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

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

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

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