CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
What is “Fundamental” – Is “C” the Speed of Light? by AVTAR SINGH
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:53 GMT
Essay AbstractA fundamental concept or law represents the underlying foundation on which the next level or a comprehensive physical theory is built upon and without which a coherent and consistent description of empirical observations at all scales is impossible. The widely-accepted current mainstream theories – General Relativity (GR), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), Maxwell’s Theory, and Standard Big Bang Model (BBM), although vindicated by multiple worldly experiments, are known to exhibit inconsistencies and paradoxical results at universal scale pointing to possible missing fundamental physics. “What is fundamental” is exemplified in this paper via identifying a potential missing fundamental phenomenon of anti-gravity or spontaneous mass-energy conversion leading to spontaneous expansion as evidenced in the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Relativistic formulations of this fundamental phenomenon provide a new photon dynamics model that eliminates inconsistencies in the current photon model of Maxwell’s theory bridging gaps with relativity theory. The model allows a non-zero photon rest mass that spontaneously dilates to allow accelerated expansion in unrestricted space. Integrating gravity into the model provides a fundamental universe model that is shown to predict the observed universe behavior and resolves current paradoxes (black hole singularity, dark energy, dark matter, inflation). It also explains the apparent weirdness of the inner workings of quantum mechanics (quantum gravity, parallel universes, observer’s paradox, and nonlocality) eliminating known inconsistencies of current theories. The model also provides testable predictions for falsification via future observations. The proposed model provides a new fundamental universal understanding of key concepts of physics and cosmology describing C as a fundamental constant rather than the speed of light.
Author BioDr. Avtar Singh is the author of the book - “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality”. He obtained his Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He has been involved in research and development in science, engineering, and cosmology over the past 30 years. He has published more than fifty technical papers and two monographs. He received the ‘Best Paper Award’ of the American Nuclear Society and several technical excellence awards in nuclear, defense, and space industries.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 05:02 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,
In your essay you discuss light hitting the semiconductor material, being absorbed and readmitted as "excitons", sometimes referred to as "heavy photons" because they carry energy, like photons, but have mass, like electrons." I will need to study the experiments you refer to, but I was fascinated by your discussion "allowing spontaneous conversion of the photon mass to kinetic energy and vice versa and this is consistent with the recent experimental observations." I find that exciting, as my theory has been pointing in that direction and I am now very encouraged to follow through with this problem.
You are introducing a new photon dynamics model that illuminates inconsistencies in the current photon model of Maxwell's theory bridging gaps with relativity theory. I have held off on my photon dynamics model, because I believed it to be a
hard sell, but you are informing me that such a model is needed. Our models are different, but I will study yours to see what I might learn. Anyway, I read the rest of your essay in this light, and loved every minute of it!
It is in this regard that I hope you will read and comment upon my treatment of the history behind Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity". I have not had time to fully absorb your model, but I believe that my essay is relevant yours. I would be most interested in any comments or remarks or responses you might give me.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Edwin
Thanks for your comments. I will read your paper soon.
Regards
Avtar
Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear AVTAR SINGH,
In qualifying the aim of the ‘What is Fundamental?’ essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: “We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.
Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.
I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
post approved
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 18:18 GMT
Hi Edwin:
Thanks for your time in reading my paper and providing kind and thoughtful comments. Finally, I got a chance to read your paper and enjoyed throughout.
I do not fully comprehend all mathematical detail of your model but notice your conclusion - "The effect of this belated recognition of ‘ether’ is the restoration of physical intuition and understanding of the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity."
Your conclusion contradicts Einstein's relativity of simultaneity, while my photon model in my paper - “What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light” supports Einstein as it is vindicated by the observed universe expansion data. My photon model shows that there is no unique time or clock in the universe as time is only a relative entity to the frame of the observer.
I notice that you are in the bay area; I also reside in Cupertino, may be we can get together to discuss this further. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Avtar,
I hope you will read my essay again, as I do not believe you have understood its potential significance for your work. You dismiss it because you say your photon model depends on special relativity, as it matches the observed universe expansion data. But that is not based on the relativity of simultaneity as you imply. Cosmic microwave background on which all cosmology models...
view entire post
Dear Avtar,
I hope you will read my essay again, as I do not believe you have understood its potential significance for your work. You dismiss it because you say your photon model depends on special relativity, as it matches the observed universe expansion data. But that is not based on the relativity of simultaneity as you imply. Cosmic microwave background on which all cosmology models are based is essentially Machian, and time is considered absolute with respect to this background. So contradicting "the relativity of simultaneity" does not seem relevant, as it is not involved in cosmological 'universe expansion' models. My impression is that you reached this point and decided not to go further. This is unfortunate, as Hertz's extension of Maxwell's equations address the problem you address, but as "disturbances in the ether", with implied local energy density. Moreover, the recent observation of colliding neutron stars has demonstrated that gravitational disturbances propagate at the same speed as electromagnetic disturbances in the field. There is no "acceleration time" involved!
This Hertzian extension of Maxwell's theory envisions energy flow
in a body, while Maxwell/Einstein envisions energy flow
between systems. It seems de facto true that cosmology 'universe expansion' observations concern energy flows
within the cosmological frame,
not asimultaneous flows between frames. (When one frame is the universe, what is the other frame?)
The problem here for your model, is that
there is no acceleration. As soon as a disturbance occurs in the field, it immediately propagates at the speed of sound (the generic term for perfect fluid models) – no acceleration.
The significance for you is that this lack of acceleration required to reach speed c implies that light never has value v < c. Of course you refer to recent experiments in which light impinges on a semiconductor material and
is absorbed, whence it photons become 'excitons'. In my opinion, such interactions are phonon-like, not pure photons, and are more likely explained as many-body phenomena, rather than pure photons. Of course I may be wrong, there is not enough information to determine this yet. If the phenomenon is essentially one of absorption and re-emission then formulas with the inverse square root of (1-(v/c)**2) are undefined. These are in most of your equations, since you seem to conceive of local 'photon' mass density as a material body, instead of the equivalent mass density of the disturbance in the field. The v-based equations for the photon are inappropriate in the Hertzian framework, which you seem not to have understood in my essay. In spite of this, and for reasons too long to include in a comment, I do find your Postulate 1 on page 5 to be is very astute and appropriate to the problem. It is that which first excited me about your essay.
Some readers, as soon as anything contradicts the received wisdom from Einstein, quit thinking, and dismiss all following information. That is unfortunate. There are a least a dozen interpretations of quantum mechanics, yet all deliver essentially the same calculations. Why should one recoil from a second interpretation of relativity, one that retains the Lorentz equations, but interprets them in terms of energy-time asymmetry, not space-time symmetry?
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 17:28 GMT
Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,
In qualifying the aim of the ‘What is Fundamental?’ essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: “We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.
Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.
I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
post approved
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 20:43 GMT
Extremely important contribution, concerning the nature of light and the origin of hidden factors.
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh, I will also argue that the law of gravity created the one who first said that the speed of light is finite and constant in all inertial frames of reference. After all, to slow down the movement of the space, there must be forces inimical to it. In addition to the speed of light as the eternal entity, the space still characterizes Planck's constant, which indicates that the space revolves. These two eternal entities form a third eternal essence - the pressure of the Universe.
Take a look at my essay, where I showed examples confirming the effectiveness of the idea of identity of space and matter of Descartes.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 18:43 GMT
Dr AVTAR SINGH Sab
Wonderful thinking about the new model, You took “C” the Speed of Light as fundamental… Large amount of Hard work sab…Best wishes for your essay Dr AVTAR SINGH sab……..….. …. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
...
view entire post
Dr AVTAR SINGH Sab
Wonderful thinking about the new model, You took “C” the Speed of Light as fundamental… Large amount of Hard work sab…Best wishes for your essay Dr AVTAR SINGH sab……..….. …. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:09 GMT
Dear Gupta Ji
Thanks for your kind comments.
Regards
Avtar
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:24 GMT
Link to my paper –
What is “Fundamental” – Is “C” the Speed of Light.
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:26 GMT
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:28 GMT
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:38 GMT
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:43 GMT
Author Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 21:01 GMT
hide replies
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 21:05 GMT
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 04:39 GMT
Dear Singh,
Well written essay. I appreciate the large amount of work you have shown in the essay. You reflect on relativistic and rest mass for C. Though some of the content were out of my qualification, I almost followed every part clearly and as far as I could understand.
Meanwhile, I wanted to ask a question on General Relativity since you are an expert in the field.(this question is not related to your essay).
I know that photon is also affected by the gravitational field. But how much force or gravity does it produce by itself? I mean like earth have some gravitational force of its own, how much photons have? Is there any calculation done to deduce the exact answer?
I invite you to read my essay:
Is Mathematics Fundamental?Kind Regards
Ajay Pokharel
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear Ajay:
Thanks for your time and kind comments.
I am not aware of any calculations regarding the gravitational force of a photon. Mainstream (Maxwell's theory) physics assumes that photon mass is zero and hence no gravitational effects.
Best Regards
Avtar
Theodore St. John wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh,
I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Your grasp of the topic is impressive and your essay is the most intelligent one I have read so far.
You pose a very good question “How a photon emitted from a stationary (V=0) surface spontaneously accelerates to the speed of light as it travels thru empty space?” And I completely agree with your assertion, that...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Singh,
I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Your grasp of the topic is impressive and your essay is the most intelligent one I have read so far.
You pose a very good question “How a photon emitted from a stationary (V=0) surface spontaneously accelerates to the speed of light as it travels thru empty space?” And I completely agree with your assertion, that the speed of light “represents a universal fundamental constant of
conservation of mass-energy”. In fact, I made the exact same assertion in my essay
“A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness”. My reasoning is a bit different though. I proposed a simple relational model (The Space-Time-Motion or STM model) that shows motion as a fundamental process, with space (S) and time (T) as being nothing more than measurable quantities that provide scales that allow us to develop relationships. As such S=Tc^2 is exactly the same relation as E=mc^2 and in both cases, c is simply the factor that relates the units of measurement.
I’ve taken a sort of inside-out perspective, from which I reason that the speed of light is constant because it is literally the fundamental constant – the only thing that is not moving. Everything physical in the universe is moving relative to something else. But the speed of light is not relative to its source, which makes no sense if light were actually moving. Do we actually measure the speed of light... or would it be more correct to say that we measure the speed at which darkness recedes? Isn’t that what happens when we expand our awareness through measurement, and bring information into our consciousness?
I would greatly appreciate if you would read my essay and let me know where I went wrong (or how I might better explain it). I think I have stumbled onto something important and though I’d like to go enjoy my retirement, I feel it gnawing at me to get it right and publish it.
Thank you,
Ted
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Theodore St. John replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 15:35 GMT
Dr. Singh,
I would like to contact you regarding your book, The Hidden Factor but couldn't find contact information on Amazon.com. Can you please email me at stjohntheodore@gmail.com.
Thank you
Ted
report post as inappropriate
Theodore St. John replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 17:56 GMT
The link I provided above doesn’t work because I left a space in the address. This one should work
“A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness by Theodore St. John”I’ve only received 2 ratings so far so I would really appreciate it if you would read, comment and rate it. I very much respect your opinion.
Thanks
Ted
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Ted:
Thanks for your time and thoughtful comments on my paper.
I read your paper and it appears that your ideas are similar but mathematics is different and needs further development to a detailed cosmological model that could then be compared against actual empirical data of the universe observations. Such data validation is necessary to determine its accuracy and consistency.
On a quick note, S=Ct and not S=C*C*t as his will distort all measured data.
The link to my book "Hidden Factor" is as follows:
“
The Hidden Factor”
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Factor-Avtar-Singh/dp
/140339363X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517847455&sr=8-2&keyword
s=hidden+factor+singh
Best Regards
Avtar
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:09 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh
Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.
My essay is titled
“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.
Thank you & kind regards
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 22:05 GMT
Dr. Singh,
Very well written, you succinctly lay out the principal gaps in understanding and the compromising positions that keeps people searching for solutions. I found much agreement in your conclusion and implications, and will keep your essay on my list for reference.
Your model of a three dimensional projection of EMR is an intriguing variation of a theme I have had long on a...
view entire post
Dr. Singh,
Very well written, you succinctly lay out the principal gaps in understanding and the compromising positions that keeps people searching for solutions. I found much agreement in your conclusion and implications, and will keep your essay on my list for reference.
Your model of a three dimensional projection of EMR is an intriguing variation of a theme I have had long on a back burner. It does challenge the ad hoc quantum leap and generically addresses the Transition Zone. In particular I am in agreement with you that energy density varies inversely to velocity, and looked to see if you had incorporated a postulate anyway similar to my own; that what differentiates a closed inertial domain must directly relate to the entire quantity of energy, for inertia to translate throughout the whole volume. What I had rationalized was that some (small) portion of total energy quantity must exist at a density in the proportion of c^2. ( This was back in the day when I could go to the parts store and ask Paul for a couple feet of sparkplug wire and he'd ask if I wanted copper or the new carbon filament.) I wasn't cherry picking at the time, it was more like 'found objects', I was so ignorant and mathless I didn't even know there was a cherry orchard. I had simply assumed that if e=mc^2, then that implied a equivalent proportionate density that would be the highest density a rest masse of energy would need to be. And it does provide a means to hypothesize a core volume at constant density as a seed finite quantity, to protract a field volume of continuous density variation through density ranges of primary force effects limiting at a theoretical lower density bound. Try it if you like. I've invited others to do so including Doc Klingman. Gotta be more then one way to let Schrodinger's cat out of the bag.
I also find general agreement with you on the subject of C, as well as your take on Relativities. Density might well be able to tell a small enough mass if its moving or not, but a light speed acceleration/deceleration event would necessitate a peak periodic velocity in excess of C. In some ways its like a 'root mean square'. And time dilation doesn't mean time stops at light velocity, it means that particular light speed energy entity, is going as fast as time can go. And that means its own inertial domain constituent energy need not and cannot be in motion, solving the problem of lightening speed occurring at what should be a zero boundary condition. I just differ in thinking it would then seek its rest configuration to preserve its inertial cohesion, and become cyclic. But there's ticklish spots on that Achile's heel, too.
What I noticed conspicuously absent in your brief metaphysical description, was as to how your homogeneous energy photon conveys spectral lines. Doppler shift would not be distinguishable without them, the spectrum would look no different than that of a stationary prism and stationary source. Did I miss that or was it edited out for essay length constraints?
I appreciated your referencing cosmological investigations and results, I don't attempt such excursions. Like the final scene in Men In Black, "They're beautiful, you know. The Stars." Best Wishes and thanks for the effort, yours was one of my most enjoyable reads. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear John:
Thanks for your time and detailed kind comments. I greatly appreciate it.
Yes, the frequency and wavelength discussions were excluded because of the limited length of the paper. In my book, I have described a detailed mathematical model for wave-particle duality based on the homogeneous photon model. The frequency shifts to zero as V approaches C. V never exceeds C in my model as per relativity theory.
Did you get a chance to rate the essay? I would appreciate it deeply.
Best Regards
Avtar
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 20:08 GMT
Avtar,
Yes, I gave your essay a highest public rating I presume qualified to give as an amateur, the day prior to my comment. I did not submit an essay myself, I'm not quite there yet. Good Luck.
Good to know. I think that the shape of the photon is critical to the kinetic translation of its energy, it would go to the rate of change on the slope of a curve which influences strength...
view entire post
Avtar,
Yes, I gave your essay a highest public rating I presume qualified to give as an amateur, the day prior to my comment. I did not submit an essay myself, I'm not quite there yet. Good Luck.
Good to know. I think that the shape of the photon is critical to the kinetic translation of its energy, it would go to the rate of change on the slope of a curve which influences strength of electromagnetic induction or rate of ballistic transfer of momentum (not even light stops instantaneously). The arguments about c+v omit that frequency is not independent of wave number of which we have no experimental means to count. For equivalence of wave (photon) number in relation to frequency, to be constant with light velocity, there must be some physical attribute of the wave/photon that makes absorption lines distinguishable as number while the Doppler shift moves the whole spectrum blue-ward or red-ward. I stick with wavelength as a measurement tool, regardless of discrete photons modeling, because it provides means of quadraticly projecting shape that would correspond with observation. I go with a orthogonal length contraction limiting at a covariant c proportion in the direction of motion and a corresponding expansion orthogonally to give a diametric cross-section taken as the amplitude of A = (f/c)^1/2. With an arbitrary benchmark of spherical at 1 centimeter wavelength it produced a prolate spheroid at greater than 1cm and oblate spheroid at lesser than 1cm, and a constant parametric volume across the spectrum consistent with a Planck Quanta e=hf. Not to piggy-back on your article, but as reason for physical shape's importance. Its my principle objection to the QM nondefined particle, it can only be assumed that QM decoheres a spherical photon. I'm going to want to get a new calculator and get back into this, and acesss some of your detailed analysis and that of Klingman, Kadin and others. I don't need people to agree with me to learn a little from them, and appreciate your reply. Thanks - jr
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 21:25 GMT
Prof. Tejinder Sing:
You are an excellent writer!
"We shall define `fundamental' as the process by which the human mind
converts Things into Laws."
You are, of course, correct, as far as the prevailing human culture goes. Unfortunately, such "fundamental laws" have been steadily changing, whether meant for social engineering or nature engineering, without knowing where we are going. Although, we can claim that we have been advancing.
However, as an experimental physicist, I have defined "fundamental" as follows:
"Physicists have been searching for the fundamental building blocks and the fundamental laws that govern the universe since ancient times. I will define those sets of building blocks and those sets of laws of interactions as fundamental, which are minimum in number and yet models and explains the maximum number of observable phenomena."
Chandra.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 22:06 GMT
Avtar,
Thanks for your comments on my string, though it was all about your own essay. I won't follow suit but hope you'll also get to properly read and analyse mine.
I judge yours a good essay, well written and explained at around the right level, though the propositions demanded more (which I know you provide elsewhere). I agreed with all the fundamental analysis and...
view entire post
Avtar,
Thanks for your comments on my string, though it was all about your own essay. I won't follow suit but hope you'll also get to properly read and analyse mine.
I judge yours a good essay, well written and explained at around the right level, though the propositions demanded more (which I know you provide elsewhere). I agreed with all the fundamental analysis and identification of wide shortcomings, anomalies and inconsistency under current theory.
You propose some novel, original and interesting solutions, well explained though not falsified. As an astronomer also working on optics, plasma, plasmonics etc and wide analyses of the vast data stream we now have, to similar ends, I don't find all your assumptions consistent, but we must explore all possible hypotheses, and indeed 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria. So some questions;
1. You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles, so not waves and not requantized. Are you aware that in quantum optics Huygens construction is the only coherent paradigm, explaining re-quantisation at the Schrodinger sphere plane wave surface interactions, i.e. with fermions. I can just see how your model may be made to fit that but only with changes, i.e. 'excitons' would be the requantized energy before spreading, unless focussed into a helical beam structure. Can you see another way of gaining consistency with optics?
2. You seem not to have considered the re-emitted photon speed as 'acceleration' rather than 'powered' by the emitter, i,e. the constant fermion spin energy after coupling (absoption/re-emission). Have you considered and discarded that apparently very consistent model? if so, why?
3. You describe galaxies at z=8 as 'mature'. How do you arrive at this description when we have no model or sequence of secular evolution. I assume a 'red' stellar population? In any case this implies a life cycle' of galxies. i.e. what do you assume 'happened' to the old ones from 11bn yrs ago? (I don't challenge anything but I do have a coherent cyclic sequence answering that).
4. You may have noted I've been working on QM the last 3yrs essays. I agree all you say (of SR as well as GR). You suggest the inconsistencies are 'resolved' but I've looked very hard and can find no actual full resolution defined, including to the EPR paradox. For the QM must be derived classically with CSHS >2, (or GM be proved completely weird!). On reading mine you'll see that's precisely what it does. Please study and identify any similarities.
None the less I think your essay is of high quality and I look forward to discussing the science further, of both on both our strings.
Very best.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 18:50 GMT
Hi Peter:
Thanks for your time and efforts in providing detailed analysis and comments on my paper. I appreciate it deeply.
I am not an expert in optics, plasma, plasmonics etc . Hence, I would try my best to respond to your questions in terms of relativistic formulations of the concerned phenomena:
1. Peter: “You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles,...
view entire post
Hi Peter:
Thanks for your time and efforts in providing detailed analysis and comments on my paper. I appreciate it deeply.
I am not an expert in optics, plasma, plasmonics etc . Hence, I would try my best to respond to your questions in terms of relativistic formulations of the concerned phenomena:
1. Peter: “You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles, so not waves and not requantized.”
Avtar: While QM formulations are probabilistic wave functions, my paper depicts quantum events as relativistic, deterministic, and mechanistic phenomena in terms of mass/energy/space/time. Instead of quantization or re-quantization, my model allows spontaneous mass-energy conversion back and forth as needed to satisfy conservation laws and boundary conditions in a classical relativistic space-time. Hence, the optics formulations focusing on a detailed beam structure of individual particles – fermions, excitons etc are quite different and not easy to reconcile.
2. Peter: “2. You seem not to have considered the re-emitted photon speed as 'acceleration' rather than 'powered' by the emitter, i,e. the constant fermion spin energy after coupling (absoption/re-emission). Have you considered and discarded that apparently very consistent model? if so, why?
Avtar: I am proposing a new model or missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion or equivalence totally focused on relativistic conservation of mass-energy as governed by relativity theory. You can draw your own parallels with fermion spin energy model that I do not have much familiarity with.
3. Peter: “You describe galaxies at z=8 as 'mature'. How do you arrive at this description when we have no model or sequence of secular evolution. I assume a 'red' stellar population? In any case this implies a life cycle' of galxies. i.e. what do you assume 'happened' to the old ones from 11bn yrs ago? (I don't challenge anything but I do have a coherent cyclic sequence answering that).
Avtar: The key point of my paper is that time or evolution sequence is not a governing parameter in my model. I have no problem if you would like to call either “mature” or “Red” etc. My model is a quasi-static universe model since the universe has no unique absolute time (time is relative in relativity, there is no one unique clock in the universe, no beginning, no ending, no evolution). Further my model predicts large mass galaxies far beyond 11 billion years that is falsifiable via future observations.
4. Peter: “You may have noted I've been working on QM the last 3yrs essays. I agree all you say (of SR as well as GR). You suggest the inconsistencies are 'resolved' but I've looked very hard and can find no actual full resolution defined, including to the EPR paradox. For the QM must be derived classically with CSHS >2, (or GM be proved completely weird!). On reading mine you'll see that's precisely what it does. Please study and identify any similarities.”
Avtar: I read your paper and tried my best to digest the intricate details involving the particle physics, optics, and QM mathematical concepts that I admit not to have deep familiarity with. So, instead of treading in unknown waters, let me try to answer your questions in relativistic terms of my model:
• Peter’s model explains the gaps between SR and QM via – “ …. simple concept is relative motion, linear and rotational, so orbital & helical. All bound & ever more complex molecular matter and physics then evolves. As for 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics; ………. Simply adding re-emissions at local 'c'. The model explains QM experiments, no comparisons or analysis presented against far-field cosmological expansion data showing dark energy. Need explanation for why the QM vacuum energy predictions are 120 orders of magnitude higher than observed, what is quantum gravity, how the collapse of the wave functions occurs, role of the consciousness of the observer, did the big bang happen, is there a unique time/clock in the universe, where, how, and when it started and what was before it?
• Avtar’s model bridges the gaps between SR and QM via – “ ……simply adding spontaneous mass-energy conversion inducing simple expansive (anti-gravity) relative motion complementing molecular, complex matter physics (described in detail in my book –“The Hidden Factor” but omitted from the FQXi paper due to space limitations). Predicts mathematically dark energy, supernova expansion, collapse of the wave function (via spontaneous conversion of wave energy to classical mass as V is interrupted via measurement), red galaxies in far-field universe, non-locality via space dilation etc. Need to develop details at the particle level (spin, refraction, rotation, plasma etc) - the focus has been global or universal mass-energy conservation rather than local particle behavior details.
• The EPR paradox becomes irrelevant in Avtar’s model because of the relative motion between the two subjects (Alice and Bob) effects each of them equally and hence, no paradox of varying ages between the two.
• Heisenberg’s uncertainty is shown by Avtar’s model to be an artifact of the measurement deficiency/error in resulting from classical (fixed space-time) measurements of the highly relativistic (V close to C, greatly dilated space-time) quantum phenomena. The uncertainty would dissolve if the measurements are made in the same relativistic space-time as the quantum event. (This is described in great mathematical detail in my book).
• Both models prove that “the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories.”
Wishing you the best for the contest and hoping to continue the wisdom-full dialogue,
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
avsingh@alum.mit.edu
view post as summary
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:01 GMT
Thank you Avtar...
It's good to encounter you here once again, and to see your kind remarks about my essay. I'll begin reading yours now.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 04:24 GMT
I am reminded that...
We became friends at CCC-2 in Port Angeles, Avtar, where you presented your ideas on how the limited lifetime and decay of protons could explain the excess of background energy that drives the accelerated expansion of the universe. We sat together at the banquet for that event and exchanged stories about our Engineering background and how we got into Physics. Sometimes these chance meetings have afterwards been quite meaningful. At FFP11 in Paris; I sat with Andrew Beckwith, who is also in this contest, and we became friends afterward.
But I am still taken by the sense that people must be dense to rule out the possibility that unbound protons have a limited lifetime, the same as unbound neutrons, and I think it is quizzical. My thought is that the rapid decay of free neutrons is due to the fact that their electrical neutrality is a gauge setting mechanism that requires something positive or negative to be measured against, where the proton is more stable or enduring. But as we have discussed; it too should have a finite duration or half-life - a limited lifetime.
Re-examining the obvious omitted possibility should be mandatory. I will need to read this essay to the end, but the first part seems quite interesting and it reads well. I already know you have something worthwhile to share.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi Jonathan:
Thanks for remembering the prior acquaintance and interactions at the CCC-2. It all comes to cherishing the sweet memories of the past.
I read your essay and enjoyed it fully agreeing with most of your conclusions. I also gave the highest rating it deserves. I fully agree with your assertion that forces including gravity are not fundamental and – “…if all forces...
view entire post
Hi Jonathan:
Thanks for remembering the prior acquaintance and interactions at the CCC-2. It all comes to cherishing the sweet memories of the past.
I read your essay and enjoyed it fully agreeing with most of your conclusions. I also gave the highest rating it deserves. I fully agree with your assertion that forces including gravity are not fundamental and – “…if all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions – and sub-ranges thereof.”
As I described in my paper– “
What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”, this unified field is nothing but the absolute Zero Point State (ZPS) that is invariant in space-time i.e. fully dilated with zero space-time. Since, a finite mass has a finite non-zero space-time, mass should also be zero in the ZPS. Such a fundamental state or reality would be immeasurable since it is absolute and not relative. A theory that predicts and bridges this absolute ZPS state with the relative (non-zero mass-energy-space-time) states of the comprehensible universe should be defined as the “Fundamental” theory. Remember, “Fundamental” refers to the predicted end state and not to the theory itself. Quantum theories (QFT, EFT) predict arbitrarily large vacuum energy and hence are not fundamental.
The ZPS is synonymous with Anti-gravity (Dark energy) as the fundamental state from which all complimentary forces and relativistic states of manifested mass-energy-space-time arise. In this fundamental state all forces are ZERO. In my paper– “
What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”, I propose the missing physics of anti-gravity as the spontaneous mass-energy conversion (as observed in wave-particle behavior) that bridges the observed relative mass-energy-space-time states to the ZPS while resolving the paradox of the missing dark energy that is revealed as the relativistic kinetic energy, the paradox of the collapse of the wave function that is explained via transition to the classical space-time from the fully dilated space-time when a measurement is made, the black hole singularity of GR eliminated via mass dilation at small R, and solution to other current inconsistencies as well as weirdness of mainstream theories as described in my book.
With regard to the stability and life-time of any mass or particles, the mainstream position is biased by the classical mentality of fixed space-time wherein time is absolute. While the majority of the universe is inhabited by photons of light moving close to the speed of light and in their relativistic frames of references the billions of years of stable lifetime is nothing but almost an instant decay of the so-called stable particles. Time and stability are only illusions of the eye and mindset of the earthly observes. All masses in the universe decay and that is consistent with the spontaneous (without delay) equivalence of mass and energy. Spontaneous instant wave-particle behavior is also an objective evidence of spontaneous mass decay to energy without half-life or decay duration.
Jonathan, I would appreciate your time and feedback on my paper (rating if possible) at your convenience. Let us keep in touch sharing wisdom full dialogue and discussions. You can directly contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.
Best Regards
Avtar
view post as summary
Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 04:00 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Thank you for the comments you posted on the page for my essay. Thank you also for bringing into the discussion your paper, “A Universal Model Integrating Matter, Mind, & Consciousness Resolves the Hard Problem & Cosmic Conundrum.” The following comments refer both to that paper and of course to your essay for the present contest.
There seems to be an understanding common to both papers that human understanding of reality is still incomplete. Hardly anyone would dispute this. In both essays you mention the fact that currently there is no explanation for dark matter and dark energy, which are the bulk of what exists within the physical world. It is very interesting that in the essay for this contest you confine the discussion mainly to topics relevant to the physical universe, but in the earlier essay you widen the discussion to include phenomena of consciousness also. I am not sure that I fully understand the relationship between the solution of the strictly physical problems related to the possibility of a mass for the photon and the solution of the other problems which involve consciousness as well as physical phenomena. Perhaps the relationship is in the concept of spontaneity. As you say in the paper on matter, mind, and consciousness, “Thoughts or emotions are free willed activities in this sense, similar to the generation of a photon, a kinetic energy wave packet, via self-induced decay of quantum particles. Both processes are spontaneous or self-induced without the presence of an external physical force.” This is a useful way of making the connection.
I think that your discussion of experimental results and future empirical tests is a very good step. Sometimes theoretical discussions lose this link to experience. From what you say, it seems that presently available results are encouraging. That is a good sign for the future.
Laurence Hitterdale
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 05:18 GMT
Hi Laurence
Thanks for reading my paper and thoughtful comments.
Regards
Avtar
Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 09:15 GMT
Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,
I have read your essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf
QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf
Kamal Rajpal
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Kamal:
Thanks for your time and comments.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out any deficiencies/strengths in my approach and why it it right or wrong? It predicts the empirical universe behavior and dark energy, hence vindicated.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Kamal L Rajpal replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,
I have re-read you essay. Please read:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0201v1.pdf
Light Speed Invariance & Maxwell’s Equations
Kamal Rajpal
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 18:45 GMT
Avtar,
I cannot pretend to understand the Universal Relativity Model (URM) but can recognize the need for it, and from your past essays, gather the weight and understanding of your approach. Certainly we can agree that "fundamental" is universal, pointing to an ultimate universal reality that is not fragmented. We all look for a ToE that is fundamental, as I mention in my essay. I garner my argument from a more generic definition of fundamental, "that which is necessary for existence." Current mainstream theories -- GR, QFT, BBM do need to unify the dynamics of a mass-energy duality. I believe your work is making inroads in that direction and deserves high marks. Hope you get a chance to check out my essay.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 19:04 GMT
Dear James:
I enjoyed reading your essay and agree with the main theme that understanding light is fundamental. However, as I show in my paper, to understand light (photon), one must answer the question as to how a photon accelerates to the speed of light from zero when it is born. This understanding then changes the whole picture of reality - big bang never happened, universe is eternal, light is the source of dark energy, time is only a relative reality in the frame of matter etc.
This new picture of reality then shows the light, the way, providing a basis for purpose and meaning to the universe and life in it.
Best Regards
Avtar
Author Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Kamal:
Thanks for your time and comments.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out any deficiencies/strengths in my approach and why it it right or wrong? It predicts the empirical universe behavior and dark energy, hence vindicated.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Jonathan Kerr wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,
I've been reading your essay, I have a question about wave function collapse. I like your way of putting: 'Could quantum uncertainty be the fundamental foundation of nature and reality or merely a measurement induced artifact?' It's true that our views of what it might be range all the way from that to that.
A spontaneous change from energy to matter, if you're saying the change from waves to particles is also that, is an idea I've never heard. But it sounds like an objective collapse model, if it happens literally spontaneously - I'd be interested to know what you think sets it off in the lab. And does it also happen elsewhere, without anything setting it off?
It's good to think about truly new ways of seeing these things, I do think new ways of seeing them are needed. I'd appreciate it if you'd rate my essay (it only has 6 ratings, and it needs 10, or the average doesn't count). It's about conceptual physics, and how new concepts are needed if we're to find the underlying picture, which both Einstein and Wheeler said we'd one day find. I try to work out just what can be worked out, rather than guessing, and there are some things in
the essay that have been worked out using conceptual thinking.
Anyway, best wishes,
Jonathan Kerr
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 19:34 GMT
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
You asked - "A spontaneous change from energy to matter, ... sounds like an objective collapse model, if it happens literally spontaneously - I'd be interested to know what you think sets it off in the lab. And does it also happen elsewhere, without anything setting it off?"
It is already demonstrated in the wave-particle complimentarity wherein mass and energy exist simultaneously and instantly with no delay. Einstein's mass-energy equivalence principle is also based on this spontaneity existing in nature.
I am attending a conference and will try to read your paper as soon as I get a chance.
Best of luck,
Regards
Avtar
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 05:54 GMT
Avtar,
Thank you for reading my essay and your kind words. As the end of the contest approaches, I tend to revisit essays I've commented on to make sure I've rated them. This I did on 2/19/18 with an 8.
Regards,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Avtar
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?
A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...
view entire post
Dear Avtar
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?
A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it’s central theme.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn’t then nebula gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.
By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 06:32 GMT
This essay is interesting Avtar...
On first pass; it appears to be more a patchwork of partial answers to deficiencies in the conventional fabric of fundamental Physics, rather than a new view on what is fundamental, but I need to read it again for detail before I determine your rating, or comment further on what you did or did not explain adequately. It is helpful to my understanding, that I have a prior knowledge of your work, but I will have to grade you based mainly on how well the essay explains your point, and how that addresses the question posed by FQXi. I wish you good luck in the contest.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 06:38 GMT
For the record,
I think this essay has been rated lower than what it deserves, but I calculate that giving you a fair grade will still leave you in the basement. I will reread this essay, to see if there are perhaps a few extra points in one category or another upon rereading, given that I rate essays using a grid system.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT
You highlight some interesting points Avtar...
There is a lot to like about this essay and the ideas behind it. It is so often overlooked, that spontaneous decay of long-lived particles could easily account for the universe's expansion, where people do need a constant reminder that it could make things just work. Likewise; even the tiniest mass of the photon could account for some significant discrepancies we observe between standard model theory and real-world Physics.
It was once assumed that neutrinos were massless, but now we think otherwise. Likewise the graviton is believed to have zero mass, but some theorists posit otherwise because they know it could have profound implications if true. Another participant, Andrew Beckwith, wrote several papers on how minimally massive gravitons could explain accelerated expansion - much as you do with photons. I will have to assume that some of the missing pieces are explained in other work, but I am not 100% convinced that this is realistic Physics.
I gave you very high marks anyway.
All the Best, JJD
report post as inappropriate
Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:22 GMT
I find your essay as intriguing in originality and substance. You keep things open by saying that things do not get established without firm experimental proof! I like the idea that the so-called physical constants are not really constants over the cosmic time scale. In our essay here i have attached a manuscript 'Inconstancy of the Physical Constants, with my own bias as an experimental worker! Kindly spare time to look up our essay and care to rate us after reading and giving your own comments thereon!
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 22:09 GMT
I wanted to add this...
I agree with the notion of a variable speed of light Avtar, as a component for healing any number of discrepancies between observation and theory. But I am doubtful that your application of a stationary boundary condition, leading to a zero initial value of C (on emission) is reasonable. While I think a photon can (and probably does) have a rest mass; I am not sure it actually has a resting state.
Instead; I think the slowness of light is due to the total mass in the observable universe. So I am more of a mind that we can open up the top end of the velocity spectrum in a matter-free regime. But this would seem to jibe with your notion of proton decay being unaccounted for in conventional theory. So I find many of your ideas fulfilling, but the essay somewhat confused or confusing.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 18:05 GMT
Hi Jonatan:
Thanks for your new comments on my paper.
Rest mass is only possible or definable when photon is at rest. This is the biggest and most serious inconsistency in the mainstream or Maxwell’s theory that Photon has energy and momentum but no rest mass and that a photon is born with V=C.
I agree with your assertion that the gravitational pull of nearby masses effect the speed of a photon (bending of light). However, this also is possible if photon has a non-zero mass. A zero mass photon cannot be impacted by the gravity pull of other masses.
Regards
Avtar
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.