Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Agnew: on 10/29/14 at 3:07am UTC, wrote ...and the moon's gravity variation is 100 ppb and the sun's gravity...

Anonymous: on 10/29/14 at 2:52am UTC, wrote Very good. You respond so nicely and succinctly. You imply that Lorentz...

Thomas Ray: on 10/28/14 at 23:51pm UTC, wrote "All fermions absorbed EM radiation and re-scatter at c with respect to...

Anonymous: on 10/28/14 at 18:37pm UTC, wrote Tom, "What is the mechanism, what is its domain and range, how is it...

Peter Jackson: on 10/28/14 at 17:30pm UTC, wrote Tom, You exactly describe most of the process I stated. No...

Thomas Ray: on 10/27/14 at 20:11pm UTC, wrote As I suspected, Peter, you've misunderstood Wheeler. Knowing the answer...

Peter Jackson: on 10/27/14 at 19:27pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, "I will be interested in your links to; *The reason mathematics...

Peter Jackson: on 10/27/14 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote Steve, I agree the DFM is very falsifiable, but the IGM alone. let alone...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, thank you for explaining very clearly. "Of course, as is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

jaime allen: "There are many topics like these, and all of them are helping me to become..." in Equivalence Principle...

Robert McEachern: "Georgina, It may help you come-to-terms with the fact that a "huge..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes,I agree with Eckard,there it's totally to be frank crazzy and..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: ""Please Joe, stop to post Always the same". Perhaps you have almost nothing..." in First Things First: The...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, You want to the bottom? ;-) In physics “unification” –..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "Sydney, Re climate change: I’m more on the side of the QBism model, but..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

anna john: "It's a very good informative section. I appreciate the intelligence and..." in Gravity's Residue


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read 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 BLOGS
September 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Quantum Pet Store: New Podcast Edition is Up! [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 02:00 GMT
L. Filter, Nature Communications
The latest edition of the podcast is up -- and you may notice there's a bit of a quantum animal theme. Listen to it here.

First up, we talk to Andrew Jordan of Rochester University about recent experiments that allow you to track and steer Schrodinger's metaphorical cat (or in this case a superconducting "transmon") between life and death, while it is locked in a box. The technique could be used to create a new kind of quantum control.

Other animals featuring in the main podcast are quantum pigeons. FQXi member Jeff Tollaksen chats about his theoretical analysis that suggests that there is a new type of quantum correlation that's even spookier than those we've come to know and love. We're used to talking about quantum entanglement, which continues to link two or more particles that have been specially prepared together, no matter how far apart they are separated. But Tollaksen and his colleagues have calculated that quantum particles can become united without having to ever have been in contact. And he illustrates this by talking about vanishing pigeons!

Both of these items described by Jordan and Tollaksen are based on pioneering theoretical work on "weak measurements" in the 1960s by FQXi member Yakir Aharonov and colleagues. These allow experimenters to measure some properties of quantum systems, without destroying them. You can read more about that program in the article, "The Destiny of the Universe" by Julie Rehmeyer.

That research program has also lead to the idea that it is possible to create what Tollaksen dubs a "Quantum Cheshire Cat." Just as the cat in Alice in Wonderland managed to slowly vanish leaving behind a grin without a cat, physicists have recently carried out experiments in which a neutron has been separated from its properties. Tollaksen spoke to me about these tests too, and you can hear that as a podcast extra on the website, but note that it is not in the main podcast. (The image above, by Leon Filter, appears in the team's paper in Nature Communications. Thank you to Gina Parry for suggesting a forum post based on this piece of research.)

We have also included some non-animal items too. For cosmology fans, and those hankering for a resolution of the black hole information paradox, check out the interview with FQXi's Carlo Rovelli. His latest analysis with Hal Haggard, based on the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity, predicts that when black holes die, they explode into white holes, spewing all the matter that they swallowed back out again. If he and his colleague are correct, then astronomers may be able to pick up signs of such exploding black holes -- which would also be the first observational support for this model, or indeed any candidate theory of quantum gravity.

But it's not all smooth sailing. Keen podcast listeners may remember an interview from the June 2013 podcast with Jorge Pullin, who carried out a similar analysis also using loop quantum gravity, but got a different answer. Pullin argued that at the center of black holes you will find wormholes that fast track you to other parts of the universe. Listen to the podcast to find out what Rovelli has to say about the conflicting results.

And, if you enjoyed reading Sophie Hebden's profile of Noson Yanofsky and his work using category theory to study whether Occam's Razor is really mathematically valid, then you can also listen to her interview with him.

Anyway, please tune in and listen to all the latest weird and wonderful experiments and models. As Alice would say, things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 03:10 GMT
We have had some discussion about the "Quantum Cheshire Cat" here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 13:12 GMT
I've been waiting for this article to appear on FQXi. About a month ago, when Tollaksen's research was being surveyed in New Scientist I wrote the following in the "Why Quantum?" forum:

A few years ago, the lovely Eva Longoria made a forgettable movie in which she played a ghost who died on her wedding day and came back to haunt her husband.

One scene had her hovering face...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 15:20 GMT
Doesn't time symmetry mean every instant is eternal? If that is realism then the reverse must also be true, the space you now inhabit is only instantaneous. Educated foolishness.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 15:58 GMT
"Doesn't time symmetry mean every instant is eternal?"

It means that every action is reversible (Newton's third law). Every instant has an anti-instant, so to speak. Could the action principle even exist without this classical law? -- if time conservation doesn't apply at every scale, statistical mechanics doesn't make sense at the large scale; i.e., time evolution tells us what is asymmetrically certain only in terms of what is symmetrically certain.

"If that is realism then the reverse must also be true, the space you now inhabit is only instantaneous."

Realism is the correspondence of experience with theory. Because one does not live outside an interval of spacetime, experience is always local, and thus instantaneous in the interval.

"Educated foolishness."

If there is going to be foolishness, perhaps it is better that it be educated. :-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 1, 2014 @ 12:28 GMT
Zeeya,

The finding and interpretation suggested does of course rely on the same assumption as 'delayed choice', 'quantum erasers' and all else in Dodgson's mathematical hypothesis test. The assumption is essentially that a 'photon particle' passes through one slit and not the other slit.

If we hypothesise a different assumption, 'this' side of that particular wardrobe door, that an expanding Schrödinger sphere surface 'dipole motion' may be 'split' and recombined, then every one of the 'weird' experiments since Wheelers first expose is coherently explainable, as he anticipated.

It not reasonable, as quantum and nano-optics suggest, that only one or the other 'path' (entirely at random) will contain the peak 'positive' dipole spin charge component. When recombined each path can then be tuned (i.e. slight path lengthening or delay) to give a phase difference and interference fringes found.

That is the hypothesis of 'discrete field' dynamics, which then suggests a possible common 'optics' description of both SR and QM. I do agree Mad Hatters and Cheshire Cats seem rather more fun than experimental physics but isn't it perhaps time we also explored a more coherent interpretation?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Sep. 6, 2014 @ 09:53 GMT
I have asked on Sep. 4, 2014 @ 13:32 GMT on the 'Why Quantum?' Blog,

WHAT REALLY HAPPENS AT HALF-SILVERED MIRRORS?

Nobody seems to know or give a coherent and consistent response to my question. Seeing that half-silvered mirrors are again used on this blog (see the image of the "Quantum Cheshire Cat") I again request for answer from any who knows.

In this image, some of the issues I raised on 'Why Quantum?' resurface, although the fully silvered and half-silvered mirrors are not correctly arranged in the image. But that aside…

In the image, on incidence at the first half-silvered mirror, the Quantum Cheshire Cat is separated from its Grin. Total Energy seems to be conserved (i.e. Cheshire Cat without grin + Grin). On recombination at the last mirror, without any losses depicted in the intermediate fully-silvered mirrors, the Cheshire Cat becomes whole again with its FULL Grin. But at that same Last mirror, the Grin was SPLIT and half of it sent towards infinity, so how come the Cheshire Cat's Grin is FULL in the image? Is there no violation of energy conservation law at the end of recombination?

Something is surely amiss with this romance of Quantum Mechanics and Half-Silvered Mirrors but it appears the community just wants to enjoy the show without ruffling feathers. If that be the case, let me not spoil the show. Enjoy!

Regards,

Akinbo

PS. 1). Sorry, even the Grinless Cat is supposed to be split in two at the Last mirror being half silvered. 2). Or if this a continuation of photon indivisibility theory, why put the arrow pointing to infinity? Does it carry any information?

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 6, 2014 @ 13:47 GMT
And reading Tom's comment here on September 1, perhaps the second of the last two arrows is pointing at the ghost of the Quantum Cheshire Cat?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 7, 2014 @ 15:56 GMT
If you will indulge me, relevant to the square wave diagram of the article, a couple of essays ago I used the symmetry of advanced-retarded wave solutions to Schrodinger's equation to show that input-output (blue double arrow in the attached) lies on a continuum of relative observer paths, such that no information of any physical property (including the cat's grin) is ever lost.

To me, the significance of Tollaksen-Aharonov scale-independent time symmetry is the restoration of our classical continuum of experience. We only ever experience life, never death.

This subject was one in which Schrodinger was very much engaged.

attachments: 1_Pages_from_Ray_The_Perfect_First_Quest.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 7, 2014 @ 16:11 GMT
Tom, your view suggests why despite that the beginning and end is Cat with its grin, despite that half and full silvered mirrors are symmetrically arranged, the image is not symmetrical? Do I get you right?

Mirrors are used, suggesting that some form of light carries the information. But light I think follows a principle of path reversibility as we were told in high school...

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 12, 2014 @ 10:46 GMT
Akinbo,

I agreed many suggest or imply indivisibility of the 'Beable' itself rather than it's manifestation, but suspect you may not have read my post carefully enough.

I point out that Feynman himself contradicts that interpretation. Also see my post on logic and 'interpretations'. The 'spin-orbit' hierarchy is central to logical analysis. By avoiding it you avoid understanding why the Beable is different to the manifestation. I'm saying a wrong assumption was drawn.

Even Heisenberg wrote; "the transition from the "possible" to the 'actual' takes place during the act of observation." (Copenhagen). i.e. It's a TRANSITION. The error was to infer no 'change'.

We clearly agree a 'photon's' energy is 'divisible'. I described precisely how and in what way it might do so to match observations; amplitude and wavelength. I suggest it's critically important to be able to identify a viable mechanism if embedded assumptions are to be falsified. Isn't that 'science'?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Sep. 14, 2014 @ 11:51 GMT
That our young ones are not misled, I thought I should post the correct illustration of the Quantum Cheshire Cat and the arrangement of half and full-silvered mirrors.

Best wishes,

Akinbo

attachments: The_correct_illustration_of_mirror_arrangement.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 15, 2014 @ 09:22 GMT
Akinbo,

That's fine, but only takes us back to the simple assumptions of 150 years ago, not explaining all the findings supposedly 'explained' by the modified theory.

As a simple starting problem, consider the case both with and without the final mirror. And WHY does the image end up either on the lower path (where you show it) OR on the upper path, with 50% probability. Those were the actual questions needing answering.

I agree the current doctrinal solution is false. I've shown a classical mechanism which can fully replace it, consistent with experimental optical science and astrophysics. Yet you say you 'disagree' (including interestingly with the optical science findings!). But I haven't seen you suggest any alternative mechanism.

I suggest perhaps you haven't fully understood the proposed solution (as it's entirely consistent with the Sagnac effect) or otherwise the problem. Or do you have an alternative physical mechanism hidden away?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 15, 2014 @ 09:41 GMT
Hi Peter,

I didn't know of MZI interferometer till you and Stefan mentioned it.

But that is another important thing you just point out, i.e. "WHY does the image end up either on the lower path (where you show it) OR on the upper path?"

But I think, it could have appeared at any path, one having constructive interference, the other destructive interference.

As to "...I haven't seen you suggest any alternative mechanism".

Who am I with my tiny voice? I support the wave picture though, in which there can be consistent and coherent destructive and constructive interference with energy conservation law preserved.

Sagnac effect has nothing to do with MZI.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 15, 2014 @ 10:39 GMT
Akinbo,

There's a large body of work with MZ interferometers, the results of which you need to have some idea of before you'll be able to comment intelligibly. This rare free access one is an excellent overview of a branch using neutrons, which has advantages. Klepp, Sponar, Hasegawa 2014.

Your suggested offering doesn't begin to address the issues. With respect it's akin to describing how internal combustion engines work by saying we 'move from reverse to forward gear'. It's 'not even wrong'!! It's just 'arm waving'. Plenty have explored that direction in great detail, yet without success. There is some real physical mechanism producing the complex gamut of effects observed, not yet identified.

Did I say Sagnac has something to do with MZI? No. But you wrongly suggested the effect was inconsistent with the 'harmonic resonance' based solution I described, with electrons producing CFS at c in the electron rest frame. There is much misunderstanding about the various conditions of Sagnac experiments which are consistently rationalised by the matrix chart I passed to you. Take another look.

And do please read and try to understand the above experimental resume. That's crucial to being anywhere near 'up to speed' on the matter, giving a chance of a coherent resolution.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 17, 2014 @ 05:13 GMT
Would it be improper laymen etiquette to repeat what I've said before that the wave-function is describing a real quasi-substance that actually exists, and is most likely the cause of the invariance of the speed of light, as a property. It is a quasi-substance characterized by its dynamic interconnections with all things. Should we be looking for a quantum entanglement net or mesh made of quasi-existent material, but that manifests as solutions to the Schodinger equation? Do the potential energies of particles induce virtual waves in this quantum entanglement mesh, and pure energy creates real energetic waves that we detect as photons?

Forgive me if I am rehashing old ideas.

I've looked at the article and haven't yet penetrated its inner meaning.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 17, 2014 @ 12:18 GMT
Jason,

Quite proper and correct. A false issue with such a substance arose from failure to go far enough with the 'local reality' of Galilean 'inertial systems'. Once we treat them as 'REAL' systems of matter with a rest frame K^n, which means they can move wrt each other (and light propagates c inside each), then all the issues evaporate.

It's a bit like visualising a bock of glass moving through water. A bunch of electrons in space is no different. Light 'propagates' at the same speed everywhere, but EVERYWHERE MOVES! All boundaries between these discrete 'fields' are simple refractive planes. Even the LT emerges approaching the limit Gamma. It seems to me there's been a major intellectual failure in our blindness to that rationale.

Nobodies identified any problems with it except it's unfamiliarity. Can you see any? John suggests 'we're all human'. ... Hmmm.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 17, 2014 @ 23:06 GMT
Hi Peter,

I remember one time I tried to explain how an inertial reference frame is ontologically and naturallistically made of wave functions, and these wave-functions are dynamic things that impose the speed of light (permitivity & permeability), and they even allow time itself to progress through whatever matter or energy that they uphold. But that particular audience reacted very angrily at me so I just dropped it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 18, 2014 @ 11:26 GMT
NEW PHYSICS! "Observing the Great Spin and Orbital Swap".

Direct Observation of Coherent Interorbital Spin-Exchange Dynamics.

Quotes; "The exchange coupling is not a normal force but is instead the outcome of a symmetry that a quantum system must obey when two of its electrons swap their spins and (orbital) positions."

"Simplified models can't accurately describe these nontrivial magnetic behaviors and, in spite of intensive efforts, many open questions remain in our understanding of orbital magnetism and its consequences."

Helps to shine a bit more light on the poorly understood spin-orbit 'fractal' gauge hierarchy and coupling relation consistent with other recent optical findings not anticipated in quantum theory, recently discussed and invoked in my essay and summarised in brief here;

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations
.

Best wishes

Peter

PS. Jason. (Sept 17 above) Yes I recall. I think the implication that the universe is made of mathematical equations was the problem ,and probably unneccessary. Dou es not; "Fluctuations that can be 'approximated by' equations" seem a much better and more palatable description? The above shows the fluctuations are scale invariant.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 05:34 GMT
Hi Peter,

Did I read it right, that the article Classical reproduction of quantum correlations said that quantum mechanics is incomplete because the EPR paradox appears to violate the speed of light? I'm not sure I can wrap my head around what it means. I think I'll just keep on believing that the grey aliens have already figured this stuff out. lol

Jason

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 05:39 GMT
Peter,

Oh wait, let me guess. You can go faster than the speed of light as long as your physical existence is uncertain? Is that what the article is really telling us? lol :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 16:27 GMT
Jason,

The apparent need for c+ in QM IS the EPR paradox, the main reason Einstein suggested QM was incomplete (it's called 'non-locality') and according to QM can't be derived with classical mechanics, only 'wierd/spookyness'.

I show it CAN be derived with classical mechanics, without c+. (John Bell correctly anticipated it WOULD be shown possible one day). They'd just used a wrong 'starting assumption'; forgetting to allow for electron spin flip, non-mirror symmetry of spin and the spin-orbit scale difference, all well know effects in other branches of physics. It needs some understanding of harmonic resonance too, so it's just a rather complicated puzzle to solve. But worth it as SR and QM converge to become entirely compatible (physics is all local, time itself is 'absolute').

However Bell also suggested most were now 'sleepwalkers'; believing 'weirdness' was the only possible answer so not even seeing the correct one! It seems he may have been right on that too. My estimate in 2010 was they'll sleep and not regain their vision until at least 2020.

Do YOU see any reason why different photons should re-emit photons at different speeds wrt their centre-of-mass rest frames? If not then you'll doubtless agree my hypothesis.

But as Einstein expected the solution doesn't show a completely causal universe, it only decodes one layer of 'noise' (spin and polarity, not hyperfine spins states). At a smaller scale uncertainty remains.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 01:08 GMT
Another possible explanation for the EPR paradox and the correlation between entangled objects is that the physics that know now is very reliable. But our expectation of correctness that we can accurately predict what does or does not exist is very uncertain and unreliable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 23:14 GMT
Hi Peter,

You asked, "Do YOU see any reason why different photons should re-emit photons at different speeds wrt their centre-of-mass rest frames? If not then you'll doubtless agree my hypothesis."

I'm not sure why you wrote that photons should re-emit photons, I think you meant to say atoms re-emit photons...

(permitivity)(permeanbility)(speed of light squared) = 1 is a pretty solid relaitonship. Unless you see some evidence that permitivity and permeability are getting smaller, then the speed of light can't get bigger.

I'm kind of assuming that "boson-particle & field" relationship can be extended to explain deeper levels of physics, as long as we are flexible in our definition of what a boson-particle can be.

But beyond that, I don't think I can make it to the really advanced physics without asking the gray aliens for assistance (wink) ;)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 27, 2014 @ 10:35 GMT
Jason, Peter

Do we need to ask the grey aliens for help on this Peter's mechanism of absorption and re-emission at c with respect to (wrt) the centre-of-mass rest frame?

Assuming the particle picture is correct, when a photon is absorbed, in which direction is it re-emitted?

When a beam of light (presumably a collection of photons) is passed through a block of glass, its final exit point is predictable suggesting that this re-emission after absorption is not in a random direction. If it were in a random, unpredictable direction this would have been experimental proof of absorption and re-emission.

We have other evidence of absorption and re-emission, e.g. Sunlight is absorbed by Earth and re-emitted in a random direction. So randomness of re-emission direction is characteristic if it is present.

Regards,

Akinbo

*Jason, I will also like the grey aliens to tell me whether the Quantum Cheshire cat at the end of the interferometer is or is not less energetic. And if less energetic what happened to the splitted energies after the last half-silvered mirror?

*And Peter, the paper you referred me to was very rich. I should have some comments when I am through.

"In the IFMs, neutrons exhibit self-interference since at most one single propagates through the IFM at a given time", p.2.

I wonder how it is technologically determined that only a single neutron traversed a path out of the many produced? Just trying to be careful not to be hoodwinked...

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 30, 2014 @ 23:08 GMT
Hi Akinbo

"Do we need to ask the grey aliens for help on this Peter's mechanism of absorption and re-emission at c with respect to (wrt) the centre-of-mass rest frame?"

Last I heard, if a photon is absorbed by an object, it changes the momentum of that object by p = E/c = hf/c = h/wavelength.

I suppose in the case of a lens, if the lens is changing the overall momentum/direction of a beam of light, then it would experience an equal and opposite change in momentum to compensate. I suppose if you change the phase angle of an incoming beam of light, that phase angle change will still cause a tiny amount of momentum change in the lens.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 10:01 GMT
Akinbo, Jason.

Re-mission from moving absorbers varies from static cases. Where the medium is pure plasma (normally considered as just free electrons but not) the re-emission is the ubiquitous 'coherent forward scattering' (CFS) of laser optics etc, i.e. only spreading minimally by the Schrödinger spread function ('NLS equation'). Bessel beams are related, with a toroidal wave form, which makes them "self focussing" (just Google these things, there are 1,000's of papers on various aspects).

Te variation from the static emitter case is a "rotation of the optical axis" AWAY FROM the causal 'wavefront normal', as explained and shown in full in my "which assumptions are wrong' essay. The effect and it's importance are known but have been largely missed.

In bound molecular gas and more complex particles the scattering is increasingly 'all round'.

"I wonder how it is technologically determined that only a single neutron traversed a path out of the many produced? Just trying to be careful not to be hoodwinked..."

Well spotted. That bit's just the erroneous common assumption, which then leads to the paradoxes. I always distinguish carefully between actual findings and the (often nonsense) assumptions and interpretations.

Jason; The charge energy is lost again on re-emission, it's the effect on the emitted signal that's most important!

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 01:15 GMT
Who know: maybe there are layers fields, each with their own boson. Maybe those bosons are subject to their own kind of chemistry in such a way that these underlying fields, like the Higgs field, can be manipulated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 05:12 GMT
I have a better definition for an "aether". A solid material is made of particles that are chemically bonded together. A liguid is a substance in which the particles are loosely connected, but the liquid can change shape. A gas is a volume of particles that are moving in the viscinity of one another, but only occasionally bump into each other.

An aether would be a substance in which the particles have a fleeting existence as a quantum virtual partical. I would define the Higgs field as an aether.

I only mention this because I think there are going to be more of these kinds of fields made of quantum particles that pop into existence very briefly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 09:59 GMT
Jason,

"I have a better definition for an "aether"." That's good for the modulation of light speed to local c, and matches what's found at all scales. The fact it doesn't explain where they 'pop up' from doesn't matter.

Strictly they're all 'real' not 'virtual'. The so called 'virtual' ones are those across the near/far field transition zone in the 'other' rest frame (the observer an only be at rest in one at a time). You should recall I identify them (all essays from 2010 on), from the surface plasmon TZ's up to the astrophysical shocks of all massive systems 'in motion' (through a background frame).

And you were right 3 posts up (22nd 23:14) I actually meant 'electrons' though really it's also positrons and free protons, often with some early bound molecular gas content. The thing about bound gas is that 'n' starts to rise above 1 (PMD delay) so it's then becoming detectable spectroscopically.

The extra degree of freedom (spin state) of the Higgs process is what allows the fermion pairs to form, but the vast majority annihilate (left/right Chirality) instantaneously on accomplishing their task (re-emissions on EM at c).

An important concept is that of 'bulk flow' and 'bulk rest frame' of a group of particles around a definable centre of mass, so with an assignable group 'state of motion' (rest frame) K. Once we realise these may up the whole universe and are all equivalent then the fog starts to lift and a whole load of logical solutions become visible.!

Unfortunately so many believe most things are 'already adequately explained' that the fog may still dominate for some time to come.

Good insight.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 23:11 GMT
Hi Peter,

I certainly don't think there is adequate explanation, at least because our laws of physics are very limiting and don't give us a lot to work with. I agree with your bulk rest frame idea, in fact that's how I learned mechanics in college physics, that objects moved as point masses, (the center mass).

"The extra degree of freedom (spin state) of the Higgs process is what allows the fermion pairs to form, but the vast majority annihilate (left/right Chirality) instantaneously on accomplishing their task (re-emissions on EM at c). - Peter"

Fermion pairs form because of the Higgs boson process? I kind of agree with that. But then that would mean, which I have always believed, that all fermions are, in some way, connected to a "ghostly" Higgs field. Such a field makes it possible for all fermions to exist.

I am still trying to figure out how a hyper-drive field will work. Maybe you have to suppress or completely disconnect from the Higgs field around your spaceship. But that would still leave the effects of gravity. So you still have another field to disconnect from.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 09:23 GMT
Jason,

Yes. For 'adequate explanation' we need to drop old assumptions it seems. My work has been identifying more coherent ones that do work. Unfortunately they're than of necessity unfamiliar so 'rejected' a priori! It seems a catch 22.

On the Higgs; most have focussed on the 'particle', where what really matters is the process, which is the fundamental pair production from the 'old' photoelectric effect, requiring the 'dark energy' condensate that standard cosmology is also founded on. The posited 'Majorana' fermion is interesting, but for clarity let's listen to Strassler; "Our very existence depends upon the Higgs field, which pervades the universe and gives elementary particles, including electrons, their masses."

Few seem to have much understanding of the extra spin state and actual process, which seems well explained here;

Spin-2 Resonances in Vector-Boson-Fusion Processes.

Your 'ghostly' field is well explained as the same 'dark energy' essential to cosmology, and the 'condensate' from which matter condenses. It doesn't just 'pop up' from "nothing"! It also has a job, to implement the 'change' in speed on the change between propagation bulk system datums (frames)'K'. Einstein was right; 'ether' is essential but can't do that speed modulation job on it's own.

But that then gives the propagation speed limit for your hyperdrive. At a certain speed matter condenses, initially as pure plasma (pairs) at the nose of your space ship (generalised Unruh effect). Some ideas have addressed that but apparently not overcome it.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 25, 2014 @ 15:14 GMT
Very nice retort...I like it when you spell it out and don't pull rabbits out of hats. I jumped the gun a little bit by calling time two dimensional. Time is a scalar in space time and only becomes a vector in matter time, the collapsing universe.

"No. Relativity comes down to a difference between vector quantities. Scalar quantities have no difference between frames of motion, but vector quantities do."

Look, the basic statement of Lorentz invariance relates the differential of proper time, dtau, to that of action time, dt.

dtau^2 = dt^2 (1 - v^2/c^2) = dt^2 (1 - 2 mi/mo)

This is the universe that we live in. It depends on the ratio of velocity to c, or to the ratio of inertial mass and rest mass. These are norms of vectors, that is true, and now dtau is a scalar time path in a more complicated space than action space either 4-space or matter time, that is also true.

You state that time is not a vector, which is true in space time, but in matter time, both time and matter have two dimensions, really an amplitude and phase. But of course time is a displacement as ct just like the other three dimensions.

That does not change the well demonstrated fact that time changes in different frames. Since those changes have been repeatedly verified in many different measurements, Lorentz invariance works in 4-space and it works in matter time as well.

In matter time, time does have two dimensions just like matter has two dimensions. Frames of reference are a spatial construct and are instead mass changes in matter time. In space time, this is not the case since proper time only relates to a different frame, and action time is the stationary frame.

So the basic framework of Lorentz invariance explains why clocks depend on velocity, but there is a term missing according to matter time. That missing term eliminates the singularity of a black hole and shows that dynamical matter is the force that science calls dark matter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 26, 2014 @ 13:36 GMT
I believe that if you revisit the original reasons given for introducing Lorentz invariance, you may review your position concerning what is scalar and what is vector. To Newton and Galileo, length, mass, time are scalars while velocity, no matter its magnitude is a vector. In the Lorentz transformation, length is now a vector that can be shortened depending your direction of motion, time is now a...

view entire post


attachments: rabbit.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 29, 2014 @ 02:52 GMT
Very good. You respond so nicely and succinctly.

You imply that Lorentz invariance depends only on the Michelson-Morley finding, but there is a very large body of evidence. Lisa Meitner and Otto Frisch hopped on the nuclear mass defect for the first fission results of Hahn and Meitner.

Leo Szilard and Enrico Fermi and Ed Teller and lots of others had long recognized along with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 29, 2014 @ 03:07 GMT
...and the moon's gravity variation is 100 ppb and the sun's gravity variation is 50 ppb. There are any number of clocks and any number of object weights and yet we all seem to get along...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 26, 2014 @ 20:06 GMT
Oh my goodness, you are still in the game, the game of dueling references. Simple absorption of neutral hydrogen Lyman bands and simple xray absorption of ionized oxygen is very simple. I really do not know how to get any simpler nor how to refute this very good and simple data and analyses.

"Anyone looking through past papers will form the same impression as you, and only account for the IGM. Much like cosmic expansion of course. Those figures and beliefs will remain around like a bad smell whatever new evidence exists."

There seem to be many different ways to falify DFM plasma and the IGM data seems to really upset the DFM apple cart. For the life of me, I do not understand why you keep citing papers that have nothing to do with the IGM. These papers are all current, not past. The AMS data does not have anything to do with the IGM.

Nor do I really understand why you don't just turn the DFM plasma knob up and make it consistent with the IGM data. Denying really good simple data does not seem to be a very effective way to sell a model of the universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 27, 2014 @ 18:53 GMT
Steve,

I agree the DFM is very falsifiable, but the IGM alone. let alone just 'beliefs' about it, can't overturn an apple let alone a cart! absolutely every probe we've sent out expected near zero particles and found vast numbers, but the DFM doesn't actually 'need' any more than anyone wishes to believe in deep space!

Look at it like this; It's the whole distribution between emitter and receiver that matters. There's enough in the shocks we've actually sampled to do the job. The findings are simply poorly interpreted as they're not looking further than current assumptions. Indeed they know very well their assumptions are seriously wrong! (Just look at the quote from Cluster head man Prof. Jones in Richard Nixey's essay a couple of years ago, something like "we're totally confounded".

Of course if you know so much better then do give him a call!

I may have mislead you with some comment earlier but you definitely have the wrong idea. The (more recent) papers I cited are directly relevant to MY hypothesis. Yours is an entirely 'straw man' argument. (I note you didn't dispute the data reported, which, yet again, work just fine thank you! Why don't you re-run your calcs on that basis? You may get a shock! (lol).

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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