I also understand it. But I do not think science is ready for this step, there is at least one more step that science has to undergo before going to the consciousness part. First, it has to get rid of the mechanistic and materilistic view of the world, particles and so on... for this, probably more than 100 years will have elapsed (provided science and technology do not destroy us).

Israel

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 14:30 GMT
Dear Israel Omar Perez,

My view on Ether & ‘The Preferred System of Reference’

Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Vijay

Thanks for leaving your comments I appreciate them and I will take a look at your essay as soon as possible. I just like to make clear that neither the Michelson-Morley experiment nor any other experiment can rule out the immovable aether assumption. None of these experiments proves that there is no aether. The aether was rejected only on epistemological grounds. I invite you to read my essay, there I elucidate these points.

Best regards

Israel

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Israel,

"I argue in my essay that most of the problems in physics can be "easily" solved if one accepts both the PSR and the notion that "empty" space is not only composed of gravitational potentials (as relativity holds) but that space is a material fluid a la Descartes. This is the benefit for physics.'

I'm trying to figure out how space could be a "fluid," yet not be some form of causal spacetime.

It seems to me that to make space a true PSR, all dynamic properties would have to be washed out, leaving it as an equilibrium state, in which matter/energy/action interacts. There seems to be this insistence on some measurable function, aether, etc, filling it up. It seems to me the most irrefutable argument for space as the elemental frame, is centrifugal force. Once you rotate any defined frame and the component contents seek to follow a straight line, requiring some attractive property of the frame(gravity) to hold them in, that is evidence of the Euclidian equilibrium of space. Aether certainly wouldn't cause centrifugal force.

Yes, all of space is either dominated by energy radiating outward, or mass/gravity contracting inward, but they seem, according to measurement(COBE, WMAP) and theory, to be in balance, resulting in an overall flat space.

The only alternative to space as some form of elemental void, is the notion it emerges as a consequence of the singularity, which is a whole additional can of worms, one which incidentally grew out of the idea of "spacetime" in the first place.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:22 GMT
Hi John

Thanks for your stimulating comment. I have a long story to tell so you can understand my view. I am going to summarize it as much as possible but I need to divide it into two parts, because the space is limited here. This is part 1.

You should understand that the reality that we grasp through our senses is very related to intuition. The way we perceive reality is highly...

view entire post

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT
This is part 2

...From ~1710 to ~1760. Astronomical problems were solved in England a la Newton and in France a la Descartes. Once Bernoulli confessed that in continental Europe most people were Cartesian, but in England Newtonian. Bernoulli was Cartesian but after returning from a trip to England he became Newtonian... This is indeed the case. The Cartesian model was so complex to deal...

view entire post

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:37 GMT
Well, I thought 2 parts, but they are actually, 3. Sorry

...So to avoid all of these complications, I'm reconsidering Descartes notion of space. Empty space does not exist. Space is a material dynamical fluid. Light travels through this medium and bends near the vicinity of massive objects because the object causes the density of the fluid to vary which means that the index of refraction changes from place to place within the gravitational field. Gravity is nothing but a flow of this subtle matter that points towards the center of a vortex. This causes all the celestial bodies to spin around its axis: the earth, the moon, the sun the galaxies etc.. The vortices of the fluid drag other objects around the sun; dark matter is part of this fluid; macroscopic objects (actually they can be model as solitons) are in a condensed state of this fluid and deformed when forces are applied (Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction); the cosmic background radiation is simply the temperature of the fluid, etc, etc... This theory is developed but not recognized by the mainstream of physicists.

In summary, to simplify the calculations one can assume this aether at rest a la Lorentz and place a PSR there. There is no problem with centrifugal forces. The complex option is a la Descartes, but as you say the notion of PSR appears to be lost if you think of objects as particles. Indeed the notion of particle is another issue that, from my view, has also caused noise to our understanding of reality. From this notion arises the problem of wave-particle duality at the microscopic level. The wave-particle duality is another assumption which one has to get rid of to see the physics with more clarity. It is obvious that something cannot be two things at the same time, particle and wave. To solve this problem one has to assume that either everything is a wave or a particle. The second option appears to be more complex. So one may conceive particles as waves, actually as solitons moving in the fluid and therefore the PRS concept is still valid.

Israel

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,

My Internet access was very limited and unreliable for the past month. Both that and my too abrupt reading of your first message to me in my forum caused me to not fully appreciate its importance. Professional physicists have occasionally communicated with me but it has been rare. Usually the messages I receive are from other amatuers. I do fully appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge with me. I have read your essay and welcome it as a greatly needed addition both to the contest and for asserting the rightful prominence of empirical evidence. Speaking only for myself, theory is either its follower or is unanchored invention. I liked your essay very much. Good luck in the contest.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
Dr James

Thanks for your post. I invite you to read, some of my posts here in reply to Pentcho's inquiries, there you will find some other arguments in favor of the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field which is equivalent to having a fluid with a inhomogeneous refractive index.

Good luck in the contest too

Israel

Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 12:55 GMT
Israel:

It's me as promised on my thread (a Fable).

As a useful tool I find PSR interesting.

A lot of game has to be played -as Georgina stated- in this field to find if it helps to have a better

-simpler - explanation for the several questions that remain open.

As an assumption I really belive is good.

Now, do you really think there is an "absolute space" in the sence Newton did?

I've reviewed your past essay and find you are quite interested in Philosophy,

In that line of thinking Do you think it is relevant if AS really exist even it is not perceived?

Regards

Juan Ramos

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Juan

Based on my research, I see no reason to reject the PSR. The PSR has already been found though not identify as such. In my reference 14 (eq. 3.14), I provide just one example that the PSR can be, in principle, experimentally determined.

One should understand that the physical interpretation of experimental evidence depends to a high degree on the theoretical framework under consideration. Based on the current paradigm in physics, it is evident that there is no PSR since its conception is no longer a fundamental part in any of the accepted theories.

But one can build a theory including the PSR and reinterpret the current observations within this new theoretical framework. Such theory (lets name it DKT) is already developed but not recognized by the mainstream of physicists. In DKT, the aether is conceived as a material continuum pervading the whole universe and at the same time as the PSR. However, what in DKT is interpreted as the PSR, the prevailing paradigm interpret it as the remnants of the big bang, now known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). From the DKT the CMBR is only the temperature of the material continuum.

The continuum can be assumed, in general, to be dynamic but in its simplistic conception one can assume it at rest. In this scenario, the continuum resembles the Lorentz aether and therefore the Newtonian absolute space. I have provided a couple of epistemological arguments in my threads here in reply to John Merryman and Eckard Blumschein. There, I elucidate that even Newton considered that space was not empty at all and that he attributed the cause of gravitation to the flow of the aether. This fact tell us that, in the philosophical conception about gravity, Newton was actually a Cartesian. I also explain some of the misconceptions about the aether, the vacuum and the notion of fields (please see my threads below). The assumption of the PSR and the continuum can solve most of present problems in physics relatively easy. The key point is to get rid of the preconceptions of the present paradigm. This is the most difficult part.

Best regards

Israel

Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 10:37 GMT
Israel:

As you say a PSR is not main stream physics this days. Aether is being reconsidered but not main stream.

OK.

I can easely assume PSR and aether. And this is because I haven't done any personal work assuming the opposite. I even feel people who support the relativistic - based on GR- "block universe" tend to assume something quite "absolute" as PSR.

My impression on Einstein on his fight against quantum mechanics is that he is not relativistic at heart; and with relativistic this time I mean "Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration"

But I have no faith in PSR, as I have no faith in God, at least in the way most religions put it, and I still go to church and have very sincere friendship with people there.

If you can review my first essay on the limits of science you can follow my line of thought.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/524.

Now, trying to be more practical,

how do you think PSR would help to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe?

Oh! And on the moral of my fable, there is no one moral, there should be one to each reader.

After all, this contest porpoise is not on which assumptions we make, is about wich assumptions we should forget.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 20:06 GMT
Hi Juan

Due to the lack of space, I will split my reply in two parts. This is part 1.

Thanks for your comments. Certainly, the PSR and the aether are not mainstream so far, but I am optimistic that they will be in the following years to come because it is one of the most viable solutions to contemporary physics.

You said: I even feel people who support the relativistic - based on GR- "block universe" tend to assume something quite "absolute" as PSR.

I agree, some observations suggest the PSR. The essay of Daryl Janzen is one of this cases.

You: Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration"

Many people think that considering the PSR means abandoning relativism. This is a misconception. The PSR can go along with the principle of relativity.

You: But I have no faith in PSR...

I understand that many people do not believe in the PSR, some times it is matter of taste, but as I argue in my essay the PSR could be helpful to solve many of the present problems in physics. This is why it is important.

To be continued...

Israel

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 17:57 GMT
Israel

A stunningly brilliant analysis and exceptionally well written. After our consistency of thought last year I did expect something special. I would of course 'say that', because I agree with all therein, but truth is truth, and a rare commodity worth more than gold nuggets.

I must rely on you to comprehend my own essay, which considers your important concepts in wide application, but I regret I've crammed in far too much for most readers to be able to absorb. I greatly look forward to your fuller comprehension and comments.

I particularly pick out your 11 A Hidden assumptions, which identifies the issue of measurement with precision and where I have described a unifying solution proving your thesis.

The assumption of no preferred system of reference is also right on the money, and I derive a third option (to 'absolute' or 'empty' space) which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise. I'm sure you can do so with ease.

Thorny episode coming up for sure, with luck. I think yours is worth a top score and I hope you consider mine also worthy.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Peter

Thank you for reading my essay, I really appreciate your comments. I haven't taken a look at yours but I will do it as soon as possible. I am sure I will have no problems to get your ideas.

You: I derive a third option which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise.

I am curious about it. Thanks for your wishes and I wish you the best too, I am confident that your work is also interesting for any reader and deserves a good score.

Israel

Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Peter

Thank you for reading my essay, I really appreciate your comments. I haven't taken a look at yours but I will do it as soon as possible. I am sure I will have no problems to get your ideas.

You: I derive a third option which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise.

I am curious about it. Thanks for your wishes and I wish you the best too, I am confident that your work is also interesting for any reader and deserves a good score.

Israel

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Israel

I am also supporter of opinion that gravity is not a fundamental force. It seems to me that Sakharov's view about elasticity of space close to truth.

See detail my article "What Wolfgang Pauli Did Mean?"

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Hi Yuri

I did not realize about your post. I am sorry for this. I have considered the problem and Vesselin Petkov has a different view though is a little bit different.

I will take a look at your work as soon as possible.

Best regards and good luck in the contest

Israel

Cnstantinos Ragazas wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
Hello Israel Perez,

Thank you for your most interesting essay. You will find the following proposition relevant to the theme you expound in your essay: “If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. You can find the proof to this in End Note II) of my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”. This establishes that the CSL Postulate contradicts the Photon Hypothesis. And it unequivocally shows light is a wave. And as a wave, certainly the speed of its propagation through a medium will be innate and independent of the source or the observer.

I have made reference to your essay in mine. You may wish to check this out!

Best wishes!

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Thank you for reading my essays and for your comments. I do agree that the speed of light is defined, as in any other wave, by the properties of the medium. So if light is envisaged as a wave its speed is determined by the medium. If the medium is isotropic and homogeneous then one would expect the speed to be constant relative to an observer at rest in this medium. The problem arises when there is an observer moving in relation to the medium and the question do not appear to be as simple as in the previous case. Here the Lorentz contraction and the time dilation play their role in making the speed of light (the laws of physics invariant) a constant for all observes. The notion of photon per se does not require a medium but it is not clear what physical entity defines its speed. Actually, it is simply argue that its speed is constant and the same. If one considers relativistic effects then an observer in motion will measure the same value in any inertial system. So, for practical purposes, what matters is not whether light is a wave or a photon. However, if one wishes to be conceptually coherent and consistent, as you also point it out, the notion of photon leads to intuitive contradictions whereas waves do not.

I will take a look at your essay as soon as I can. Gook luck in the contest!

Israel

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Israel Perez,

You write, “The problem arises when there is an observer moving in relation to the medium and the question do not appear to be as simple as in the previous case.”

There can be no doubt light propagates as a wave. And as such, light will have an absolute and innate propagation speed in a medium. And that constant speed is what we measure 'locally' to the medium of propagation.

So the only question really is can we measure the speed of light in any other way but 'locally'?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:59 GMT
Hi Constantinos

I agree with you, though I don't have a definite answer to your question. Above, perhaps, you will find the arguments that I gave to Pentcho and Eckard very useful, they are related to the speed of light. Please take a look at them.

Regards

Israel

Daryl Janzen wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear Israel,

I came across this definition of "hume" in the Philosophical Lexicon (www.philosophicallexicon.com) and I thought of your essay. You could have named your essay, "The Preferred System of Reference Exhumed":

hume, pron. (1) Indefinite personal and relative pronoun, presupposing no referent. Useful esp. in writing solipsistic treatises, sc. "to hume it may concern." v. (2) To commit to the flames, bury, or otherwise destroy a philosophical position, as in "That theory was humed in the 1920s." Hence, exhume, v. to revive a position generally believed to humed.

Best, Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 01:38 GMT
Hi Daryl

Nice hearing from you again. I agree that the "hume" may well describe my essay's discussion, actually, the RELOAD part was the plus.

Cheers

Israel

DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Israel,

You have argued for a preferred reference system in your essay, and I have argued for the relational view of motion (and extensions of it) in my essay Absolute or Relative Motion...or Something Else? , which are completely opposite views. I think we may have a very exciting discussion.

First, I will adress your question: i) Does the fact that the PSR cannot be...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Daniel,

The implication that we must live in a Block Universe, as realised through the Andromeda paradox, is a significant issue, from the point-of-view of relativity, for any realist to overcome, if they would reject the relativistic possibility of a preferred reference frame.

As for experimental evidence, local experiments can't decide either way, since the physics is the same with or without a preferred frame; however, beyond the empirical fact that time really does pass, which can't be reconciled with relativity in any realistic sense without a preferred space, all empirical evidence from cosmology decidedly favours---and really can't work in the usual way without assuming---a preferred reference frame.

I hope you read my essay as well, and I'll read yours, as I'd be interested to join in on this discussion you've proposed. I'd very much appreciate such a well thought out critique of my essay as you've offered Israel here.

Best, Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 21:53 GMT
Dear Daniel,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your interesting comments. You have raised several issues that will provide a vast material for discussion and I will try to explain myself as clear as possible. I have divided my reply into two parts. This is part 1.

You: You have argued for a preferred reference system in your essay, and I have argued for the relational view of...

view entire post

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 21:59 GMT
This is part 2.

You: they are fully resolved and explained by special relativity without any problem. Why bother with them?

First of all, I am aware that the problem is not even recognized as a paradox by most theorists. So if we depart from this statement, there is no point of discussion.

However, if we insist on a paradox we may gain some valuable knowledge. The fact the...

view entire post

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi Israel,

(After reading your essay for a second time I slowly starting to appreciate the gist. Why slowly? The overuse of unusual acronyms means that my brain has to multitask (which I am no longer good at); the first task digesting and appreciating the content and the second learning acronyms that have no relevance beyond the essay. This was now a self criticism regarding my short term memory or lack thereof that all scientific writers should be aware of;  I am sure that I am not alone.)

Nevertheless, congratulations to the extremely well written and structured philosophical disquisition; explaining the historical background that moulded our way of thinking and raising the valid questions and presenting argument that there must be more.

Your essay and my essay (   .../topic/1458    ) support each other well; I, like you, raise  the question of a, yet unknown, underlying absolute reality verses our only ability to model, possibly degraded, a relative reality.

Regards and good luck - Anton

PS let's stay in touch my email in my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 02:30 GMT
Hi Anton

Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. Some other folks have pointed out my overuse of acronyms, I acknowledge this. Next time, I will reduce the number I promise.

I will take a look at your essay as soon as possible thanks for the invitation.

Best Regards

Israel

Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 02:24 GMT

I would like to open a discussion about the red shift.

My arguments go as follows:

First let us bear in mind that science must be strictly rigorous and critical. And to make valid the following questions we must make a legitimate assumption. Suppose that at present we have all fields of theoretical physics at our hands with the exception of the general theory of relativity, which we shall concur for the moment that it has not yet been discovered or invented. This set of theories along with its conceptual assumptions will constitute our THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (TF). Under this TF the nontrivial questions arise in relation to the cosmological redshift: (1) What physical interpretation can be given to the redshift observed in the spectral analysis of emission / absorption of galaxies, stars, etc.? (2) Considering the kinematics of special relativity is it possible to conclude that the redshift is synonymous of recessional velocity? (3) What conceptual framework allows us to associate the red shift with recessional velocity (which leads to the Hubble law)? (4) Are there any other interpretations of the redshift? (5) is it possible to conclude that the universe is expanding? If so, Why?

I would be glad if anyone could leave some comments. I believe that the answer to these questions are crucial to figure out whether the universe is really expanding or not. The only rule here is simply, not to introduce general relativity.

Regards

Israel

John Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 03:54 GMT
Israel,

I think the whole issue of redshift only being possible due to recession is based on the assumption photons remain point particles during transmission. But why? Wouldn't quanta of light expand, much like a gas when emitted? Then when absorbed, there are various possibilities why this expansion would be causing redshift. The one I suggested in last years contest was simply that beyond a certain luminosity, the loading theory of quantum absorption would mean it would start to take longer for each photon to register.

As for 5, expansion is already balanced by gravitational attraction, so the space expanding between galaxies, is matched by the space contracting into them, leading to overall flat space.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi John

I do not remember but it is likely since I have cited before and I am aware of that paper. Actually, I consider it of great relevance as an alternative explanation to the problem. I have identified that the key of the expansion is the physical interpretation of the redshift. As mentioned in that paper it is pretty reasonable that a wave cannot travel infinite distances without losing even a minute amount of energy, certainly conceiving light as a wave instead of a photon. I have found in the literature that this picture is called the "tired light" model, a term that seems to me somewhat misleading. The general theory of relativity offers one way to solve the puzzle by postulating expansion of space though it does not seem to be very probable. The fact that expansion does not solve Olber's paradox at all makes me lean towards the other model. It is a simpler explanation and very plausible based on the conclusions drawn from my essay.

Israel

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 19:25 GMT
Dear Israel:

"The general theory of relativity offers one way to solve the puzzle by postulating expansion of space though it does not seem to be very probable. The fact that expansion does not solve Olber's paradox at all makes me lean towards the other model."

!!!!!!!

First of all, GRT is NOT---*absolutely NOT*---needed a priori in order to describe the metrical expansion of space! The metrical expansion of space, described by the RW metric, is *assumed prior to bringing GRT into cosmology at all*. The RW metric is NOT general relativistic in and of itself, but GRT---viz. Einstein's equation---is ONLY subsequently imposed in order to constrain the FORM of expansion that such a universe can take, depending on the possible energy-content of space, according to the theory. One can presume to describe redshifts through the metrical expansion of space *in any case*. Second of all, the inference from the redshift measurements, that space is *actually expanding*---INSTEAD OF, as you say, associating redshift with recessional velocities of galaxies moving through space (which is NOT what's actually done!)---is by far the MOST NATURAL inference to make from the evidence (see below). Thirdly, Olbers' paradox is completely resolved by the standard model, which tells us that our particle horizon will monotonically increase, asymptotically approaching a FINITE comoving distance (i.e., finite coordinate distance in expanding space) from us (please see comments I posted on Abraham Loeb's site on Aug 13 & 14). Olbers' paradox exists only if the Universe were infinite in age and not (asymptotically) exponentially expanding. In the latter case, even with infinite age (e.g., Steady State theory), only a finite amount of light can reach any point in space at any time. Actually, (see, e.g., references to Krauss et al. in Loeb's paper) in exponentially expanding space light becomes completely undetectable after only 10^11 years.

I posted a reply to Peter Jackson yesterday on my site, describing in more detail the rationale behind the assumption of a preferred reference frame in cosmology, based on redshift observations and the *natural inference* that space is actually expanding (which, I MUST STRESS, does not require GRT *a priori* in order to construct an appropriate space-time metric). Here's what I wrote:

I thought I'd give some more details about why I think the cosmological evidence justifies the assumption---usually thought to be unjustifiable strictly from the point-of-view of relativity---of a Cosmic Time and preferred reference frame to describe the evolution of a three-dimensional Universe. To begin with, note the principal reason for inferring that the Universe is expanding: as Eddington wrote in The Expanding Universe,

"The lesson of humility has so often been brought home to us in astronomy that we almost automatically adopt the view that our own galaxy is not specially distinguished---not more important in the scheme of nature than the millions of other island galaxies…

"When the collected data as to radial velocities and distances [of these galaxies] are examined a very interesting feature is revealed. The velocities are large, generally very much larger than ordinary stellar velocities. The more distant nebulae have the bigger velocities; the results seem to agree very well with a linear law of increase, the velocity being simply proportional to the distance. The most striking feature is that the galaxies are almost unanimously running away from us…

"We can exclude the spiral nebulae which are more or less hesitating as to whether they shall leave us by drawing a sphere of rather more than a million light-years radius round our galaxy. *In the region beyond, more than 80 have been observed to be moving outwards, and not one has been found coming in to take their place*…

"The unanimity with which the galaxies are running away looks almost as though they had a pointed aversion to us. We wonder why we should be shunned as though our system were a plague spot in the universe. But that is too hasty an inference, and there is really no reason to think that the animus is especially directed against our galaxy. If this lecture room were to expand to twice its present size, the seats all separating from each other in proportion, you would notice that everyone had moved away from you. Your neighbour who was 2 feet away is now 4 feet away; the man over yonder who was 40 feet away is now 80 feet away. It is not *you* they are avoiding; everyone is having the same experience…"

So, if the basic inference is really justified, that the redshifts of galaxies outside this sphere are all due to the dominance of the Hubble flow over peculiar motions of galaxies (i.e., their motions *through* space), so that any peculiar motion (which includes our own) really does become increasingly negligible with distance according to Hubble's law, then of course it's justified to treat the peculiar velocities of all galaxies, including ours, as noise in the redshift measurement, and describe ourselves and all sufficiently distant galaxies that we model as remaining at rest at comoving coordinates of expanding space.

Therefore, even though our clock, here on Earth, doesn't measure Cosmic Time because we're moving through the Universe (as indicated by the CMB dipole anisotropy), from the point-of-view of cosmology this doesn't matter, and we *are* able to determine what the present value of cosmic time is, because the metrical expansion of the Universe (as we infer from the empirical evidence) totally overwhelms any [special] relativistic effects due to the random peculiar motions of galaxies [which would otherwise indicate that two randomly chosen galaxies couldn't agree on a cosmic time due to their relative motion].

In essence, since the CMB indicates that we're moving through the Universe a little faster than 0.001c, and by the cosmological principle and observations of nearby galaxies we infer that this velocity is likely a typical value, peculiar velocities of galaxies along our axis of motion would produce the largest errors to our assumption that we're all at rest with respect to a comoving rest frame, and these could be as large as (0.002 -- 0.003)c. But this value is much less than the cosmological redshifts we typically observe. Therefore, when inferring that cosmological redshifts are mainly caused by the metrical expansion of space, we're also inferring that all peculiar motion, including our own, is eventually negligible with respect to that.

Cosmology therefore demands an absolute foliation of space-time, against which all local space-time measurements, at all levels, can be made. I've discussed this in regard to general relativity in my response to George Ellis on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 18:53 [on my site].

Best, Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Member Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 21:06 GMT
dear Israel

it was good advice when you suggested, in commenting my essay, that I should have a look at your essay

I really ejoyed reading it. We have different views on preferred frames

and relativistic theories but we share the intuition that there are interesting issurs at the interface between fundamental physics and philosophy of science

best wishes for the competition

Giovanni

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Gionvanni

Thanks for reading my essay and for the comments. You may be interested in joining the discussion above with John Merryman and Daryl Janzen in relation to the physical interpretation of the red shift that led physicists to the idea of expansion and thus to the the big bang model which in turn has led to the present problems in physics. There I explain the misunderstandings and that the aether assumption can solve most of the present problems all at once.

Best regards

Israel

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 01:17 GMT
Hi Israel,

I really liked your essay a lot. You bring up a good point about how it has been useful in the past to hunt for hidden assumptions like "a particle could obtain an infinite speed". This type of hunt is exactly what I tried to do in my own essay.

The hidden assumption that I identified was "the maximum energy scale of photon creation and annihilation (PCA) is infinite...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 02:01 GMT
Saskatoon seems to produce some pretty good physicists, professional or not. What's in the water up there?

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Haha Edwin. Mostly pickerel, jackfish, and freshwater whitefish. You should stop by and cast a line some time. :)

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 04:48 GMT
I'm in if we can talk about Life, the Universe and Everything.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 06:25 GMT
Israel,

"If the frequency changes for the observer in motion the wavelength will change also in the same proportion, thus the observer will measure c and not c'."

That is what you wrote in your first reply on this thread. But this is an obvious absurdity, Israel - the observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v but the wavelength of the light chasing him automatically changes so that the speed of light relative to him gloriously remains c (c'=c-v is forbidden). Look at this video presenting the process:

&v=EVzUyE2oD1w

"Dr Ricardo Eusebi: f'=f(1+v/c)"

Do you see the wavelength changing? No? Then perhaps it is the speed of light relative to the observer that changes? Do you see that change?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
Pentcho

You are still totally confused. This "If the frequency...measure c and not c'." is true. Take a look at a book where you find the Doppler effect for observers in motion relative to a source at rest, and then take a look at the case in which the observer is at rest and the source in motion and work out the calculation only of the wavelength instead of the frequency. You will realize that L'=L/(1+v/c) (the sign will depend on whether the source-observer approach or move away).

Israel

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:49 GMT
Are Carl Mungan and Sidney Redner "totally confused"?

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarsh
ip/DopplerEffect.pdf

Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppl
er.html

Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT
Pentcho

I am talking about light. You are mixing things again. The cases you are quoting are for the non-relativistic Doppler effect, that is, for other waves different from light. For light in inertial systems of reference the speed of light is always c, so if you have a frequency f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength has to L'=L/(1+v/c) otherwise you will have c' different from c which disagrees with experience.

Israel

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
A simple problem, Israel: If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda", what is the speed of the waves relative to the observer? Could it be c'=c-Vo?

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Pentcho

You have to understand that the expressions you quote are for speeds v low compared to the speed of light. When astronomers use the formula f'=f(1+v/c) they are using it because v is low in comparison to c, but if v were much greater they would use the relativistic formula: f'=f sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]. The formula you quote is an approximation to this relativistic one which coincides with the Galilean Doppler formula but this coincidence does not mean that the speed of light acquires a different value from c (such as c+v), as the other wave speeds do (sound, etc.). Do not mix lines of reasoning.

The speed of light is always c in any direction and way, it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c.

Israel

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 04:57 GMT
Again: If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", what is the speed of the waves relative to the observer, Israel? Is dividing distance by time difficult? Extremely difficult? Impossible? Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT

Speed of sound is c-Vo, speed of light c. Tony Harker is wrong, this: "and our results will be applicable to sound or to light" is false. It is misleading and confusing. If people think that this is true, they will think that for light the speed will be c-Vo as it is for sound.

Israel

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT
Israel: "Speed of sound is c-Vo, speed of light c"

But the frequency is f'=(c-Vo)/L in BOTH cases:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.p
df

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

See no problem? Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 08:03 GMT
Pentcho

Please do not open a new post every time you reply, keep in the same conversation.

Thanks

When professor Roger Barlow says: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound...

He is saying that the phenomenon of frequency change (called Doppler effect) occurs to all kind of waves, i.e., all waves undergo frequency change due to the relative motion between the source and the observer. He is not saying that the formulas has the same physical interpretation as to the velocity of the waves, but only in relation to the frequencies. That the same formula applies for both kind of waves does not mean that the speed of light is additive as the speed of sound.

Sorry Pentcho, you keep asking the same questions over and over and you do not understand that the speed of light hast to be c in any inertial system, whether you use an approximation or not.

I also told you that the expressions you quote are for speeds v low compared to the speed of light. When astronomers use the formula f'=f(1+v/c) they are using it because v is low in comparison to c, but if v were much greater they would use the relativistic formula: f'=f sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]. The formula you quote is an approximation to this relativistic one which coincides with the Galilean Doppler formula but this coincidence does not mean that the speed of light acquires a different value from c (such as c+v), as the other wave speeds do (sound, etc.). Do not mix lines of reasoning.

The speed of light is always c in any direction and way,it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c.

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Roger Barlow: "In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point."

That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point is c.

Roger Barlow: "A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)."

That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving point (moving observer) is c+v.

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Israel,

I have read your essay and I totally agree with your viewpoint. Your essay is well-written, most interesting and very impressive. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Sandhu

Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. As you have may know the mainstream of physics have considered the PSR and the aether a dead issue. However, I have realized that lately the quantum vacuum or the zero point field (the modern version of the aether) is making a lot of pressure to relativity. My bet is that in the following years new discoveries in quantum...

view entire post

Frank Ullmann wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 18:32 GMT
Hi Israel,

I have read your essay with great interest (its structure is really well done). That is on the one hand because (as was only to be expected) I had similar thoughts. On the other hand this stems from the fact that it was new to me that the quantum vacuum can be seen as a perfect fluid (with respect to which one can detect one's own motion?). I do think that reflections like yours (and their discussion) should be a part of any lecture about special relativity.

(Even though I consider it to be impolite to combine my remarks to your essay with a hint to my own paper / essay I cannot fail to do so. I am anxious to know what you think about it.)

While I was studying (theoretical physics at the Goethe Universität in Frankfurt / Germany) by chance I came across something my professors judged to be just a mathematical curiosity without any reference to reality. Now I think that what I had shown at the time is actually of relevance. According to my "curiosity" there is a necessary condition for the validity of Minkowski's geometric interpretation of special relativity (considering space and time as space-time equipped with Minkowski metric) that is not satisfied. [That is synonymous with: Not all inertial frames can be equivalent to each other (and there has to be a preferred inertial frame if we assume that space is isotropic). But since only groups of inertial frames are compared to one another it is still impossible to point out one inertial frame to be the preferred one.]

I would be delighted if you would read my essay .

Kind regards,

Frank

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Frank

Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments I appreciate them much. The absolute detection of the preferred system of reference (PSR) has been very illusive though is not an impossible task. My reference 17 (Eq. 14) gives a clue, some others works have been proposed elsewhere (see also my reference 19).

A complete formulation of space as a fluid has been developed...

view entire post

Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 15:51 GMT
Isreal,

Nice Essay! It looks like there are a growing number of people who realize that (using your words) SR is not the only game in town. I think I accomplished phase 1 in my essay, which is to show - using pure facts, that all of relativity cannot possibly be correct. Phase 2 is: What are the implications and what can we replace it with? One possibility (which I have been writing about since 2008) is that instead of all fundamental behaviors (responsible for motion, energy changes, etc..) being thought to exist "In" time - what if they actually "are" time? Then their interaction with background fields (or components of the fluid in the PSR that you mention) as they accelerate and move with increased velocity could be altered which might affect the rate at which all of these internal fundamental behaviors occur. This would provide a very simple local mechanism for time dilation. And when you place a system of particles in a gravitational field, the G field may be warping other background fields and/or something in the fluid to produce the same net effect. Another idea I had was similar but it relies more on the effect motion, acceleration and gravity may have on the moving particles own fields they carry.

If we can establish a core of responsible people to acknowledge that a problem with current theories exist, then more people will be able to contribute to producing an accurate alternative. I hope we can keep this conversation going.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 03:49 GMT
Dear Chris

Thank you for reading my essay, I am glad you found it interesting. As I understand time is nothing but change, a series of processes (the problem is that nobody understands change). In the previous contest I discussed my ontological notions of space and time. I am sure you will find them interesting. I must tell you that there are already some well developed alternatives to...

view entire post

Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
Israel, (sorry - last time I mispelled)

Thanks for the references. I will read them along with your essay from the previous contest.

By the way - I recently posted a couple of items on Daryl's thread in response to something he posted on my thread awhile back. Afterward I noticed some very interesting conversation just previous - between you, Darly and John Merryman. I hope I didn't interrupt and hope it resumes - it looked like it was just getting good. I will keep an eye on it.

report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 12:12 GMT
Dear Isreal,

I've read your proposal concerning the existence of a preferred frame of reference. I am convinced, too, that such a PSR is really existing. But I attacked the problem of its existence from a quite different perspective.

I came to the conclusion that the speed of light c is given twice - in two different version: as a particle-like version and as a wave-like version. The background of this thesis of a DUAL PARAMETRIZATION OF C is the wave-particle-duality of light. My thought: If light has a dual nature, it is natural to assume that the speed of light is of dual nature as well.

This view has indeed far-reaching consequences, in particular with respect to the so-called Null experiments, that is, to the Michelson-Morley experiment (MM-Exp) and to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment (KT-Exp).

These two experiments are not experimental proofs of the Principle of Relativity (= non-existence of PSR), but experimental proofs of these two faces of c: MM-Exp = wave-like face of c; KT-Exp = particle-like face of c.

The ether-drift (i.e. the absolute motion) is obscured by these two faces of c in such a way, that only a very subtle residual effect remains.

But to say it clearly, this idea of a Dual Parametrization of c is still more a vision than an elaborated theory.

Kind Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
Dear Helmut

Thank you very much for your comments and for reading my essay. I glad we agree in the existence of the PSR. I had a very important discussion with Daniel Wagner who has a relational view of physics and so he rejects the PSR. One should recognize the weaknesses of our approaches. SR leads to a series of paradoxes and deprives the universe of PSR. On the other hand, the detection...

view entire post

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 16:57 GMT
Hi Israel,

Having found flaws in papers by Gift myself. I nonetheless understood what you quoted from Gift as follows: Gift objected to Einstein synchronization. He assumed universal time and the constant speed of light relative to space.

Being aware of logically circular twists to justify Einstein's convention (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/) I see Einstein's application of Poincaré synchronization not justified in case the distance AB is changing.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Hi Eckard

I hope you have convinced yourself that the measurement not only of the one-way speed of light but of any physical entity is not a trivial task at most people believe (see my reference 17).

GPS clocks are synchronized assuming per se that c is constant, so any measurement of the one-way speed of light based on GPS is automatically invalidated. Despite of this, I hold that in an isotropic and homogenous vacuum (the PSR) the one-speed of light should be isotropic.

The synchronization of clocks is a big problem, perhaps an impossible task.

Israel

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:42 GMT
Israel,

Perhaps nobody questions that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in the PSR. However, Einstein's theory refers to the observer, not to the PSR. Einstein synchronization is part of this admittedly arbitrary monist convention.

I was curious what Wikipedia says about "one-way speed of light". [15] redirects to [1]. Isn't this strange? [1] points to an old textbook by Shang. Yesterday I was pointed there to what is now [3], a 2010 entry which ends with a remarkable sentence: "The debate about conventionality of simultaneity seems far from settled, although some proponents on both sides of the argument might disagree with that statement." I already gave the address: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

Anyway, it is wrong to say one-way speed of light cannot be measured. It can only not be measured without an agreement on synchronization.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Eckard

Yes, Einstein refers to the observer because in his theory there are no PSRs. So, I am considering another theory different from SR where the PSR is included (for instance, keep in mind Lorentz' theory).

You: Anyway, it is wrong to say one-way speed of light cannot be measured. It can only not be measured without an agreement on synchronization.

If we agree in a clock synchronization the result is not a pure empirical fact but it will depend on our conventions (therefore the one-way speed cannot be measured). Besides, you are saying that if a synchronization is defined the one-way speed can be measured. It is clear that for any synchronization convention we adopt we will get a different value for the one-way speed. Then let me know what synchronization is the best and why that one and not any other.

Cheers

Israel

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Israel,

After noticing some interesting comments of yours on another thread, I was drawn to read your essay. I must congratulate you on an excellent submission! I have a few comments and questions.

Let me first remark that while I don’t dispute your arguments for treating the existence of the PSR as “not an issue of parsimony but of usefulness,” I believe that there...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Benjamin

Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:

In a logical construct (a theory) I would prefer to replace the words "true" or "false" by "right" or "wrong". This is one of the distinctions that K. Popper remarked in his works in view of the fact that sometimes assumptions have a...

view entire post

Author Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Benjamin

Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:

In a logical construct (a theory) I would prefer to replace the words "true" or "false" by "right" or "wrong". This is one of the distinctions that K. Popper remarked in his works in view of the fact that sometimes assumptions have a...

view entire post

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thanks, I understand better now. You characterize your approach as "radical," but without radical ideas, we'd never get anywhere. I wish you the best of success with your work! Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

David Rousseau wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear Israel,

You have written an interesting and important essay. I very much like the way in which you clarify concepts up front and then argue in those terms. Such philosophical discipline is too often neglected by theorists. Your argument shows the power of this approach.

I support your defence of space as a material medium, and particularly liked your inference that "the warping of space can be physically reinterpreted as the change in the density of the material medium". The model that Julie and I defend in our essay is consistent with such a view - we argued that space is a kind of material substance which can interconvert with an even more fundamental substance we call "energeum", and argue that "dark energy" is the result of energeum converting into space. The reverse transaction, of space locally converting into energeum would allow for space to have a physically effective variable density, which can present mathematically as a 'warp in space' just as you propose.

I enjoyed reading your essay, and hope you will find ours interesting too. Good luck in the competition!

Best regards,

David

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear David

Thank you for reading my essays and for your stimulating comments. Indeed, modern physics have neglected philosophy as a tool to create theories. But the fruitless attempts of the last 30 years have been a lesson for physicists to recognized that philosophy based on analysis and intuition has a very important role to play in science. I think this is one of the reasons of this contest (Most of the organizers of the FQXi project share the view the physicists should recover the old way of doing physics). Vesselin Pektov (one of the contestants) has recently inaugurated the Herman Minkowski Institute at Montreal. The aim of this institute is to do physics including analytical and philosophical reasoning. These events reflect the recognition that the way of doing physics today is leading to a dead end.

I follow the traditional way of doing physics. This approach has led me to understand the problems from another perspective and some of the consequences are laid down in my works. I am sure you will find very interesting my previous essay where I exposed my deepest notions about the universe (space, time, etc). Probably you will find a relation with your view.

With respect to the notion of space and some of its consequences, please take a look at my reply to Benjamin Dribus above and my discussion with Daniel Wagner in both of our entries. Also check the discussion I had with Daryl Janzen in his entry and mine where I defend the view that the expansion of the universe could be a mere illusion just as dark matter, dark energy, the Big bang, etc. These are the results of the General theory of relativity which denies space as a substance. If one assume that space is a material fluid, one is contradicting relativity. Thus, either we keep relativity or we drop it altogether.

Best Regards

Israel

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Hello Israel. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:02 GMT

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am doing my best to read as much essays as I can.

best luck in the contest

Israel

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 20:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Israel Perez,

I agree with most of the readers’ comments about your very well presented essay. However, the aspect that is of fundamental importance in it is that it lays the basis for a full blown critique of physics as it has evolved and thereby providing us with a handle to address the prevailing crisis. This is where I find your essay to be most valuable.

This does...

view entire post

attachments: DISCUSSION_WITH_ELLIS.doc

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Viraj

Thank you for reading my essay and for your well-thought comments. This time I have been very busy with my work here at the university, and I hadn't had a opportunity to reply some of the post in my entry. After analyzing the foundations of relativity I have understood that the criterion that will decide the future of theoretical physics is the background dependence of theories....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:59 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Frank Ullmann wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear Israel,

I just realized that the link (in my post) to my essay did not work. So:

About the length of world lines … (my essay)

I would be happy to hear what you think about it.

Kind regards,

Frank

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:39 GMT
Hi Israel,

Many physicists seem to go back and reconsider PSR, for various reasons, mostly related to quantum theory. It would not be the first case in which an apparently perfect symmetry is broken, the most clear in my opinion is that of the electroweak force. It is good to challenge this from time to time. Your essay is very beautifully written.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 02:08 GMT
Dear Cristinel

Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. After analyzing the foundations of physics I have understood that the criterion that will decide the future of theoretical physics is the background dependence of theories. People wonder which theory, GR or QM, is wrong. I found that background dependence is an essential ingredient of a theory. So, GR should be modified.

Good luck in the contest!

Israel

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 02:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,

I would like to draw your attention to my post above of Oct 03, with refer to your essay.

I hope you would find the time to address the matters raised.

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez.

I appreciate from your other posts too that you have a very busy schedule with the University, but still you somehow find the time to answer the posts as comprehensively as possible.

I have to bring to your notice, that you have mixed up my arguments against SRT on the basis of Einstein’s own positions, and your answers have been as if they are my positions. I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 21:17 GMT
Dear Viraj

You: What if what I call field energy is what you call 'aether'? I have avoided even suggesting terms like 'aether or ZPF because the readers would at once associate these terms with their pre-conconceived notions and prejudices.

Well, you may be interested in reading my essay from the previous contest where I discuss my...

view entire post

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,

Thanks for your lengthy reply. However, I am surprised that you, as a proponent of the Preferred Reference Frame, are not familiar with Lorentz’ FINDING of a term involving EARTH’S MOTION, in his 1904 paper in the equation he empirically discerned which we now call the “Lorentz transformation”.

Please do not misunderstand that I do not appreciate the fact that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 04:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,

According to you, in the motion of a muon (particle), there are only two frames involved. A) The frame attached to the muon, B) the lab-frame. And you have categorically stated that the frame of the sun is not involved. For argument’s sake I will accept that there is a frame attached to the muon.

I would like to ask you where does your Preferred Frame of Reference...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 23:49 GMT
(To the reader: This post is in reply to the post by Dr. Perez above. To see it please click on “show all replies” option inside the frame above)

Dear Dr Perez,

1. You wrote: “Now you argue that the Lorentz' theory assumes the speed of the earth u relative to the sun. Then the problem is that you did not express yourself appropriately because you are having in mind Lorentz'...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez.

(Here is Part II)

Firstly, I thought the acronyms TD and ECIF were standard and everybody knew them. TD = thermodynamic, ECIF = earth centred inertial frame. (Sorry about it using these without showing what they stood for)

You wrote: “I made the calculations following the paradigm of SR, I thought you were talking about the problem within the context of SR....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
Israel,

The following wisdom of yours needs elaboration (now that you are among the finalists):

You wrote (above on this page): "The speed of light is always c in any direction and way, it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c."

Initially the observer is stationary and the wavelength of the incident light is L. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v and the wavelength of the incident light becomes, according to your wisdom, L'=L/(1+v/c). Can you say something about the physical mechanism responsible for this metamorphosis of the wavelength?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

We need to adopt Maxwell’s paradigm: “All phenomena without exception arise due to states of changes of energy” (Matter and Motion p. 91). Under the same paradigm: THERE IS NO INTERACTION IN THE UNIVERSE WHICH OCCURS WITHOUT EXCHANGE OF ENERGY WITH THE FIELD. All systems without exception are open.

With this paradigm, all kinematic theorizations will be doomed to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 20:51 GMT
Viraj,

You wrote: "When the photon impinges on the moving observer it at once adapts to this constraint. Instead of a velocity change, it changes its frequency from f to f' = f (c +v)/c. Then the wavelength changes to L' = Lc/(c+v) by conjugate variation while keeping c' constant."

In textbooks, the frequency shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L is DERIVED from the explicit or implicit assumption that the speed of the waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v. If you want to keep the speed of the waves (relative to the observer) constant, you will have to derive the formula f'=(c+v)/L in a different way. The derivation is obligatory - you cannot just declare that the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L and leave it at that.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 03:16 GMT
Pentcho,

You are a well read guy and I don’t have to tell you that science moves forward through paradigm shifts. It is unfortunate that Maxwell died so young and so early. In his 'Matter and Motion' he set an outline of his programme under the title “Scientific Work to be Done”. He laid out the new paradigm that “All phenomena arise due to states of changes of energy” etc. If Maxwell lived another 25 years, then the world would have been a different place. Definitely there would not have been a theory of relativity, which is in a sense a retrogression from dynamic based physics to kinematics. Recognition of Maxwell’s paradigm and re-construction of physics on that basis is long overdue.

I showed the conjugate variation of frequency and wavelength while maintaining the constancy of velocity of light and the quantum exchanges of energy with the field, all on the basis of Maxwell’s paradigm.

The textbooks you refer to, deal with frequency changes on a kinematic basis. I have done it on a dynamic basis, under Planck’s law E = hf. Do you side with empty kinematics or meaningful dynamics?

Anyway the argument between what your ‘textbooks’ say and what I say cannot be settled merely by the exchange of ideas between us. It has to be settled by explaining experiments.

Can you explain the null result of MMX in terms of what your text books say?

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,

1. You wrote: “I performed the calculations based on SR step by step and I showed you that the time dilation equation (B) follows from the time transformation (A) and you still argue that I did the tricks found in textbooks. What is the trick? I am wrong (based on ST) tell me please were I am wrong”.

I WILL SHOW YOU THE TRICK: When x = ct in SRT as a basic...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT
Viraj, Israel.

May I make an observation. I have shown logically that only the 'next immediate background frame' has any relevance for the purposes of defining 'speed', which is a purely relative concept. All matter has it's own and mutually exclusive 'nested' local frame.

If the experiment were being conducted in space near the sun the suns (or solar wind!) frame would be the background. If on Venus it would be the rest frame of Venus, Earth and the sun would have no influence.

If the lab were on a ship on a gas sea on Jupiter, the frame of the ship would be the background frame. This is precisely the structure of compound 'propositions' in truth Propositional Logic, carried over to dynamic logic.

In fact, to confuse thing, but just to be aware, Earth has TWO frame, the orbiting FCI and rotating ECRF. There is a physical transition between these! So a lab on Earth is the background ECRF, NOT ECI and NOT Barycentric (Solar) frame (I'll deal with other 2nd order exceptions another time).

Observer frame is also indeed of utmost importance as the observed results vary between frames. In each case an observer frame must be defined and adhered to, so proper time and other, so arbitrary, observations can be identified.

I just hope that thinking about the above may avoid the confusions allowable by just dealing with the maths and algebra in a purely abstract way.

I hope it helps bring agreement. Do please let me know if not fully understood or agreed.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 02:40 GMT
Peter and Israel,

I hope Israel will excuse me for having discussions under his thread. But at the same time, I believe the blog etiquette allows discussions involving third parties.

Peter wrote: “only the 'next immediate background frame' has any relevance for the purposes of defining 'speed', which is a purely relative concept. All matter has it's own and mutually exclusive...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Israel,

(I am putting this up as a new post, because for the reasons explained below, I am considering this as a fresh start in our conversation).

1. You asked: “Do you have a theory or a well developed conceptual framework?”.

Yes I have. If you read my essay you would have got the gist of it. It addresses the primordial problems in the foundations of physics, and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Israel,

I described in my earlier post how relativistic phenomena emerge, in perspective, with the relativistic phenomena being latent at slow velocities and developing exponentially and manifesting, due to non-linearities at fast velocities.

Do you agree that the same laws of physics have to be at work even at slowest of motions of particles, as they are when the same particles move at near light velocities?

It is not that one set off laws (i.e. classical laws are at work) when a particle moves at low velocities and another set of laws (i.e relativistic laws) suddenly come into operation when that particle is in fast motion. If this be the case at velocity range does this transformation of laws occur?

It is that when Newton stated his second law, as a corollary he stated a linear relationship between the applied force and the velocity attained. “If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion…..”. etc.

No. Double force generates less than double the motion. This is because the relationship is non-linear. But the effect of non-linearity is so minute at low velocities, it appears almost as a linear relationship. That is why classical mechanics has inadvertently been developed on linear relationships.

What we need is to find the required algorithms which will enable us to develop mechanics which can be uniformly applied to slow and fast motion equally.

Do you agree? I hope to hear your views.

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez wrote on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Viraj

Sorry for not replying before but I have been very busy days. For these same reason I haven't read your essay and I am afraid it would take some time. I just have read your last posts and I would like to make some brief comments.

You: In effect we have started off... ...we have no clear understanding between us about the different roles played by Lorentz, Poincare and...

view entire post

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thank you for the response.

Part 1

The basic issue I need to clarify with you is that whether you agree with my following position in regard to the so-called “Relativistic Phenomena”.

Irrespective of whether a particle moves at 1 km/s (0.000000000009c) or 0.99999c the physical processes that are involved in that motion has to be the same. The same...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT
Dear Viraj

Yes, I agree that the effects are present at all velocities from 0 to c.

You: (1) In order to set a particle of mass M in motion at velocity v, momentum p = gamma. Mv is required. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)

(2) When the particle has been set in motion, its internal processes slow down by the same factor gamma as above. (SRT does not...

view entire post

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Dear Israel,

You wrote: “Here again you insist in introducing the frame of the sun. If you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, I wonder why not introducing the motion of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy and so on and so forth”.

I am not introducing any frames of my choosing whatsoever. I am only referring to Lorentz’ finding. I have...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT
CONTINUING:

Dear Israel,

You wrote:: “I told you that the Newtonian dynamics is not Lorentz invariant. Therefore, Lorentz invariance demands a new dynamics (relativistic). Lorentz invariance is the principle from which the relativistic dynamics is derived. This shows that relativistic dynamics is not falling from the sky (as you say) and this is the explanation that SRT gives to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Dear Viraj

It is fair to recognize that we are not understanding each other. You have your ideas and based on them you keep attacking and saying that relativity makes tricks, etc. I disagree with this since the theory, within its scope of validity, makes the correct quantitative predictions (although not the most plausible physical interpretations). So this talk has become pointless for me. I do not understand your central point of discussion. I am sorry.

I thank you for your interest.

Best regards

Israel

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 02:22 GMT
Dear Israel,

1. You have stated to the effect that SRT does not provide “the most plausible (of) physical interpretations”. But when I point out and CRITCISE the not plausible interpretations you allege that I ‘attack’.

2. I read your essay, rated it and commented on it. I have corresponded with you for well over a month. Still you have not had the courtesy to read and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear Israel,

The number of postings in your thread reached 255 and fell back to 252. Perhaps someone reported posts as inappropriate.

I did not yet reply to your last posting because I am still trying to understand some tricky questions.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Eckard

I think you are right, I'm gonna check it. Thanks for let it me know.

In relation to how space is modeled in relativity my argument is simple. In relativity space is not modeled as a material continuous fluid, instead it is a container, a flexible empty mesh represented by the metric tensor, and matter and fields fill it. If you check Einstein's field equations, on the left hand side we have the geometrical part and on the right one we have the matter part. So, matter is put on space and given the distribution of matter space warps. Recall that in relativity one still has space-time even if the right hand side is zero. In the XIX century physicists thought also that space was empty (represented by Euclidean geometry) and then fill it with particles and fields (the aether field, the gravitational field) to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and heat phenomena. As you can notice, this way of dealing with reality is basically the same as it is done in relativity, that is, space fill with matter and fields. In contrast, there is the opposite view, space is a continuous material fluid (according to the investigations of Christov this fluid, that he called the metacontinuum, could be either a liquid or a solid depending on certain values of certain constants) and particles (in fact, more properly solitons) and fields are excitations of this medium, these objects do not fill space, instead they are states of it. This is the great difference. Christov's theory is a theory of this kind governed by the laws of mechanics of continuous media. This view has profound implications for physics. So profound that it challenges well established facts (such as the the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory) but at the same time offers much simpler solutions. Of course, there is still a lot of work to do to get satisfactory results but the important point here is that principles have been identified and they are quite solid.

Best Regards

Israel

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 1, 2012 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear Israel,

Congratulation to the jury. Could the paradigm shift that Edwin expects rather be a shift backward in some sense? Wouldn't this fit well to the question "Which basic assumptions are wrong?"? While I did not quite understand what serious error for instance Spekkens, Ellis and Dribus referred to until the jury commented on their essays, your message was rather clear to me: The denial of an absolute frame of reference is untenable.

Having perhaps successfully dealt with the reason for the denial, I hope you will agree with me on that the expectation by Michelson was not just half but completely wrong from the very beginning. Please find my file "mistake" attached at 1364. I am curious.

Best Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Dec. 1, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Eckard

Perhaps you should reread my essay, in particular the first sections. There I argue that sometimes in order to make progress in physics one has to go backwards and reconsider past assumptions. If those assumptions solve the problems we have NOW, they are very welcomed in a science. The PSR, as I argue in my essay, is not at variance with the principle of relativity. So, time will tell whether it is useful or not. The theory is yet under construction.

As to whether I agree or not with the expectation of Michelson, this is a matter of perspective. If we judged the MMX in retrospective I would agree with you, but we should not forget that at that time Maxwell's theory was not generally accepted. It was not even complete by the 1880s and it only started to gain recognition only after the work of Hertz in 1887-8. There were other competing theories and therefore there was a lot of confusion on the interpretation of the experiment. If we study the problem in great detail the calculations become much more complicated than those found in your paper. You may wish to check the article I wrote on the MMX, there you may find some information and references with more comprehensive calculations that may answer your inquiries.

From my view, the MMX is an excellent academic example to understand the physics at a deeper level. I had studied this problem for some time and my article summarizes the most important findings. So, from my part I have nothing more to say about it, instead it is time to move on. As I said, the result of the experiment (whether negative or positive) does not rule out the assumption of the PSR. Keep in mind that since we do not know the reality, we have to make some times metaphysical assumptions. Therefore they are far beyond direct experimental verification.

Best regards

Israel

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 30, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT
Congratulations Israel,

I'm happy to see that you and Daryl were recognized. I hope your ideas gain increasing recognition. This is a great start!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Nov. 30, 2012 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Edwin

If you are happy, imagine how I feel!! Indeed, Daryl also made it to the first places, I'm very glad that our ideas have been recognized. I also hope this is the beginning of a paradigm shift. Thanks for our our discussion, I know that your work has also an important role to play in this change. Congratulations too!!

Best Regards

Israel

MV Vasilyeva wrote on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Dr. Israel,

congratulations on getting your ideas recognized. Well-deserved and well-done! I remember you had doubts that your essay may not receive the recognition it deserves for being too controversial. I am very glad that your fears were not realized.

I very much enjoyed our discussions, during which I learned a lot. Thank you and all the best to you!

report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear MV Vasilyeva

Thank you for your comments, they are very encouraging. Indeed, my fears were not realized. I am quite happy for this. I also enjoyed reading your essay and our discussion, unquestionably we all learned a lot during this contest.

So far, I'm attempting to build a new and stronger theory. The central idea is to have space as a material continuum (of 4D + time they are in total 5D). This represents a privileged system of reference. As you pointed out in your essay many problems are very easy to understand and solve. The catch here also is to consider that the real physical entities are not particles and waves but solitons. It has been mathematically shown that solitons reproduce all properties of waves and particles such as spin, charge, interference, etc. So there is no need to deal with two conceptions and talk about the wave-particle duality. Solitons and fields can be seen as excitations and states of space (3D), respectively. This is a radically different view of modelling the universe. In the current view, space-time is assumed as of different nature to particles and fields. Perhaps you may be interested in reading the work of another winner which has a deep connection with your work and mine. His essay it is very illustrative on how nature is modelled in current theories. He proposes also modelling particles, waves and fields as states and excitations of the vacuum or a background, however, although he considers the vacuum as having internal structure he does not assume it as a material substance.

Not on but of.

Olaf Dreyer

all the best

Israel