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

Helmut Hansen: on 10/5/12 at 8:55am UTC, wrote To Pentchov: P.S. I mean, of course, the Universee does not internally...

Helmut Hansen: on 10/5/12 at 8:06am UTC, wrote Dear Pentcho, my answer is clearly YES. Let me say something personal: As...

Pentcho Valev: on 10/5/12 at 6:50am UTC, wrote Helmut, If light is emitted in a train passing an observer, and if the...

Helmut Hansen: on 10/4/12 at 6:04am UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, I am not so much concerned in my or your rating. For me the...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:53am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Anonymous: on 10/2/12 at 15:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, why did you rate my essay? Without any argument or reason...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 8:51am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Helmut Hansen: on 10/2/12 at 7:18am UTC, wrote Dear Pentcho, it is not quite clear, what is really critized. What is...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

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
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Is the Speed of Light c of Dual Nature? by Helmut Hansen [refresh]

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Essay Abstract

The wave-particle duality of light is a well-established concept of modern physics. It postulates that light exhibits both a wave-like face and a particle-like face. But this Janus-faced concept was never consciously applied to the speed of light itself. If light has two faces, it would be naturally to assume, that the speed of light has two faces as well. This assumption which I am calling the »Dual Parametrization of c« shall be outlined.

Author Bio

Helmut Hansen is a philosopher who is primarily interested in metaphysics. He is convinced that metaphysics is the key science to reveal the »Secrets of the Old One« - just as the physicist Albert Einstein once phrased it. A topic of particular interest is thus the study of principles as far as they are connected with relativity and Einstein's critique on quantum mechanics. Hansen has published several books and articles on this topic, f.e. Die Linien des Alten - Einsteins letzte Vision (The Lines of the Old One - Einstein's Last Vision), eBook, Free University of Berlin, 2009.

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
Helmut,

I am afraid there is no dual nature of c. Rather, the speed of light unequivocally varies in accordance with the emission theory's equation c'=c+v. Consider a scenario in which, initially, the observer is stationary with respect to the light source: the frequency, speed of light and wavelength in his frame are f, c and L (f=c/L). Then he starts moving towards the source with speed v, and if v is low enough, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. This (Doppler) formula is experimentally confirmed - it clearly shows that the speed of light relative to the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v.

By the way, in the context of this scenario, c'=c+v is consistent with the wave model of light as well. In any case, however, special relativity is refuted.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

I am not sure whether you have read my paper or not, but a Dual Parametrization of c as proposed in the paper is certainly the most direct attack to special relativity, because it calls into question its principal basis. It is f.e. claimed that the second principle being exclusively related to the wave-like face of c is only half to be truth.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Why should Einstein's 1905 light postulate be related to the wave model of light? If the light source starts moving towards the observer with speed v, the frequency with which the wavecrests hit the observer shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. This implies that the relative speed of the wavecrests and the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v. As you can see, insofar as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's emission theory of light is perfectly compatible with the wave model of light.

Best regards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 12:10 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

The Light Postulate of special relativity is related to the wave model of light.That is simply a fact. I've seen in WWW you have frequently mentioned the book "Relativity and Its Roots" (by Banesh Hoffmann). Let me make a quote, which refers explicitly to this point: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second principle something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." (p. 92)

You can thus only ask: Why did Einstein choose such a "wave-like" postulate? That is a meaningful question, but it makes no sense, to contradict a given fact - in the same way as it does not make any sense to contradict the statement: The car is green, if the car is green.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Helmut,

"The Light Postulate of special relativity is related to the wave model of light."

I would accept (with minor reservations) that statement of yours but I would never agree that the postulate is "half-true". Of the two statements:

A. The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source

B. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source

one is absolutely true, the other is absolutely false. Nature does know where the truth is, mankind has been deceived for more than a century.

Best regards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 09:49 GMT
Helmut

I enjoyed your essay and interesting parameterization approach. I recall our past blog chats on CSL and like your approach. I also agree your final questions pertinent, and I hope you'll read my own essay where I'm certain you'll find some of the solutions.

I do holds 'the idea of the dual nature of c to be a promising concept,' and indeed an accurate concept. It light is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Peter,

thank you very much for your comment.

As I've a very specific understanding of inertial frames, I do not know whether my view is useful for you or not.

To give an example: I think inertial frames do not have any real foundation. To state them as a universal principle like the Special Principle of Relativity is to my opinion the result of a somehow tragic...

view entire post

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
Helmut

The dual nature of c can certainly be viewed in slightly different ways, but I always look for commonality on nature, and do find some here, and where those not looking just cite 'apples and oranges'.

We certainly also agree that conceptions assumptions and interpretations of 'inertial frames' are all quite wrong. I feel that nothing in the universe can exist if not in some state of motion wrt it's immediate surroundings, so there can be no such thing as true 'rest'.

There is than only degree of motion, and only to things that 'exist' i.e. are non zero spatially. But then I have moved on to study the effects of interactions. This then allows observations assigned as relativistic to emerge direct from the simple quantum mechanism of charging a moving body. Thus my essay.

'Uselful' is an interesting word in the context you use it. I don't think your theory is great use in changing or improving mine, but I find all different aspects useful in creating the fullest picture possible, even if I don't fully agree and much is discarded.

I hope you'll read and comment on my essay anyway as it is well falsified so little dependant on faith, as you may also find a new aspect to give your own model more substance, and as I'd be interested in your view of the ontology.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 04:58 GMT
Dear Peter,

let me add a comment concerning the term of "true rest".

This term resp. the term of "absolute rest" is certainly the most dubious term in physics. Most physicists follow Einstein's view given in his Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. According to this view the observable phenomena do not possess properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. I agree with that....

view entire post

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Helmut

An inevitable consequence of DFM dynamics proves your thesis correct.

Have you read my essay yet? Recycling emerges as opposed to the big bang, which implies re-ionisation of everything, which implies a continuous cyclic process, so no absolute rest.

There can however be a first order absolute frame with each iteration, wrt which all other frames are in motion (see essay). The recycling model with evidence is here. http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Peter,

I am very simple minded and I am not very familiar with your way of thinking. Hence, I do not know, to which thesís are you referring.

I've already visited your site, but I do not understand what you are looking for.

That is not your fault, but my fault - at least in a certain way. I am thinking in a very visual and simple way, sometimes only guided by pure geometrical pattern recognition.

To give an example: The Dual Parametrisation of c is geometrically expressed as follows: particle-like face of c = SQUARE; wave-like face of c = CIRCLE.

These two geometrical blueprints are closely entangled, forming a sort of spacetime, that is intrinsically of Lorentzinvariant design.

This entangled structure is part of a more extended and complex geometrical structure, that is of archetypal origin, because it looks very much like a MANDALA - an ancient cosmogram, that shows, how the universe looks like from an enlightened point of view.

In other words: I am moving along a somehow spiritual path, deeply convinced, that there is a serious physical core of the spiritual knowlegde of mankind, especially of Tantric Buddhism.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 13:12 GMT
Hello Mr Hansen,

You know the universe is rational and deterministic at all scales.

The metaphysics are not the physics. In fact the physicality is rational, we can have the universal faith and in the same time, we accept our foundamental laws. Why do you want to insert metaphsyics causalities? it is not the road of a deterministic thinker. The philosophy can converge when the determinism is an essential parameter of the analyze.

c is c you know, a constant necessary for our 3d perceptions !!! In fact this constant is an essential of our universal sphere.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Steve,

I agree on all points - except one: I think metaphysics, especially the ONE, is - in principle - necessary. Without the ONE (i.e. a transcendent and allembracing foundation) the universe loses its causal and logical cohesion at all scales.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Indeed , the spirituality is essential. I beleive strongly that the mind body probelm is solved when we understand the walls separating this infinite light and this finite physicality in evolution. It is paradoxal indeed considering the evolution, but all this puzzle rests rational and dterministic.

The transcendance is more subtle thaa we can imagine in fact considering the main central spheres, so these singularities and its codes of evolution.The real fascination is this project of spherization in fact. If this infinite light above our walls has created this universal sphere, so thetre are reasons.After all, we build the ternal physical sphere,the paradise in fact.We are young at this universal scale, 13.7 to 15 billions years , it is young still. The metaphysics are more subtle in their pure dterminism that we can imagine. It is wonderfull all that.We are spheres of light in fact Mr Hansen, evolving towards this ultim sphere.Wonderful is even a weak word.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear Helmut Hansen,

In your Author Bio you write, “ .. a philosopher who is primarily interested in metaphysics”. The title of my essay is “The Metaphysics of Physics”. In it I argue that we cannot know 'what is' the Universe. And all human attempts to answer this question are metaphysical in essence. Thus, physical models of 'what is' the Universe are metaphysical. Whether mathematical or not. And all metaphysical attempts to know 'what is' the Universe ultimately fail under the weight of their own unreality.

But in my essay I go further to suggest there is a way of grounding Physics to a non-metaphysical foundation. And that is by using 'measurements' (what we do know since we make them) and mathematical truisms (tautologies) applied to measurements (what we know to be logically certain – such as the Pythagorean Theorem) . I have further proposed a formulation of physics based on the 'quantity eta' – Planck's constant is such a quantity – and shown Basic Law of physics can be mathematically derived as truisms. I think you will find my essay an interesting and enjoyable read. Please do and comment!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 14:52 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I strongly believe in metaphysics. Consequently, I don't believe that metaphysics fail under the weight of their own unreality. Just the opposite is the case. I am convinced that metaphysics can be as successful as any other physical discipline like atomic physics.

The most difficult thing is to get your foot in the door. But it is possible, if we turn around our usual perspective. Instead of looking at the transcendent foundation itself (!) which is indeed a physically useless path to metaphysics we have to turn around and to look at the UNIVERSE and to ask: How must the UNIVERSE look like if it shall base on a foundation that can never be detected in any way?

This question may sound strange, but TRANSCENDENCE (or - in terms of ontology - the metaphysical property of INVISIBILITY) is a highly restrictive condiction with respect to the universe. It includes f.e. very specific boundary conditions - boundary conditions which seem empirically to be realized in our (!) universe.

Such findings make me believe that metaphysics as a science is not only possible it is probably the key science to a final theory of the universe.

However, I wish you good luck and all the best.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 05:15 GMT
Dear Helmut,

You write, “I strongly believe in metaphysics.”. I am intrigued! Tell me more …

You write, “ … metaphysics as a science is not only possible it is probably the key science to a final theory of the universe”. What do you see as the objective basis for such a science?

You write, “...we have to turn around and to look at the UNIVERSE and to ask: How must the UNIVERSE look like if it shall base on a foundation that can never be detected in any way?”

If something “can never be detected in any way”, how do we know it or communicate it with others? I use the term 'metaphysics' in the original limited meaning in Greek as 'what lies beyond the physical universe'. This includes our theories of 'what is' the universe. I believe we cannot know 'what is'. Only our observations and measurements of 'what is'. Knowing 'what is' to me is the same kind of question as knowing God. History teaches us that we cannot know God. And all metaphysics of the past that claimed such knowledge have failed!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 07:04 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

it is true, all historical attempts to do metaphysics failed. But all these attempts made the same mistake: They tried to prove something that is empirically out of reach.

Hence, the first step of a modern metaphysics - as I understand it - to accept just this impossibility, i.e. the transcendent nature of the ONE. Or to say in your words: To accept that the ONE lies beyond the physical universe.

If this fundamental INVISIBILITY of the ONE is once accepted we can start to think about how the VISIBLE UNIVERSE must look like in order to be compatible with such a foundation. Invisibility is indeed an ultrarestrictive condition with respect to the physical universe. To secure the invisibility of the One the Universe has to be organized in a radical non-dual way: It must have turned a specific set of fundamental differences into "coincidences"; otherwise the ONE wouldn't be invisible.

This demand I am calling the "Principle of Radical Non-Duality". It works in a similar way like the "Principle of Relativity". If the Principle of Relativity is intended to describe the universe correctly, then the idea of an ether (i.e. an invisible background) may not be part of a physical equation. It must rigorously be excluded - a demand, which is technically called COVARIANCE. The Principle of Radical Non-Duality works in a similar way - but with an intention that is opposite to special relativity. It is asking consciously for excluding conditions, that point to the existence of an invisible ground.

Already in 2009 I've participated on the FQXi-Contest "What's Ultimately Possible in Physics", in which I've presented this Principle in greater detail. The title of the essay: "Taming of the One".

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/502

Kind Regards

Helmut

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thank you for your response. I am beginning to make more sense of your thinking on metaphysics. As always, to understand anything we need to relate it to our own thinking and experience. And we need a 'dialectic' and an 'interaction' with the 'other' to reach an 'equilibrium' (an understanding) whereby our ideas 'resonate' in mutual self-recognition of each others thinking....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

I agree, mankind has been deceived for more than a century. But it concerns our BIVALENT way of thinking, this EITHER-OR thinking.

We apply this thinking rigorously to the Universe, without knowing precisely how (classical) Logic is realized within the Universe. Our view of light is essentially determined by this Logic: We say light is a wave OR a particle. But nature...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 13:53 GMT
Dear Helmut,

You wrote: "He [Einstein] decided for the wave-like face of c and against its particle-like face."

Actually he decided against both. Both the wave model and the particle model of light (represented by Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory) predict that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer. Special relativity says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 05:34 GMT
Dear Helmut,

I enjoyed the novel and original perspective on the speed of light you introduced. I believe there may be an objection that can be made to your argument:

The particle-like manifestation of light does not appear to be on the same footing as its wave-like manifestation, because the former appears exclusively the instant light is absorbed. This seems in contrast to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 07:37 GMT
Dear Armin,

Actually, I've already read that paper (i.e. topic 329). It caught my attention because you have explicitly made a reference to Epstein's book: Relativity Visualized, Insight Press, 1997.

As you know Epstein described the Postulate of the Constancy of Light in a specific...

view entire post

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
Dear Helmut,

I read your other paper and now have a much better idea of what you refer to with the dual parameterization of light. You have noticed an interesting feature of Epstein's representation of time dilation and connected it to quantum theory using a novel interpretation of the KT experiments.

The comments in the last section were particularly intriguing. I take it that you are looking for a way to remove the UV divergences in QED that is an alternative to renormalization. If you succeed, and especially if your method can be generalized, then I think your model has a good chance of being widely accepted.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Helmut,

You write, "The wave-particle duality of light is a well-established concept of

modern physics. It postulates that light exhibits both a wave-like face and a

particle-like face. But this Janus-faced concept was never consciously applied

to the speed of light itself. If light has two faces, it would be naturally to

assume, that the speed of light has two faces as well. This assumption

which I am calling the »Dual Parametrization of c« shall be outlined."

I agree with this idea, the duality in Universe is a principle. Now how to do to make emerging this idea. I think you are in the way by principle, your questions are fair.

You can take a look to my essay, and i am sure you will find some encouragements.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552

Goo
d luck

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 05:32 GMT
Dear Mr. Hannou,

I have indeed a very specific understanding how the Dual Parametrization of c is physically realized. It concerns exclusively the notions of space and time - and not matter, as your work does.

However, I have posted a comment on your FQXi-Site.

Thanks for visiting and commenting by essay.

I wish you good luck.

Regards

Helmut

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 12:37 GMT
Dear Helmut,

In the Metric theory of relativity we can find difference between absolute and relative speed of light. The first is measured in isotropic reference frame and equal to c in all direction (see Extended special theory of relativity). Relative speed of light is measured in any other reference frame. Its value in the last case depend on the procedure of space-time measurements. If we take such procedure when the light always return back to the point of emission then the speed of light will equal to c too. So the constance of speed of light is a convention. In measurements of speed of light in one-way experiment the value about C+V is real for the speed of light. Another assumption is that the speed of field propagation C in the particles of substance of which nucleons are consisting may be more then speed of light. The analogy here is the next: in neutron star the characteristic speed of nucleons is 6.8 x 107 m/s which is less then the speed of light. In nucleons the characteristic speed of praons is equal to the speed of light which is less then the speed C of field propagation inside the nucleons. Some of this questions are studied in my Essay.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear Sergey,

my idea of a Dual Parametrization of c is closely related to a new space-time-concept, which is geometrically composed of a square and a circle. This space-time-concepts in which square and circle are intimately entangled implies a Lorentz Symmetry, that is slightly different from the relativistic version.

As the dual parametrization of the speed of light follows resp. reflects just this space-time-concept it is not a convention. It is a direct expression of this underlying space-time-continuum.

Helmut

Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 02:54 GMT
Dear Helmut,

It is a well written essay on something is often overlooked by physicists. Wave-particle duality may really challenge the constancy of speed of light. This duality is strictly linked with the commutation relations and currently you can understand it purely from the mathematical aspect where the canonical commutation relations are non-vanishing. And this is also leads to the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle may prevent you from knowing the source speed and position with certainty, and then you cannot know with certainty the speed of light relative to the source. Therefore you would see variations on the speed of light. I wouldn’t say it would be always greater than c, but that it varies and possibly that only its mean value equals c.

This is might not be exactly what you say, but is the same basic idea. Quantum mechanics my challenge not only general relativity and gravitation but also special relativity. But I think most people do not worry about it. I’m not sure about the consequences of wave-particle duality, and uncertainty principle for special relativity, but for sure it might have some consequences. Keep trying to clarify it!

Frederico

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Frederico,

the Dual Parametrization of c implies two exactly defined notions of c = 1. There is nothing like a sort of statistical resp. mean value that equals c, because the background of this dual parametrization is a well-defined spacetime that is composed of a SQUARE and a CIRCLE.

Just these well-defined geometrical structures allow to formulate spacetime in an obserser-independent way - in a relativistic as well as in a quantummechanical direction.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 01:04 GMT
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Yuri,

I followed your link, but I do not understand the relationship between the recommended paper and my thesis. What do you like to say or to state?

Kind Regards

Helmut

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 04:00 GMT

It seems to me interesting.

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 04:40 GMT
Dear Yuri,

I have a quite different view of reality. I am deeply convinced that our universe bases on a transcendent foundation (i.e. the ONE), which means, that all equations have to fail with respect to the ONE. Otherwise it could not be described of being transcendent. Transcendence is actually an ultrarestrictive condition with respect to the observable universe. It limits the way it can look like significantly.

To give an example that is directly referring to your position: The minimal and the maximal speed limit of a Universe with a transcendent foundation (!) have to be: v = 0 and v = oo. This demand is indeed logically unavoidable.

A modern metaphysics (of which I am thinking) explains how these speed limitations are physically realized. As far as the speed limitations are concerned there is a specific space-time-structure, which looks very much like a MANDALA. In this archetypal structure there are two space-time-sections; one that is limited by v = c and the other one, that is limited by v = oo. At the speed point of .707 c (or exactly: 1/SQR 2 c), which I am calling GOEDELs POINT both sections are touching each other...

In this way I am thinking about speed limits.

Helmut

Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
Helmut wrote:

"To give an example that is directly referring to your position: The minimal and the maximal speed limit of a Universe with a transcendent foundation (!) have to be: v = 0 and v = oo. This demand is indeed logically unavoidable."

My model

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

Cmax/Cmin=10^40

just correspond Dirac Big Number

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 14:32 GMT
Helmut

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:24 GMT
Dear Mr. Hoang Cao Hai,

thank you very much for visiting this website. I am not sufficiently informed to say something meaningful about the HIGGS-Boson and its relationship to the standard model.

I hope you will find somebody who can share your vision.

All the Best for You.

Helmut

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 02:29 GMT
Hi Helmut,

Though the speed of light c certainly is a velocity limit to massive objects, that does not mean that we can attribute light itself a (finite) velocity: in my essay I argue that it refers to a property of spacetime which is something else entirely, one result being that the findings of the double-slit experiment become self-evident.

The essay is but a part of a more extended study (see www.quantumgravity.nl) in which I try to find out how a universe might create itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention, what kind of particles, particle properties, phenomena and laws of physics such universe might produce. As this philosophical approach is diametrically opposite to regular physics which stars from observations, it might be of interest to you.

Regards,

Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 04:22 GMT
Dear Ben,

thank you very much for your comment.

I am not so far away from your position as far as the parameter c is concerned.

Actually, the underlying foundation of my concept of a Dual Nature of c is indeed a specific space-time, that is geometrically composed of a CIRCLE and a SQUARE. As these two geometrical blueprints are internally parametrized in the same way, that is, c = 1, I am speaking of a Dual Parametrization of c.

But with respect to the origin resp. foundation of the universe there might be a difference. To me transcendence (the existence of something outside the universe) is vital part of the cosmological picture: Transcendence is indeed a highly restrictive condition, that determines essentially the structure of the universe. To give an example: to secure the invisibility resp. transcendence of the One a sort of a radical non-dual conception of the Universe is required. This specific conception implies f.e. a specific set of boundary conditions at the universe etc. That's the way I am thinking. I looks quite different than yours.

However, I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work as well.

Regards

Helmut

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 03:50 GMT
Dear Helmut,

I like your essay for it points out very clearly one of the erroneous concepts in physics the dual nature of light. Sometimes it looks like a particle and sometimes it looks like a wave depending upon the experiment we perform. Congratulations for one of the few who point out that the emperor has on no clothes.

I am interested in this subject also and consider light to be a phenomena that is non continuous. If you are curious check out: www.digitalwavetheory.com, the section on the mechanics of digital waves.

Best of Luck,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear Don,

thank you very much for your comment.

I have visited your website with your highly interesting approach. From a philosophical point I do not agree, because I am convinced that the most fundamental level of reality (i.e. the existence of a transcendent sphere) is essentially determined by physical parameter of ZERO and INFINITY, otherwise this sphere (metaphysically called the ONE) could not be transcendent.

That is the fundamental way I am looking at the universe: How must the Universe be organized if its ultimate foundation shall not be visible resp. observable from any point inside the Universe?

To formulate TRANSCENDENCE in a physical meaningful sense we have thus to take into account extremal values like ZERO and INFINITY. The existence of the ONE implies f.e. specific spatial boundary conditions, like R = 0, R = oo.

But from a physical point concerning the immanent part of reality (i.e. the observable UNIVERSE) your approach makes sense. Therefore I have made a top rating for your essay.

Furthermore, to make a little contribution to your approach, I like to recommend deBroglie's --thermodynamics of the isolated particle-- that he had developed after 1960. It offers the possibility to conncect physics and information theory/entropy which might be an interesting piece of theory for your digitalwave-approach.

In the book QUANTA / [by] J. Andrade e Silva and G. Lochak; translated from the French by Patrick Moore, preface by Louis de Broglie a non-technical overview of this THERMODYNAMICS OF AN ISOLATED PARTICLE is given.

I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 20:49 GMT
Helmut,

"...velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

This presupposes an observer/receiver who measures the same speed of light no matter how the emitting body moves. There is only one alternative: the observer does not measure the same speed of light when the emitting body changes its state of motion.

So either the postulate is true, or its negation is. The postulate cannot be "half-true" as you claim - the law of excluded middle forbids this.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 10:11 GMT
see below; under: Dear P.. Sorry Dear Pentcho, it wrote this while traveling. In a moment of irritation I pushed the button, and so, only a "Dear P.," was the result.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 23:55 GMT
Dear Helmut Hanson,

On another thread you wrote:"I think, we still tend to solve this riddle by make a decision in favour of one of these two possibilities and against the other one... But perhaps every one-sided view (including in its most subtle and sophisticated version) is a fundamentally limited view, that does not cover REALITY in its totality."

That caught my attention as it is very relevant to the ideas I have been trying to communicate about reality in physics, and it inspired me to read your essay.

I found it very interesting , readable and relevant to the contest. Well done. I think you may be "seeing further" than many of the other contest entrants. I am sure the "light" does have at least a duel nature. It is what it is unobserved, it carries potential data, and it becomes what we make if it. That might make more sense in the context of the explanatory framework I am using, summarised in diagram 1.in my essay .There is a high resolution version in my essay thread.

Good luck to you in the contest. Kind regards Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 10:08 GMT
Dear Georgina,

thank you very much for your kind words. I agree, our way of thinking is the key to everything. It is thus highly important, to fix the traps in which we can be captured. I like to recommend you to go on with your work. An explanatory framework as you have developed it in diagram no. 1 is of a great support in our journey to truth.

I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Helmut,

You make a good point that the speed of “classical particles” such as projectiles through a material medium depends on the speed of the source, whereas the speed of “classical waves” such as sound does not. Thus, in proposing “wave-particle duality,” it does seem as if one is immediately faced with the question of which type of behavior, source-dependence or independence, should be expected.

I suppose the converse question could be asked about de Broglie’s matter waves, since they correspond to particles with source-dependent speed.

It seems that in the vacuum, this does not create a problem for light in special relativity, because the sum of the speeds of a source and a classical particle emitted from a source cannot exceed c anyway, as you point out in equation 4. However, this does seem to create a potential problem for the motion of light in a material medium, such as water, where we know the speed is less than c. Here, source-independence fails for classical particles.

By the way, in the beginning of your essay, you describe covariance (i.e. Lorentz invariance) in terms of group symmetry. Of course, this is the standard understanding, but my belief is that ultimately the symmetry interpretation of covariance will have to be replaced by a more general idea about order (this arises in the relativity of simultaneity, for instance, where the order of two events depends on the frame of reference). If you are interested, you might look at my essay here.

Thanks for the enjoyable read, and good luck in the contest! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Ben,

I like your approach, because it is based on principle. The most important question is indeed: What is really fundamental?

The answer of this question decides how physics will develop in future times. You have identified six crucial principles, f.e. background-independence.

Actually this is - as conceived by me - the most important one. Looking for a preferred frame of reference is still an active field of search, especially in connection with the Microwave-Background-Radiation.

I have a specific idea about this background. This background is by its very nature of metaphysical origin. It is just that transcendent sphere for which we are looking for more than two thousand years in vain. This background, that Platon called the ONE, determines essentially the space-time-structure; a structure, which looks very much like a MANDALA. This structure possesses in fact a sort of general Lorentz Invariance for which you are looking, too. This Lorentz Invariance is slightly different from the relativistic one - just these subtle differences makes this general invariance highly interesting.

May be you will have a look...

http://www.worldsci.org/people/Helmut_Hansen

I wish you good luck for your paper as well as for your work.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 08:41 GMT
Dear P.,

you are completely right. Just to uncover this contradiction was one of the main purposes of my essay. I wanted to show, that the principal core of special relativity is semantically inconsistent if all deducable consequences are really deduced.

The invariance of the speed of light is certainly the most counterintuitive aspect of SR. No one really understood why the speed...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 21:10 GMT
Helmut,

You wrote: "No one really understood why the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the OBSERVER."

The derivation of the frequency shift (moving observer) implies that the speed of light relative to the observer simply cannot be constant:

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)."

"In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed observer is c.

"A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving observer becomes c'=c+v. The new frequency, f'=c'/(lambda)=(c+v)/(lambda), is consistent with c'=c+v.

You get maximum rating from me, Helmut.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Pentchov,

may be your high rating is a little bit too early.

As you know I am convinced of a Dual Parametrization of c, which means, the constancy of the speed of light c is given twice and not once, as it is still claimed by special relativity.

It is just the existence of this hidden second face of c that makes most physicists (not you)...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT
Helmut,

I wrote: "Let us return to Einstein's 1905 light postulate: "...velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." This presupposes an observer/receiver who measures the same speed of light no matter how the emitting body moves. There is only one alternative: the observer does not measure the same speed of light when the emitting body changes its state of motion. So either the postulate is true, or its negation is. The postulate cannot be "half-true" as you claim - the law of excluded middle forbids this."

You replied: "you are completely right. Just to uncover this contradiction was one of the main purposes of my essay."

The way you "uncover this contradiction" is not satisfactory in my view but still you are courageous enough to question Einstein's 1905 false light postulate - which is the most serious crime in today's science - so I gave you maximum rating.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

it is not quite clear, what is really critized. What is meant by the Light Postulate? Einstein's original version as published in 1905? Or the Principle of the Invariance of the Speed of Light as it is often used today? The latter one is a sort of myth about Special Relativity. (See: Two Myths about Special Relativity, Am. J. Phys. 74 (3), March 2006, Ralph Baierlein), which opens a line of reasoning that cuts the roots with light. And by doing this it mystifies the nature of the Constancy of the Speed of Light. It strengthen the Principle of Relativity and it weakens the quantum mechanical foundation of light.

In the original Einsteinian Light Postulate the connection with light is still alive, whereas in the latter derived version this connection is cutted off. In a typical contemporary textbook it is said, that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source and of the observer. Both independencies are treated like the two sides of the one and same coin, but they are fundamentally different. The Dual Parametrization of c gives us the opportunity to uncover this principal misuse.

Wolfgang Pauli once said: What God has united men should not separate. The opposite is equally valid: What God has separated men should not unite.

You are right my way to uncover this internal fault of special relativity is indeed not satisfactory because it is not based on an elaborated theory. I am conscious of it. It is only the attempt to become familiar with aspects of reality which are not covered by special relativity in a sufficient way.

I hope that you do not lose your deep interest in physics.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 06:50 GMT
Helmut,

If light is emitted in a train passing an observer, and if the observer sees the light moving at (or measures the light speed to be) c, irrespectively of the speed of the train, then special relativity's miracles (time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity) are REAL effects. (I can refer you to textbooks where the derivation is clear and convincing.)

The above conditional would be valid even if Einstein and his special relativity had never existed. So we can forget for a while the confusing relativistic literature and concentrate on the question:

Does the observer on the ground see the light emitted in the train moving at c, irrespectively of the speed of the train?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:51 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Sergey,

why did you rate my essay? Without any argument or reason your rating is simply senseless. There is no message or statement. As far as I understand this contest we all are looking for new approaches to old stuff. So, we are working at the boundaries where philosophy and physics meet and no one can be sure to have the truth. We all need constructive criticism.. A rating as such is not very useful.

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:53 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

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
Dear Sergey,

I am not so much concerned in my or your rating. For me the FQXI-Contest is an opportunity to present ideas that cannot be presented otherwise. I am thus mainly interested in a dialogue with other participants.

However, I wish you good luck for the contest.

Regards

Helmut

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:06 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Let me say something personal: As far as I understand your work and your approach, you are looking at the universe from a purely classical resp. Newtonian point of view. That implies a specific understanding how velocities have to add up.

As long as you stick to this classical paradigm you will not succeed, because the Universe is not following that simple logic you are pointing to: YES or NO. There may be specific cases in which the Universe seems to take a classical resp. Newtonian appearance, but beneath that surface it operates along an EITHER-OR logic. Nature is moving just in that middle you want to exclude in radical way, because classical resp. Aristotelian logic tells that.

That is my message to you. However, I wish you good luck for your work.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Author Helmut Hansen replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:55 GMT
To Pentchov:

P.S. I mean, of course, the Universee does not internally operate along an EITHER-OR, but instead of that in the MIDDLE between these two classical cases.