You said, "IMO There is only space and the matter and energy in space changing universal position and arrangement. Not spread across time but in a singular time, which is always singular. Nothing comes from the past or the future or goes to the past or the future."
I pretty much agree with your view, although I may have left out 'universal' in the above; it's hard to define and brings up something like Mach's principle that "a particle's inertia is due to some (unspecified) interaction of that particle with all the other masses in the universe...".
The C-field circulation associated with local momentum provides another view of local inertia (a measure of locality) and Peter's ideas provide a (related) conception of local reference frames.
You continue, "Instead I think we should talk of what was and what will be. "What was" is in records [NOW]. "What will be" is nothing but potential etc. That gets rid of the ambiguity of those temporal terms that belong only to space-time models and psychological interpretations of reality based on imagination and memory."
I think your focus on Now is the appropriate focus. Past and future are ideas.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 00:58 GMT
Georgina,
I have some idea of the distinction you make between 'objective' reality and 'perceived' reality. I do not see these as incompatible aspects of reality, so when you speak of "Two realities, what is and what is observed", I interpret this is a conservative expression allowing for the possibility that what is observed may in some essential way be different from what is.
My...
view entire post
Georgina,
I have some idea of the distinction you make between 'objective' reality and 'perceived' reality. I do not see these as incompatible aspects of reality, so when you speak of "Two realities, what is and what is observed", I interpret this is a conservative expression allowing for the possibility that what is observed may in some essential way be different from what is.
My model is based on my belief that what we observe reflects accurately what is. But mathematicians have gone beyond what is to ponder what 'might be' in the form of extra dimensions, extra universes, extra fields, extra particles (SUSY), strings, branes, Higgs, and other mental excursions from (perceived) reality.
So when you say, "It seems you have two different mathematical descriptions relating to the two different realities of the C-field", I am a little confused, but I will take it as an occasion to expound a little more on my model. I see only one reality, while agreeing with you that my perception of reality is not identical to that reality. (It is accurate but incomplete.)
The C-field is inseparable from motion: no motion, no C-field. The C-field initially evolves (as a vortex) into stable, moving, configurations. The most stable configuration is a 'traveling toroid' which is identified as a 'particle', but is nevertheless simply a 'condensed' C-field configuration that does not disperse. As a highly localized and dense field it has an associated local energy, hence mass (sans Higgs), and this local mass in motion induces an associated (secondary) C-field circulation that has the same mathematical description as an eigenfunction.
In this respect, the quantum mechanical eigenfunction (wave function) represents reality. But what is missing in QM is a description of the real particle that is inducing the local 'wave'. So QM uses the Fourier ability to add (sine) waves together to form a wave-packet (or 'shaped' wave) and associates this with the 'particle' aspect. Unfortunately, unlike the real particle, this 'shaped' wave-packet loses its shape (disperses) over time.
Thus QM is incomplete, lacking a description of the particle, which is derived from the C-field equation from which the Schrodinger equation was further derived. In QM the wave function corresponds to probabilities associated with various states. Free particles are equally likely to be in any state, so the total probability is the weighted sum (superposition) of all the wavefunctions. Any measurement will find it in *one* state, so the probability 'collapses' when information reveals which state. Unfortunately, since there is no QM description of the real particle, this collapse of the probability function is interpreted by some (many!) to be the collapse of a particle from a 'distributed' state to a 'localized' state. This interpretation is formalized in the Copenhagen particle/wave dualism in which the particle is essentially EITHER particle OR wave. The C-field particle is BOTH particle AND wave. Quite different.
The conclusion is that QM is incomplete because it has no description of the particle, only the wave. It is essentially a sleight of hand to say, "since we have a wave, we can use Fourier theory to superpose waves to make a particle." Mathematically, yes; physically, no.
The use of the incomplete QM theory to derive conditions that are then used to deny the existence of local real particles is faulty logic, as summarized in my 7-step logic, but the almost century old Bohr 'particle/wave dualism' has so shaped the thinking of all living physicists that I expect to encounter arguments on this point for many years.
Failure to find Higgs (needed for QED) and SUSY (needed for almost all modern theories) may slowly take some of the wind out of their sails, but old habits dies hard [usually when the physicist dies].
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT
Hi Edwin ,
my initial question to you was to try to ascertain -where- you think what you are calling the C-field exists. I was asking whether it is in both facets of reality because I want to know if we are on the same wavelength and are proposing compatible models or you are saying something quite different from me that will not fit. I tried to explain that, it seems to me, that you are...
view entire post
Hi Edwin ,
my initial question to you was to try to ascertain -where- you think what you are calling the C-field exists. I was asking whether it is in both facets of reality because I want to know if we are on the same wavelength and are proposing compatible models or you are saying something quite different from me that will not fit. I tried to explain that, it seems to me, that you are saying it is in both facets of reality as you have said it fits with GR and also the Schroedinger equation. You have said that you can derive the Schroedinger equation and I have understood this to be a statistical approximation or probability amplitude varying over time, and being considered within a timeless space rather than within space-time. Which more closely resembles "my" object reality.
So I'm a little confused too. If the C-field fits with GR and is observed in space time then it is a reality formed by the observer, an experienced space time image reality, a reconstruction one might say is not "really real". But you claim to be talking about something "really real". Without clarification from you I was left to try to ascertain the answer from what you have said on previous occasions. If it exists in a timeless/uni-temporal reality as a real thing and as the real source of the C-field observed effects, as well as the observed effects in space-time then that is good imo.
Your perception of reality is not only incomplete due to the limitations of your sensory system but there is delay in the interception of data which causes temporal distortion of the experienced reality creating a space-time experienced reality rather than a uni-temporal time reality. The observer's reconstruction from received data is a patchwork image of former uni-temporal realities existing at different times "stitched" together into a single reality. That is why what exists and what is observed is not the same. They are not identical but not contradictory or incompatible. The diagram clearly shows why, overcoming the imprecision of description using the English language alone.It is a combination of sets and flow chart which should be easy for the mathematically minded to follow. If it is unclear then please explain the problem so that I can improve on it. Both facets of reality are necessary to answer the foundational questions and overcome the grandfather paradox.
Thank you for your explanation and clarification.I have also talked about wave and particle in my essay but not mathematically. I agree that QM is incomplete but for the very different reason given above. It is a part of a description of reality but not complete reality. Thats what my essay was about too. Before deciding if reality is digital or analogue, "what is reality in the context of physics?" That must be ascertained before a better explanatory model can be built. That is what I have attempted to do. (What I formerly called Subjective reality, that is the perceived reality, I am now calling Image reality and what I used to call Objective reality I am now calling Object reality. This is to avoid ambiguity as scientists regard observations to be objective and do not regard something unobserved to be so.)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 21:07 GMT
Georgina,
The C-field exists everywhere there is motion, and that means in galaxies and in your brain. It even interacts with itself, since as a field it has energy and hence mass. The C-field equation was derived intuitively by Maxwell and also derived from the weak field approximation to GR.
If I understand your first paragraph, your problem is with block-time of GR. I do not accept the block-time approach to space-time, and I view GR as a model of reality, not as reality. Mass is not well-enough defined in GR, for one thing. So my acceptance of the limited applicability of GR does not imply acceptance of block time as a reality.
As for QM, the C-field equation can be used to derive Schrodinger's equation, and the free particle solution is formally identical to a wave function. Since deBroglie's relation between wavelength and momentum holds, then wavelength is related to energy, and, it turns out, probability is energy-based (the higher the energy, the less probable the state). So the C-field wave is both real AND related to probability.
The probability is 'timeless' for a stable bound particle as the periodic wavelength yields a stable 'standing wave'.
I think we agree that QM is part of the description of reality but not complete reality (as is GR).
Before answering "what is reality in the context of physics", one must decide whether physics incorporates consciousness. Some say yes, some say no.
You claim that what exists and what is observed is not the same. I will grant you that, but I believe that our conscious conception of what exists should approach reality. Since I see neither consciousness nor free will in your diagram, I am uncertain how much of your image reality is a map that a computer could produce, given the inputs, (see first diagram in my essay) and how much is conscious awareness that is not computable. I have chosen, in this years essay, to ignore consciousness, but I'm not sure that is possible for what you seem to be attempting to do.
I suspect that your QM wavefunction 'probability' is [how shall I say it?] more 'ethereal' than mine, which is based on energy and therefore on wavelength, where wavelength is associated with the induced C-field. I'm not sure what your 'Potential' is. I would guess that it means 'things that can possibly happen consistent with conservation of energy', but I'm not sure. Free will could also play a role there.
Finally, if consciousness is as I both conceive it and experience it, then your dividing line between Actualized Object reality and Image reality is useful but artificial. If consciousness is left out of the picture, then your diagram seems to tie image reality to object reality in reasonable fashion.
I hope this is useful to you.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 00:03 GMT
Edwin,
thank you for your reply. You can see from the diagram, that QM and space-time mathematics are models relating to aspects of reality but not the reality itself. So It seems that we are in agreement on that.
You say you can not see consciousness on the diagram. It is not labeled as such but you can see the Image reality, also labeled as the observed manifestation and relative...
view entire post
Edwin,
thank you for your reply. You can see from the diagram, that QM and space-time mathematics are models relating to aspects of reality but not the reality itself. So It seems that we are in agreement on that.
You say you can not see consciousness on the diagram. It is not labeled as such but you can see the Image reality, also labeled as the observed manifestation and relative experienced reality. This is in part a product of the activity of the CNS also giving consciousness when the observer is a human being or other sentient organism. Though as I pointed out in my essay a conscious observer is not necessary for image reality construction.(Consciousness gives experience of it.)
There is also recall of memories which is another aspect of consciousness. The memories themselves are part of the object reality as they are stored in the structure of the interconnected neurons. Recall however is activation of the neurons and the product of that activation is visualization of former events that can be processed and interpreted by the consciousness of the observer. The recall arrow should go directly into the processing and interpretation arrow rather than into data intercepted by observer, (as that is a sub set of EM data pool). So thank you for drawing my attention there, I will correct it in the improved version of the diagram.
The structure shown permits free will because it allows an open future to exist rather than only the space time future which is "pre-written" and prevents there being any non determinism and free will. In this model there is a partial non determinism because there is an open future at the causality front of uni-temporal Now. Probability/ potential are becoming an actualized reality -ahead of observation- , because of the transmission delay for data receipt and interpretation. But also there is data about those events that have happened which exists in the EM data pool( pool of all potential sensory data in the environment not just EM).That is within the object reality, a sub set of it, which have not yet been intercepted and so have not yet been experienced but could be. That data is potential present experience and is predetermined as it is not possible to prevent an event that has already happened, but has just not yet been observed.
The open future is not anything at all in this model. I think in one version of the diagram I had the word nothing there together with probability and potential. So very different from block time where there is a pre-written future. Potential is not anything itself but the result of interaction of numerous environmental variables interacting with matter and particles which will determine a change that occurs and so the actualization of each and every object reality as time passes. One might say it is the great dice roll, as many dice as there are variables!, known and unknow. (But not within space-time where Einstein was so sure God was not playing dice.)
I do not have any particular mathematical model for wave functions in mind but have tried to see how they (in general) might relate to complete reality. Your wave function being a -real thing- would have to be within the object reality (Thats where the "really real" things are),not "on the outside of it" as shown on the diagram. (Though I talked about waves and particle in my essay I was only thinking of them visually and gave no precise mathematical description of what they are. So you are doing something very different from me but I do not think incompatible.) I have shown the QM wave function feeding in to the actualization of reality and its observed manifestation upon observation. Different from your mathematical wave and particle. The manifestation or observed evidence of C-field effects would be within the image reality.
You can see form this construct both Space-time and QM have their place and are not contradictory. The space-time reality can be a valid description but there can also be some non determinism and so free will, which would not be possible if it was the complete reality by itself. The grandfather paradox is overcome because the time dimension only applies to the image reality formed from received data and not the object reality. I hope that is clearer now and I am very pleased that an error on the diagram has been identified which can now be corrected. (My excuse is that I was rather unwell when I produced it and have not reviewed it to look for errors or improvements since, though I do intend to produce a better clearer version.)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 01:25 GMT
Georgina,
The beauty of fqxi is that we help each other clarify what we meant. I've found your comments helpful and these last comments have helped me better understand your model. As usual, I've enjoyed our discussion and feel we both benefited from it.
I think QM as you have shown it is much more compatible with the current consensus than with my C-field-based interpretation of QM, which, as you correctly state, would place the wavefunctions within object reality (where the "really real" things are).
I wish I had time to read all of your words, and you mine, but we seem to manage to read enough to appreciate that many of our ideas are very compatible.
I'd like to leave you with one possibility to consider, harking back to your remembered consciousness of being in the womb:
The C-field is a real physical field that has been measured and that falls out of our major theories. It explains physical phenomena and predicts a number of physical consequences.
But recall from my first essay that I proposed consciousness as a field phenomenon (rather than an emergent artifact based on connectivity) and I found it useful to associate the C-field with consciousness. This is currently outside the scope of physics, but not necessarily outside the scope of experience. In particular, I believe that a number of conscious experiences are best viewed as 'topological awareness' [as opposed to our normal 'metric consciousness'] in which we are unable to 'suppress' our idea of distance with its implied distinction between the distant entities. I believe that everyone experiences this 'pre-metric' awareness in the womb, and many do out of the womb. Some apparently do episodically, some have LSD or Salvia, some have strokes, and other experiences that result in awareness of unity and total connectivity. According to all reports [and they are many] this state of awareness is experienced as far more 'real' than our normal everyday 'mapping' of words, numbers, distances, etc that our brain has managed to map as 'image reality'.
This may sound like non-nonsensical mumbo-jumbo to those who have lost touch with pre-metric awareness, but I hope it rings a bell for you. One reason to believe that it is related to consciousness in the womb is the almost universal reporting of experiencing: "How could I have forgotten this?"
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 03:03 GMT
Edwin,
yes I do understand what you are saying better now. Thank you for explaining.
Re consciousness: Physicists generally want physics solutions preferably the mathematical kind. So I have shown that the answer can be regarded as a physics solution even though consciousness still has a place in the model as described.I did spend some time on this site discussing subjective reality, (now Image reality) and various alternative subjective realities. Of course they too exist either as alternative interpretations of external reality due to altered function of the brain, whether disease, injury, mental illness giving psychotic breaks, drug use, parasomnia etc or as internally created alternative subjective realities formed by the healthy brain such as REM dream states or pre-birth dreams. (I suspect my early experiences were due to my right hemisphere "coming online" before my left.)
I suppose the thing to remember is that in this model the image reality is produced by the observer and does not exist of itself prior to the observation. So if the observer functions differently, perhaps because it is a different species with different sensory system or it has taken a hallucinogenic drug then the output image reality that is experienced will be different.
In object reality everything is connected via the medium or environment, or by other matter, but that does not make it consciousness itself imo but it is, as you said, related to a certain state of consciousness. Anecdotally certain states of consciousness such as left hemisphere stroke, pre birth experience or enlightenment through meditation enable the universe to be experienced as completely interconnected and space and time are "more malleable" but that is imo a partially or totally internally generated experience, an alternative, subjective, image reality having a similarity to the object reality that is different from the similarity of the more usual image reality interpretation from external input.
Whether the whole object-universe has consciousness is another matter and a potential minefield, so I'd better not discuss it here. Thanks for your time, best regards Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 21:25 GMT
Analogies should not be taken completely literally. "The great dice role" does not imply that all variables are entirely random but that their fluctuation and interaction are not completely knowable. So there is from the human viewpoint the element of chance affecting those variables,interactions and outcomes. From that complexity of numerous fluctuating and interacting variables order might emerge or the outcome may appear to be entirely random. Perhaps with better knowledge of various fields, and their role, there would be less uncertainty associated with the potential forming the actualization of object reality but there will most likely always be uncertainty as we can not know with certainty that of which we are completely unaware.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 19, 2011 @ 22:11 GMT
It might be asked where is truth in this model when each observer produces their own observed reality. Is truth purely subjective or is there an objective truth? The answer is that truth is not the reality that is perceived by any individual observer or group of observers but the correspondence between object reality or what is (and as time passes what was) and what is perceived, via the available data in the environment.
There can of course be interference, obstruction, perturbation, distortion, alteration and fabrication of the data that is available and that will alter what is perceived. If the data has been altered or prevented from reaching the observer then the observer will not perceive the truth. Knowing of the distortion, such as gravitational lensing, an observation closer to the truth can be uncovered. Seeing something does not make it true just because it has been seen. Think of the illusionist at work and the lengths he goes to to limit the data available to the audience, so controlling their perception. Sometimes more data is all that is required to uncover the truth. Preventing or obstructing access to that data hides the truth.
Data, just because it is data, is also not necessarily true, as in closely corresponding to what was in object reality. Think of the mirage, an aberration of the available data caused by the refraction of light or subjective editorial and censorship. The careful cropping of a photograph to exclude data which would give a different opinion of the content. So the quality, reliability, completeness and origin of the data must also be considered when considering if something observed is true. The truth requires the faithful and complete transmission of potential sensory data from object reality to the observer's image reality. Without complete and faithful data transmission the image reality constructed is not the complete truth but its veracity will fall somewhere along a spectrum from complete truth to complete falsehood.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 00:39 GMT
Isn't that controversial? Doesn't any one want to say that scientific observations are objective and therefore true? Or that space time is the only reality, there is no other and therefore what ever is observed is the truth? Seeing is believing? Or that quantum physics is so counterintuitive that we should give up all ideas of truth?
Trying to think like a mathematician, here's an idea....
view entire post
Isn't that controversial? Doesn't any one want to say that scientific observations are objective and therefore true? Or that space time is the only reality, there is no other and therefore what ever is observed is the truth? Seeing is believing? Or that quantum physics is so counterintuitive that we should give up all ideas of truth?
Trying to think like a mathematician, here's an idea. Perhaps truth confidence limits could be assigned to observations. Truth confidence limits would be a mathematical representation of a qualitative assessment. I do not think this necessarily requires fuzzy logic mathematics but some kind of qualitative valuation of data attached alongside the quantitative value. Its "baggage" that it takes everywhere with it. So if different data is mathematically processed together they each bring along their own "baggage" which then are taken into account when the outcome is determined, and truth confidence limits could be given to the outcome.
Important factors in determining limits that spring to mind would be; the amount of data collected (important for statistical significance), the breadth of the data ( important to get multiple perspectives), how much distortion such as refraction or temporal delay has occurred, clarity of the data ( how many gaps or level of interference), how much addition of data or superimposition/ contamination of data from outside sources has occurred, the source of the data and its reliability (which might include experimental design), how likely to be genuine or a fabricated data.
Some of these are already taken into account in experimental design such as number of repeats necessary for statistical significance. Or the limits of accuracy of experimental apparatus. These alone are not enough to have narrow limits put at a very high truth confidence level. New data, possibly from a different experiment giving a different perspective, can easily overturn the conclusions drawn from former experimental evidence. In many cases the value of those factors necessary to accurately determine truth confidence limits is just not known, which has to leave a large question about the truth confidence of the observation, however much we would want it to be true.
Consider the disappearing elephant illusion. The observation can be performed countless times by numerous observers and the elephant dissapears. Due to the number of observations made, the dissapearance is statistically significant and not an artifact or rare chance occurance. Binoculars could be used to enhance the visual accuracy of the observation above that of normal eye sight. So the possibility that the effect was due to not seeing clearly enough is also overcome. However it is only by having numerous observers in-different- positions, not just the audience positions, so not replicating the former observers situation that the illusion can be uncovered. As then it is easy to see the elephant concealed behind the mirror.
It is not the amount of data or the magnification of detail, in this case and others, that reveals the truth but the breadth of the data. Many different observer positions to ascertain the more complete truth and not just many observers reinforcing a similar limited perspective. Without numerous widely different perspectives there would have to be a very low lower limit to truth confidence but the number of repetitions and accuracy of the observation would heighten the upper limit of the truth confidence.Scientific results and conclusions would then not be mistakenly equated with truth but as evidence of the structure and function of the universe with a variable, truth confidence limits, qualitative assessment assigned to them.
What do you think? Would such self assessment undermine the reputation and respect of science? Or is it honesty that could be of benefit in evaluating scientific endeavor?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 22:04 GMT
I should perhaps just say that that is a little different from conventional statistical confidence limits, where a greater amount of data would give more results around the mean, for a normal distribution, narrowing the limits and so showing a more accurate result. We could say that with a greater amount of data the result is likely to be more accurate and therefore has greater potential truth, raising the upper truth confidence limit. Though it does not increase the lower limit of truth confidence if another factor relevant to truth confidence has not been considered.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 25, 2011 @ 17:50 GMT
Georgina,
Will you quit trying to be so damn rational!! This is physics.
The irony is the extent to which the field is following basic physical processes of compounding complexity, eventually(currently) resulting in extreme instability that will result in a violent reset.
What is my prediction of the equivalent to a Tunisian fruit seller setting himself on fire? I suspect it will have to be some prominent data sets that simply cannot be contained within current theory and cannot be ignored. Such as failure to find the Higgs or supersymmetric particles by the LHC, or evidence of galaxies far beyond the current age limit of Big Bang theory. This would only be a precipitating event of course and it will generate a flood of compounding theoretical complexity to sustain the model, but this will likely serve to expose just how far afield current theory has gone. There are far too many people in complex professions, from computers and electronics, to biology and chemistry, to even accounting and economics, who understand what you are saying above, know the pitfalls of dodgy math and will suddenly realize the Emperor of Physics is quite naked.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 25, 2011 @ 19:59 GMT
Rational! - Completely starkers John. The BBC have now sorted it anyway. "The Standard Model is now dead", (many didn't know that,.. honest!) because now we've found electrons are round, not ovoid as predicted by the SM's 'great rival' supersymmetry.
Ok, we know waves can affect particle oscillations and vice versa, so who will win here? Obviously the rationality standard in science affects the BBC's logic, but can the BBC also affect science? I predict much fallout from the serious splitting of something atomic. Will the BBC drag science kicking, screaming and naked into the asylum, or the other way round? It's much better than reality tv.
I sit as a happy spectator, writing away and observing, with some clothes for the Emperors eating your toasted Tunisian fruit John. And I'm reading, only moments after the Discrete Field Models geodetic precession has been confirmed, about how the firm prediction that Centaurus A is NOT two galaxies interacting but just one with an AGN (black hole) and two spiral jets, has also just been confirmed!.
I may write to the PRJournal who's reviewer recently rejected that paper on the basis that the prediction was 'speculative' to see if their position is the same. I don't doubt it will be! Was it Lawrence who said they eat babies?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 25, 2011 @ 20:52 GMT
Peter,
I don't have any beef with you and your views. Clearly, Dr. Edwin Klingman likes what you have presented here. Still, I find it unimpressive when others refer to the definition of rationality as: 'That of which they personally approve.' Is that what you are saying?
Empirical support is very important. You provide examples. Theoretical views are interesting, perhaps even correct; but, maybe not. However, the occasional outbursts of self-pride in one's intellectual superiority have shown themselves to be both repetitive and unconvincing on their own. One's arguments are not helped by them.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 25, 2011 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Peter,
Can you explain to me why electrons must be either round or ovoid? This all seems to be based more on specific models than it is on specific theories. It seems reasonable that a self-similar model might like donuts... (Krispy Kreme - Yum!)
The Standard Model is long dead. It cannot explain the stability of the Weak scale. Supersymmetry might, Scale Relativity might, but nothing else I've heard here can explain the radiative stability of the Weak Scale (Z and W masses < 100 GeV/c^2) relative to the Planck Scale (Planck mass = SQRT(h-bar*c/G) ~ 10^19 GeV/c^2), and yet both clearly exist...
I've been playing with GEM lately, and I'm convinced that Edwin Klingman's ideas are a lower-dimensional subset of some of my ideas. IF String Theory is correct (and how could we prove one way or the other?), then his model cannot be complete.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 25, 2011 @ 23:52 GMT
Hi John,
thanks for your response, made me smile : )
In his book "The trouble with physics" Lee Smolin expresses the opinion, that there are many physicists who are in his words good "hill climbers", who have reached the peak of accomplishment in their particular areas and are now defending those "hills" rather than having many explorers seeking out new potentially fruitful "territory".
There are imo problems with the "case closed" mentality, misplaced confidence and selling of highly sophisticated ideas, developed by very clever people, as truth to the public. (That may be more to do with popular journalism than the scientists themselves.) Science is more like an enormous collection of not dis-proven maybes, some much more likely than others.
I enjoy occasionally looking at the site
Hyperlipid. The author is a veterinarian who dissects scientific papers dealing with fat metabolism , insulin regulation etc. It really does bring home that science is far from black and white, so many different factors can affect an experimental outcome and that it is easy to jump to erroneous conclusions. If some really big and respected maybes fail then at least we can say "its not quite like that then... back to the drawing board! (not back to the dark ages)."
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 02:31 GMT
Georgina,
You would think that for physicists, they would see the basic patterns they are following. All the fantastical physical explanations for the math should be some kind of signal that something is deeply wrong. Not to mention(again) all the predictions which have proven wrong and required further extrapolations. Physicists seem to be extremely human.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 11:59 GMT
Hi James, Ray, et al.
OVOIDS. Yes James, I also "find it unimpressive when others refer to the definition of rationality as: 'That of which they personally approve'. But if you read the 'broadcast' position (Radio 4 news yesterday) a little more carefully you'll see what I also meant, in agreement with John. They say;
'A' or 'Not A'. Now 'Not A' has been found false "so 'A' is false".!!?! It's an example of lack of logical monotonicity that is obviously borrowed from the subject they reported on! It happens I agree with the assumption re the SM, but that assumption needed to be a proposition in the story, to at least give propositional logic. And P.S., I'm flattered by your comments but accept the well deserved slap on the wrist for letting my bemused exasperation show through. It's a little annoying making strings of novel predictions, and when they're confirmed no-one takes any notice as they weren't published in a PR journal.
Ray, The vast majority view seems to that SS needed egg shaped electrons or is false. But there was of course no guaranteeing the goalposts were in the right place anyway. And could you tell Brian Cox the SM is dead please? I must say it's brilliant to see science actually moving on!
But I need a favour, and some help and advice, from our king of Cosmic Rays;
Can you imagine yourself (as a cosmic ray of light) flying across empty space, and then, eventually, come across a cloud of particles/dust/ions or whatever you prefer.
Would an observer, videoing all this from a distance (say screened from the source by a nearby moon) as you go by, be able to actually SEE you before you hit the cloud of particles, and scattered some of your energy in all directions?
How could the observer judge your speed through the cloud?
If he and his (fast orbiting) moon were moving first away from, then towards the source at 0.2c at the time, what speeds would the video say you were moving at according the the individual scatterings of light from the particles? (each doing 'c' of course).
And lastly, do you think Lorentz was being logical when he said in 1913;
"the daring assertion that one can never observe velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical restriction of what is accessible to us, a restriction which cannot be accepted without some reservation." ?
Many thanks
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 14:56 GMT
Hi Peter,
I read about this claim that the shape of the electron may exclude Supersymmetry (SUSY) on
Lubos' blog site. Lubos points to a paper by my old friend Mike Brhlik (we both had Howard "Howie" Baer as our PhD Thesis Professor, but Mike was a year behind me) and his old boss, Gordon Kane, that counters this argument against SUSY. Personally, I think that this spherical argument may have more impact on couplings to the theoretical axion - which may exist due to CP violation - regardless of whether or not SUSY is correct (an axionino should be massive enough and with weak enough couplings not to be a significant factor).
It sounds like your cosmic ray questions are basic Special Relativity and Scattering phenomena. In an experimental context, the cosmic ray will scatter off detector material and produce many particle "tracks". Typically, we use a Monte Carlo-based computer simulation program to confirm our experimental expectations, and then reconstruct the particles and four-momenta involved in the event.
Light travels at the speed of light. Many of our observations are therefore limited by the speed of light. Does a greater speed exist? Scales might allow speeds greater than c, but this may also imply something greater than our Observable Universe - such as the Multiverse? This is part of why I'm interested in Scale Relativity. IMHO, Einstein's 10 independent Field Equations (EFE) ALSO imply more than just the 4 observable Spacetime dimensions. These Field Equations MAY imply Octonionic Physics - in which case the EFE are just an associative subset of the possible Field Equations, and General Relativity isn't "General" enough.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
Hi Ray, Peter, James, et alia,
Ray: Do you realize that describing physics with octonians (or higher dimensions) is as good as removing all possibility of acquiring control over the laws of physics? Much of human poverty has to do with our enslavement to the laws of physics. Can you counter my point by describing a hyppothetical technology that could emerge from an Octonian or higher dimensional physics (more than 4 space-time dimensions)?
Peter:
Of course it makes no rational sense that light is observed to travel at velocity c independent of the speed of the observer. We really do need to reconcile the luminiferous aether with Michelson-Morley and relativity. Obviously, the aether is not a particulate field. But please admit the truth and acknowledge that photons are the only particles that have been (can be) clocked traveling at c; and c shows up in quite a few physics equations. Admit the truth that the laws of physics are implemented by "light bearing" fields. Eventually, we're going to have to find a way to extract energy from the curvature of space-time, from gravity.
Physicists are not known for their imagination or their ability to live with things they don't understand. But all of this theoretical guessing about what equations should describe EVERYTHING is a waste of time. Perhaps you agree with me on that point. However, the physics community with far more talent and ability than I will eventually be out performed by a guy with an electronics degree from DeVry. Why? Because all this super mathematics is leading you all away from the right "experiment". I think I can build a shift photon generator with just basic LEDs and some electronics. Since I'm just a lazy dummy, it will take a long time to actually acquire the parts and build it. But who will be closer to a technological breakthrough? I'll be building gravity generators while the physics community is still calculating the action of a ping pong traveling through 26 dimensional space-time.
Everyone:
Do the world a favor and focus you zillion IQ points on extracting energy from space-time curvature using gravity generators. If you can't do this, then take up alchemy and numerology. Those are far more delightful and are no further from the truth then string theory.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 17:12 GMT
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 17:32 GMT
Hi Jason,
Early on, I saw the potential merit to your idea, but I think it all boils down to red- or blue-shifting individual photons as Edwin suggested, and that may be a problem.
I haven't yet figured out how to manipulate this into becoming an Energy Billionaire. Besides - I like numerology...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 18:27 GMT
Hi Doctor Cosmic Ray,
You get a gold star for getting right to the point about red/blue-shifting or frequency shifting individual photons. Edwin voiced the same concern. My answer is this: we don't have to frequency shift individual photons to reproduce a gravity field.
We have to consider/ponder/acknowledge the existence of a relativistic aether or aether field that exists behind the light/photons. Call it a "physics implementation field" or an action-at-a-distance field. I tried to describe it as a wave-function, but I lost readers who couldn't make the connection between the mathematical device AND the aether field.
Light (photons) traverse the radii of a black hole; we all agree that the photons frequency shift. In order for light to travel through space(-time), their MUST EXIST a light bearing medium. Call it the quantum/relativistic aether, space-time continuum, the quantum vacuum, physics implementation field, whatever word makes sense to you. However, IT CANNOT BE a fixed lattice because that would result in an absolute reference frame. That which implements physics, much to the dismay of physicists, is ethereal, evanescent, ghostly and difficult to verify.
Back to our frequency shifting photon in a gravity field. Gravity is included in this aether field (physics implementing field). I don't know if it's a perfect symmetry, but it should be good enough for an experiment.
The aether representation of:
a) photon falling into/climbing out of black hole, and
b) a rapidly repeated generation of frequency shift photons,
look the same (similar enough).
Generating lots of frequency shift photons --- leads to --->
---> ethereal image of photons in a gravity field -->
---> if there are frequency shifting photons, but no gravity field, then space-time (the aether field) has to provide one.
Does that make sense?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear Jason,
I understand that it is frustrating for each of us to make our case and, yet, others do not share in our individual excitements.
You said: "Of course it makes no rational sense that light is observed to travel at velocity c independent of the speed of the observer. We really do need to reconcile the luminiferous aether with Michelson-Morley and relativity. Obviously, the aether is not a particulate field. But please admit the truth and acknowledge that photons are the only particles that have been (can be) clocked traveling at c; and c shows up in quite a few physics equations. Admit the truth that the laws of physics are implemented by "light bearing" fields. Eventually, we're going to have to find a way to extract energy from the curvature of space-time, from gravity."
I think that it makes rational sense that light is observed to travel at velocity c independent of the speed of the observer. My reason is because I say that the environment of the observer is what controls the speed of light at C. I don't see a need to argue for an aether.
You said: "Admit the truth that the laws of physics are implemented by "light bearing" fields."
I do not hold back on that which I think is the truth. I don't know what you mean by "light bearing" fields." I don't mean that I do not understand you. I just do not know why you argue in favor of fields. Light travels and its speed varies. That only requires one field, the field of the speed of light. If that field varies, I say it does, then the speed of light varies and all else follows from that event.
You said: "Eventually, we're going to have to find a way to extract energy from the curvature of space-time, from gravity."
I say there is no space-time. There is no space-time curvature from which to extract energy. It is true that photon frequency varies as the force of gravity varies. You speak of this relationship as if a fundamental force of gravity is that which is in control and that which we might seek to control. I say that the frequency of photons varies because the speed of light varies. While it is possible to affect the speed of light, it is not possible to affect that which does not exist. What I mean is that: There is no fundamental force of gravity.
Now, I do not ask that you or anyone else must agree with this. However, the variation of the speed of light is what I admit too. You may admit to something else. I do not. Thank you.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
Hi James,
It's good to hear from you.
You say: "My reason is because I say that the environment of the observer is what controls the speed of light at C. I don't see a need to argue for an aether. "
The relativistic aether IS the environment. It fixes the speed of light to c.
You say: "I do not hold back on that which I think is the truth. I don't know what you mean by "light bearing" fields." I don't mean that I do not understand you. I just do not know why you argue in favor of fields. Light travels and its speed varies. "
When you say the speed of light varies, do you mean it varies in a vacuum? While the Lorentz transformation might not be perfect, it's good enough to call attention to the fact that there is no absolute reference frame. There is only the relationship between two reference frames. This relationship between two frames fixes the speed of light at c, induces the Lorentz transformation and requires the existence of some fleeting ethereal bridge between the two reference frames. The effect of this c-fixing ethereal bridge is what results in time dilation and length contraction.
If you can see a flaw in the "ethereal bridge between two reference frames" idea, I'd like to hear it.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 19:19 GMT
Jason,
I said: "My reason is because I say that the environment of the observer is what controls the speed of light at C. I don't see a need to argue for an aether. "
You said: "The relativistic aether IS the environment. It fixes the speed of light to c."
What is a relativistic aether? Either the speed of light varies or it does not? There is nothing needed byond that. A search for that which causes it to vary is a futile one. It is the variation of the speed of light that is fundamental to all other things.
I say: "I do not hold back on that which I think is the truth. I don't know what you mean by "light bearing" fields." I don't mean that I do not understand you. I just do not know why you argue in favor of fields. Light travels and its speed varies. "
You said: "When you say the speed of light varies, do you mean it varies in a vacuum? ..."
My response: There is no vacuum. That is an ideal conditikon that exists nowhere in the universe. Every poin in the universe involves changes.
You continued: "While the Lorentz transformation might not be perfect, it's good enough to call attention to the fact that there is no absolute reference frame. There is only the relationship between two reference frames. ..."
My response: This point is neither for nor against a variable speed of light. Inb both cases, there is no absolute reference frame.
You continued: "This relationship between two frames fixes the speed of light at c, ..."
I interrupt and ask why?
induces the Lorentz transformation and requires the existence of some fleeting ethereal bridge between the two reference frames. The effect of this c-fixing ethereal bridge is what results in time dilation and length contraction.
If you can see a flaw in the "ethereal bridge between two reference frames" idea, I'd like to hear it.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 19:26 GMT
Hi Jason,
I was in the middle of constructing my response when suddenly it became posted. I didn't finish as you can see. However, I will wait a while and let you respond to that which did post.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 19:41 GMT
James,
There have been a few exceptions to the invariance of the speed of light in the vacuum of space; mostly involving extremes of gravity. But to a good approximation, the invariance of the speed of light has been demonstrated experimentally.
I'm not looking for accuracy to the 10th decimal place, so the typical vacuum of space is a good enough approximation for me. What I am looking for is the infrastructure that results in space-time and special & general relativity.
I get the feeling that you're not convinced of the evidence to support special and general relativity. If we can't agree that relativity is basically correct, then ... uh, I don't think I could convince you. I'm using GR as a foundation. Do you believe there exists an absolute frame of reference?
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Hi Jason,
I don't think of Spacetime or the "Aether" (or vacuum as I prefer to call it) as being a true lattice. However, if an unobservable sub-quantum scale has lattice-like behavior (and this need not be a large well-structured lattice, but could simply be lattice-like effects from close-packing of electron-positron pairs within the Dirac Sea itself), then these "near-lattices" may be reproduced in a self-similar way at all scales.
I think you need to be able to shift a large collection of individual photons - which is not necessarily the same as changing laser frequencies. FM radio works off of frequency-shifting. Does that produce artificial gravity?
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Jason,
You: "There have been a few exceptions to the invariance of the speed of light in the vacuum of space; mostly involving extremes of gravity. But to a good approximation, the invariance of the speed of light has been demonstrated experimentally."
The measurement of the speed of light, necessarily a local occurence, has been demonstrated to be invariant locally.
You: "I'm not looking for accuracy to the 10th decimal place, so the typical vacuum of space is a good enough approximation for me. What I am looking for is the infrastructure that results in space-time and special & general relativity."
The answer is that the speed of light varies. We know that. We see that. It varies as an effect of mass. There is no place in this universe where mass does not have effects.
You: "I get the feeling that you're not convinced of the evidence to support special and general relativity. If we can't agree that relativity is basically correct, then ... uh, I don't think I could convince you. I'm using GR as a foundation. Do you believe there exists an absolute frame of reference?"
It is the case that I say that: Relativity theory is clearly wrong. With regard to an absolute frame of reference, I only have one to offer, that is a universally constant measure of time. It is currently identified as electron/proton electric charge.
I cannot clarify this without first arguing in favor of fundamental unity. Fundamental unity means that there is one cause for all effects. I cannot say that I know that single original cause for all effects. What I can say is that all theory that includes more than one cause for its effects is artificial. It is artificial because it requires more than one original miracle.
I say that we are all stuck with one original miracle. I also say that any efforts by scientists to include more than one original miracle are pure, invented, unempirical ideas.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 26, 2011 @ 23:29 GMT
Hi Ray,
If we could create an FM band from 200THz to 400THz, and if we could modulate a sawtooth wave with a frequency of about 10MHz, THEN we will see a gravity field. 87MHz to 108MHz, split up into 100 stations, all playing music and talk radion will not generate a gravity field.
Let me tell you a secret. I came up with the shift photon idea, partially through inspiration, but partly by asking the following question: if gravity fields could be generated, what technique would one use that is very compatible with established physics. Then, one day, while thinking about photons falling into a black hole, it hit me. The equations are already there. I just need to run the process backwards. Start with frequency shifting photons, get back gravity.
You're probably right that I would need to frequency shift a large collection of photons. I don't think that's not a problem. But what caught my eye about this approach is that graviational (and relativistic) time dilation seem perfectly compatible with photon frequency shifting.
The remaining challenge is: what about conservation of energy?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
Ray
I agree Susy is no more falsified than evidenced. but there IS evidence just outside our grasp. considering each question I asked carefully should take you to a position where it's visible. To save trackback, can you give your precise views on each specific item;
"Can you imagine yourself (as a cosmic ray of light) flying across empty space, and then, eventually, come across a cloud of particles/dust/ions or whatever you prefer.
Would an observer, videoing all this from a distance (say screened from the source by a nearby moon) as you go by, be able to actually SEE you before you hit the cloud of particles, and scattered some of your energy in all directions?
How could the observer judge your speed through the cloud?
If he and his (fast orbiting) moon were moving first away from, then towards the source at 0.2c at the time, what speeds would the video say you were moving at according the the individual scatterings of light from the particles? (each doing 'c' of course).
And lastly, do you think Lorentz was being logical when he said in 1913;
"the daring assertion that one can never observe velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical restriction of what is accessible to us, a restriction which cannot be accepted without some reservation." ?
Jason
Yes, I do; "Admit the truth that the laws of physics are implemented by "light bearing" fields." In fact that underlies c = dt, and the DFM. 'Velocity AND speed are always 'with respect to' something or are meaningless. The answer may appear from your careful consideration of each question above.
Please anyone else have a go too. It's not just about Einstein but Poincare;
"..let us clearly understand that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist, they are not imposed on Nature ... Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree. . . . the space revealed to us by our senses is absolutely different from the space of geometry."
And Lorentz; "the daring assertion that one can never observe velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical restriction of what is accessible to us, a restriction which cannot be accepted without some reservation."
and, for Georgina, Polyani; "For once men have been made to realize the crippling mutilations imposed by an objectivist framework - once the veil of ambiguities covering up these mutilations has been definitely dissolved - many fresh minds will turn to the task of reinterpreting the world as it is, and as it then once more will be seen to be."
All wise men. Are we?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT
Hi Peter,
I don't like long questions because I get distracted easily...
A cosmic ray is a nucleus-sized particle traveling at near the speed of light. Although it is constantly emitting and reabsorbing "virtual" non-observable photons, an observor would not "see" it without some sort of interaction. A magnetic field could deflect the cosmic ray such that it emits "real" observable photons. Or, if we had an extremely diffuse cloud with an effective index of refraction just slightly above unity, then non-quantum optics might expect Cherenkov radiation from this cosmic ray. However, if a cosmic ray interacted with an individual particle within that diffuse cloud, then we should be able to "see" that interaction. As cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere, they can generate a shower of particles from interactions with atomic components of our atmosphere.
Of course, Lorentz was responsible for the Lorentz transformation (in 1904 - a year before Einstein's Special Relativity), so it is interesting that he had reservations about c being the greatest speed.
Even today, we worry about "spooky action at a distance" - which could imply hidden variables and/or faster-than-light transfer of quantum numbers.
Dear Jason,
You are worrying about conservation of energy? The photon has effective mass based on E=mc^2=hf. This effective mass may interact with a gravitational field. Now add your "kinetic" (mc^2=hf) and potential energies together to get your total energy. Because effective mass varies with frequency, you may need to use a little bit of Calculus. That is the whole point of your experiment - to see if red-shift produces an increase in gravitational potential energy, and if blue-shift produces a decrease in gravitational potential energy. Can we gain an unlimited supply of energy from Spacetime curvature? Probably not at any practical efficiency. Its like getting energy from garbage - the fuel is "free", but caustic by-products corrode the heat engine's insides. Nothing is really "free"...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT
Ray
Great, the pot of gold within touching distance and tapped on a couple of times with that white stick!! Now it's 'lights on' time. If you 'get distracted easily' you may struggle with complex propositional logic, but it ain't that complex!
So you agree that we can't see a cosmic ray (or photon) passing, but that when it interacts with a cloud of particles what we CAN SEE is photons sent laterally from the interaction. In fact that scattering is the only thing we can EVER see (except for direct hits from the source of course - but we're not considering those).
That is VERY important. We are seeing a sequence of scatterings NOT a particle moving. There is a very important difference,!! which Lorentz correctly suspected!
He didn't say he "had reservations about c being the greatest speed." at all! Read it more carefully. The DFM agrees c IS the greatest speed, but also that we are not SEEING something moving at ant particular speed, we are seeing a SEQUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL EMISSIONS, which, if we we (observers) move, may validly APPEAR to be something exceeding c. Yet NOTHING IS.
This is what Lorentz was saying he wasn't happy with, and he was spot on! But we have been simply too dim to work it out!
There's nothing wrong with the SR postulates, it's the assumption that the ether has to go, for simultaneity, that was wrong (as assumptions often are). It did not. Poincare (who'd virtually formulated SR well before AE!) also agreed there was an issue with simultaneity - saying;
"We do not have a direct intuition for simultaneity, just as little as for the equality of two periods. If we believe to have this intuition, it is an illusion. We helped ourselves with certain rules, which we usually use without giving us account over it [...] We choose these rules therefore, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient.
We can now have simultaneity WITH the ether, or quantum field which light does c 'with respect to', which gives SR and GR a quantum mechanism. The logic of the DFM, published for 3 years, in a number of papers, (and the essay) but not yet understood by most, is as simple as logic gets, There are 2 'Classes' of inertial frame, one valid for measurement (local discrete field) and infinitely many non-local ones, all invalid, who may see APPARENT c + v as they're only looking at photons emitted from sequences of scattering.
If you avoid distraction you should find that pot of gold right there when the light comes on. There is a lot more to it of course, but that is the basis, and the quantum mechanism for unification. Unfortunately it's all about nature and not much to do with current 'Physics', as it seems nature isn't.
If anyone else can also see the logic do please let me know. Or also if you feel there are any weaknesses or illogicalities.
Best regards
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 18:53 GMT
Peter,
I did happen to read a description of that proof of the roundness of the electron and it only seems logical, if there is the assumption the electron really is an actual particle. If it is its own wave, as Carver Mead describes it, there would be no wobbling either.
If what we observe of light is a wave front and not a physical particle and the photon is the energy required to bump the electron to a higher level, it would explain why those "direct hits from sources" are so precise over billions of lightyears, even though gravity fields have "bent" their path. It would also explain why there is no "wobbling" or instability of the electrons.
I think the basic assumption of particles as fundamental needs further examination.
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
Hi Peter,
Our views are not as different as you might think. Feynman diagrams show particles "interacting" with a collection of virtual photons and ghost loops between measurable interactions, whereas you show particles "interacting" with a collection of inertial reference frames between measurable interactions. I think of Spacetime (and the "aether" or "vacuum") as being similar to a "fuzzy lattice" Cantor set, and thus we have a "blending" of continuous and discrete physical properties.
I understand the qualitative difference between your ideas and Special Relativity, but is there any quantitative difference? If so, then you need to emphasize those differences, and design a real or gedanken experiment to answer the question of which perspective is more correct. But if both modeling perspectives yield identical results, then physicists and philosophers will choose to use one or the other.
IMHO, Supersymmetry is critical to that next level of understanding because any GUT/ TONE/ TOE needs to explain both bosons and fermions. And SUSY places these quanta on equal footing. My argument against Constantinos Ragaza's paper is that his formalism is suited for bosons - not fermions - and yet fermions really do exist. He and his supporters shouldn't declare "Physical Realism" and then ignore half of reality because it doesn't fit the model.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 28, 2011 @ 01:06 GMT
Hi Ray,
To use an analogy, space-time curvature can be visualized as a very large nylon sheet with a bowling ball resting resting in the middle and causing the sheet to "curve". I'm sure you know what I mean. Just regular old general relativity says that it takes a large amount of mass-energy to produce curvature in space-time; something like a planet, star or black hole.
Shift photons are funny little things. Instead of using a bowling ball to curve the nylon sheet, what if I used wire? What if I sowed copper wire into the nylon sheet and deformed it that way? A sustained flow of shift photons is like the copper wire in the nylon. It curves space-time, but doesn't require as much energy to curve space-time. Maybe a closer analogy would be a garden hose. If I squirt the nylon (space-time), it will curve for as long as I squirt it.
But this is why I have to worry about conservation of energy. If I'm curving space-time using shift photons (wire or water from a garden hose), anything that falls into that curvature is a violation of conservation of energy. In effect, new energy is created. But energy conservation demands that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, right? So here is what happens. However much energy it takes to lift my 10,000 metric ton asteroid mining starship into space with a velocity of 0.8c, that energy content has to come from somewhere. But where?
Space-time is accustomed to curving in response to energy. This curvature produces a negative energy counterpart for whatever star or black hole is nearby. If a black hole has energy content +E, the -E necessary to balance the +E comes in the form of gravity.
So whatever energy I need to move my asteroid mining starship, I can get that from space-time curvature. Do you get it? Space-time curvature is a total loophole to conservation of energy. You can have as much free energy as you wish if you know how to get it from space-time curvature, from gravity. I personally think that shift photons are a candidate.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 28, 2011 @ 03:44 GMT
Jason,
That nylon sheet represents flat space. When you place a bowling ball in it, it not only curves down where the bowling ball rests, but curves upward in all the rest of the sheet to balance that downward curvature caused by the bowling ball. This is the conservation of energy and it is the cosmological constant proposed by Einstein to balance gravity. What no one is willing to consider, because it blows up inflationary cosmology, is that we can only see the light that travels through the upward curved space, because the light that falls into mass before it reaches us, doesn't get seen by us.
Except as it reignites and the light radiates away from those mass objects, but that resets the spectrum.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 28, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT
Ray
The quantitative differences, with SR and GR, are small in some key areas as rate of curvature was adjusted (approx 100%) to better match observation. Unfortunately most areas of major diversion are at 'relativistic' velocities, so still not possible to determine experimentally. The fact is that the DFM 'IS' the missing mechanism of SR and GR, proving the postulates. Only the odd...
view entire post
Ray
The quantitative differences, with SR and GR, are small in some key areas as rate of curvature was adjusted (approx 100%) to better match observation. Unfortunately most areas of major diversion are at 'relativistic' velocities, so still not possible to determine experimentally. The fact is that the DFM 'IS' the missing mechanism of SR and GR, proving the postulates. Only the odd 'assumption' had to change to unify them with the quantum mechanism of atomic scattering (and QED, and Optics, etc).
The gedankens are in the new paper, but despite opinion on results over beliefs beliefs will rule. i.e. In SR, if 2 parallel mirrors (light box with no sides) in space are accelerated and exit stage left, a light pulse bouncing between them would go with them, but they would contract in length. That defies both optical science and logic, but it seems the only answer to invariance.
In the DFM the light pulse gets left behind when the mirrors move, (to 2nd order) to fly off into space! That is quantitatively very different, is the logical solution, and is consistent with both invariance and experiment. It is also one of many similar predictions. But do you really think it will mean 'physicists and philosophers' will choose to use the DFM over SR? In fact most choose not to even look at the DFM, and then, as they're looking from the perspective of their understanding SR, it will look wrong (as Feynman said would happen).
Mathematically the quantum mechnism results in derivation of the simplest yet most pregnant equation possible in transformation mathematics. Far simpler and less problematic than e = mc2, and superbly symmetric with c' = c. It is t' = t.
But thank you for your good advice. And if you think of a way to overcome the above problem do let me know!
John
Ref; Jasons sheet, there is debate about whether the curves are the same, suggesting you may be mixing effects, You only need to look up 'gravity wells' on wiki. Frankly whenever I get my head round the meaning and maths behind it I find myself back in the same place, so am not yet convinced. If I had to back one horse of the other, I might just trust the horse breeder!
Jason, The one thing I believe Penrose clearly got the most right in all his books is that photons cannot be conserved. There is absolutely NO evidence that they are. i'm sorry to sahke your roots=, but I made an admission you asked for, now you must admit they are local phenomena and their energy blends back out in waves until they encounter perturbation again, whereon it may be expended (in quanta's) if 'measured' by collision. The most basic science of QED and scattering proved that decades ago! The ones you see coming from your screen, or anywhere in your room, to your eye lasted less than a nanosecond between each air molecule, then the calcium ions in your retina! Sorry mate! - but it does get you out of a blind alley and open more doors.
Best regards
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 28, 2011 @ 15:18 GMT
Peter,
That's the problem. They are considered separate, but for space to be flat, overall, as has been observed by COBE and WMAP, these two effects have to balance out. The theory is that Inflation explains this flatness by arguing the initial inflation stage blew the universe up much larger than is visible, thus the visible universe appears flat, much like a small area of the earth's surface looks flat.
On the other hand, if these two effects are viewed as opposite sides of the same coin, it is quite logical they would balance. But that would mean a complete rewrite of cosmology, so there is little inclination to go there by anyone wanting to keep their job.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 29, 2011 @ 21:15 GMT
Peter,
I don't need photon number to stay constant after I generate my shift photons. I need to use photon frequency to tell space-time how to curve by generating a steer-way of 8 frequencies. At a high enough repetition rate, I expect to produce a bias of space-time curvature and a gravity field. I think I can do this with TTL electronics and some diodes. I'll spend today and tomorrow working on the electronics.
John,
In the nylon sheet-bowling ball material concept of space-time, I am saying that the bowling ball in +Energy and the curvature of nylon sheet is -E (gravitational energy). In the same way that opposite electric charges attract, so do opposite charges of energy attract. That's why energy always has a negative gravitational energy halo around it.
Using shift photons, the idea is to curve the nylon and present the opportunity for energy to be created. If energy is created, it will have a negative gravitational halo around it anyway. That is the loophole to conservation of energy.
I think I understand what you mean by when upwards curvature of the nylon represents repulsion (of galaxies, etc.)... If I reverse the polarity of the shift photons, I can create an upwards curvature in the nylon (a repulsion field).
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 29, 2011 @ 23:30 GMT
Hi Peter,
If these many inertial reference frames are equivalent to many virtual photons and ghost loops (and bus stops!), then one potential quantitative difference between DFM and SR may be
VSL. Most likely, one person cannot change a paradigm, but the people pushing discrete reality and/or VSL might accidentally confirm DFM...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 29, 2011 @ 23:44 GMT
Hi Ray,
I would argue that there are an infinite set of inertial frames that are interconnected with fields that:
1. impose a constant speed of light c, and
2. have a gravitational potential energy across them that frequency shifts photons.
Gravitational voltage is an awkward way to put it. I'm trying to account for the Equivalence (Principle) of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. In other words, either a photon or a massive object can move between inertial frames. The photon will frequency shift, and the massive object will undergo a change in kinetic energy.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 02:34 GMT
Jason,
As usual, there is that Catch 22. The more focused your energy curve is, the smaller the field it has to draw from. The larger it is, the more uncontrollable it is. That's life: Those who wish to control their world, have to live in a small world. Those who wish to ride the waves in the big world, have to do so at the wave's convenience.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 07:18 GMT
John,
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm having trouble getting the counter part of the circuit to work properly. I figure I'll work on it again in the morning. If you think that the law of Catch 22 has unlimited power to block all endeavor, then you probably should try anything at all. I don't believe that.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 10:15 GMT
Jason,
Obviously it doesn't block all endeavor, or none would be possible. The observation is that the larger the endeavor, the larger the feedback loops you encounter. The greater the action, the greater the reaction.
You want to get those feedback loops working for you, but the better you get at doing that and you find that you are simply one part of the greater feedback loop.
You want to travel faster than light, yet your corporeal existence is a function of complex inter-relationships between dynamics and stability. You find you push that gauge all the way over to pure dynamics and you have no more mass, as you become light.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 11:33 GMT
John,
You say: "You find you push that gauge all the way over to pure dynamics and you have no more mass, as you become light. "
Funny you should say that. There are other kinds of light associated with other kinds of coexisting realities. I have drawn this other kind of light into me; I have drawn it into my skin, my bones, my organs and my cells. This light has helped me to grasp concepts and ideas that are far beyond our civilizations technology. It is my hope that I will be able to demonstrate the gravity field generator experimentally. I really don't need that much power. I need the gravity field pattern and I need a high repetition rate.
I am a little bit above average in talent/ability, I am far less talented than a typical PhD/physicist, and I am nothing compared to the Edison's and Einstein's who have come before. The only difference is that I was bold enough to ask a Higher Power for the knowledge; and my request was granted.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 15:37 GMT
Jason,
People, probably life in general, have been tripping the light fantastic since time immemorial, but the consequent ability to harness it has been ephemeral at best.
The reality is that it is light which has harnessed us and it is reasonably happy with its creation.
The fastest motion in the universe(I'm not saying connectivity, as that could be instantaneous.) are the jets out the poles of galaxies. To create this force, a galaxy is a vortex spanning hundreds of thousands of lightyears and drawing on spatial fields spanning millions of lightyears. That's the kind of energy nature finds necessary to push the speed of light. You think you can do it jiggering hundred year old theories equating space with time, yet do they actually represent reality, or simply model it? All sorts of ideas, such as time travel using wormholes, are also based on assumptions about the physical reality of this model.
People like Edison and Einstein were geniuses, but they were working with a much less developed framework of knowledge than we are. If you study his works, Ptolomy was a genius in his calculations of epicycles and while he still gets credit for his abilities, people of average intelligence can still recognize his logic was flawed, because he was working from a much more limited knowledge base.
If Edison could see the work you do every day, he would be dumbstruck by how far electronics has evolved.
If Einstein were re-incarnated today, would he be some string theorist, laboring towards that 11 dimensional solution to everything, or would he be poking in the weak spots, trying to find what has been missed?
When every has crowded on top of the mountain, looking for a way to fly, the likely result is an avalanche of bodies back down the mountain. Not saying you can't fly off a mountain,
but the risks are real.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
Ray, et al.
I thought VSL was dead. It's certainly not consistent with the DFM, where 'c' is always constant locally.
I agree 1 person won't change a paradigm. There are now four (inc 2 Dr's) working on the paper. But we'll probably need the magnificent 700!
There is a kind of analogy with VSL in that if the observer stays in 1 frame watching transition of the observed, the speed of the observed becomes 'apparent' only, so may indeed 'appear' to have varied.
SOUND Consider this; In the Doppler equations there is no fixed Lab Frame. Even in sound, if the observer is closing with the siren he hears something different than if he's moving way. If he's in the same frame as the siren he hears no shift. There may be 100 people in different states of motion and they'd all hear something different. Each would have to know his relative speed to calculate the actual REAL emitted signal, so each is INVALID for direct measurement. Light is the same. I'm at a loss to understand why this seems so incomprehensible!
I'm not sure you fully have the DFM concept mastered. The (LHC) 'virtual photons' (really ions) en mass form the boundary 'shock' between fields and implement the speed/Doppler shift change to maintain 'c' on transition.
John. Agreed. 'Particles' are not solid or coherent forever (conserved). - And about cosmology.
Jason. You seems to go way off on a limb then back again! I can entirely agree with our;
"I would argue that there are an infinite set of inertial frames that are interconnected with fields that:
1. impose a constant speed of light c, and
2. have a gravitational potential energy across them that frequency shifts photons."
Though for accuracy; "..infinitely MANY inertial frames.." which are "MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE", and the BOUNDARY zones of ions BOTH impose 'c' locally, AND provide the gravitational potential ... to curve light paths (diffraction) All via atomic scattering.
The frequency shift is simply the Doppler shift resulting from the change of speed to the new local 'c'. Occam was correct, it really IS that simple!
- now, it's your turn for that admission!!
Please guys, SOMEONE tell me they understand the sound analogy and invalid measurement frame concept above!!!
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
Hi Peter,
I'm not saying that DFM must be quantitatively different from SR (a Cantor set may still appear continous enough at certain scales such that any discrete discrepancies are negligible). But if these ideas are quantitatively different, then I would expect something like VSL to be part of that difference. Of course, you realize that we can build a continuous Lorentz transformation out of an infinite number of infinitesimal Lorentz transformations, and this would look very much like your ideas.
Of course I get the Doppler sound analogy. For that matter, a Doppler light analogy also depends on the observer's location relative to the source.
Virtual photons have nothing to do with ions. Theoretically (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and lack of knowledge between measurements allows this), any particle can emit and reabsorb any number of virtual (virtual in that these possible intermediate states are never measured and observed directly) photons. These virtual photons allow their "host" particles to "tickle" their environment (i.e. acknowledge their local inertial frame of reference in DFM) without actually interacting with it. Perhaps these virtual photons experience red-shift or blue-shift and correspondingly relay that gravitational information to their "host" particles while simultaineously imposing conservation of momentum and energy (to the best of our experiments anyway).
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 19:42 GMT
Peter,
The sound analogy has the same problem that the M&M aether had: that which implements space-time cannot be made out of point particles. In order to implement space-time, you need something more similar to quantum entanglement. I believe that the aether exists. It is built to uphold general relativity and QM. It consists of an infinite set of reference frames that are all interconnected by that which frequency shifts photons. By the equivalence principle, a frequency shift is equivalent to a gravitational potential energy and is also proportional to a change in kinetic energy for a mass.
Generating rapidly repeated shift photons amounts to a clever way to shift from one inertial frame to the other while leaving space-time curvature to pick up the tab (the energy tab). Using this technology, you can make huge heavy star-hips hover over the heads of low tech gawking onlookers. Just make sure you don't have an accidental power failure, or your 100,000 metric ton star-ship will hit the ground kind of hard.
John,
It's all about the alchemy and the aether. Technology that we don't understand is MAGIC. Well, we don't understand shift photon technology. It will be a while before I can even run the experiment the way I want to.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 20:58 GMT
Ray
Yes, but infinitely many Doppler shifts (at each electron) not Lorentz transformations, as the LT 'infinity curve' is no longer required to prevent light breaching 'c'. We've already achieved that by only scattering light at the new LOCAL 'c'.!!!!! (though it does describe the 'power' curve approaching c).
You say; "Doppler light analogy also depends on the observer's location relative to the source." In fact it depends entirely on his MOTION not his position (though often related of course - to confuse). Think carefully, ..You have just accepted, correctly, that the validity of a receiver for direct measurement depends on his motion. It's only valid if you're IN the moving ambulance, or on the roof, or driving beside it, i.e. in the SAME inertial frame.
It's exactly the same for light, (and if you get this you've discovered the route out of a 100 year circular maze) where all states of motion other than the local one (say a plane, spacecraft or ionosphere) which the sound, or light, is moving within, are INVALID for direct measurement. i.e. they ARE ALLOWED to see 'apparent' c plus v, yet nothing breaches c. - ANYWHERE AT ALL!!
So Lorentz's concerns were correct, all paradox is removed, and SR can have it's (quantum) mechanism.
IONS, I make a statement in the paper about the too common statement. " 'this' has nothing to do with 'that' " in physics. Everything has something to do with everything, it's all connected, that's where we've been going wrong.- (read the abstract), college lectures are discrete, nature is not! In this case 'virtual electrons' is the CERN and Fermilab term for what were previously termed 'photoelectrons', (the darned 'parasitic' cloud that grows and increasingly drags back the bunch stopping it from reaching c), but in the DFM they are unbound electrons etc, i.e plasma, or ions. (the 4th state of matter that makes up 99%+ of the universe). Pound for pound they are the best refractors money can buy by a country mile - as that's their job!! They also of course have mass, (now no longer 'missing') which also of course means gravity .
Jason.
That is not a problem whatsoever. As Einstein and Michelson himself said very clearly, the only theory consistent with the M&M result was Stokes/Planck 'ether drag,' which was the forerunner of the DFM. - I've complained before about it's 'anticipatory plagiarism!!'. It just needed Nobel Lauriate Hannes Alfven's Plasma (ion) Physics to prove it. There are no such things as 'point particles', in the DFM or probably at all. Distraction aside, did you understand the massively important implications of the analogy? - If not - do read again slowly and consider carefully.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 22:54 GMT
Hi Peter,
You have mixed a combination of wrong statements with misunderstandings. Are you trying to pick my statements to pieces? I'm trying to help you.
Both Doppler effects depend on relative motion. When I say that position is important, I am referring to where the observer is placed relative to the source - i.e. in front of, or behind, the moving source. The Relativistic Doppler Effect is derived by using the Lorentz transformation - the two concepts are related.
Ringed Supercolliders such as the LHC need to worry about Synchrotron Radiation and Cyclotron Radiation stealing their energy. This is the production of REAL photons (they aren't virtual in the least) by protons interacting with Electromagnetic Fields and being bent into curved paths (conservation of momentum requires the emission of photons).
Plasmas are different again. In the case of Tokamaks, we have Deuterium nuclei clouds and electron clouds moving in opposite directions. Because these "clouds" interact with each other, and with the Tokamak's Electromagnetic fields, we can have complex instabilities.
In contrast, the LHC uses smaller "bunch" sizes to minimize these unstable plasma effects.
You might read up on
virtual particles. Virtual photons allow particles to "tickle" (I say "tickle" instaed of "interact" because I think of a very gentle interaction such as a feather barely tickling someone.) the "vacuum" (the term that I used in my essay) or "aether" or intermediate inertial frames of reference.
I'm not trying to pick an argument with you on these issues. We are not as different as you may think. My upcoming paper with Jonathan Dickau is trying to reformulate GR. I think you are trying to reformulate SR. In this sense, we are working on different parts of a similar problem.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 12:23 GMT
Hi Ray
All offerings gratefully accepted, but it seems from the reference frame of mainstream physics I'm beyond hope!
I appreciate your point on 'position' but, to define the important effect, consider relativity; If the ambulance is static and you are moving the effect is exactly the same. Then your 'position' does not translate, it is only the relative motion that counts in ALL...
view entire post
Hi Ray
All offerings gratefully accepted, but it seems from the reference frame of mainstream physics I'm beyond hope!
I appreciate your point on 'position' but, to define the important effect, consider relativity; If the ambulance is static and you are moving the effect is exactly the same. Then your 'position' does not translate, it is only the relative motion that counts in ALL conditions. You are either receding or closing relatively. I agree in this case the result was the same, but considering the important relationship as one of 'position' could engender misunderstanding!
Also Doppler/LT relationship, that's fine, but take 3 paces backwards and re-view as you've missed the big picture. I'm saying in this case the LT relativistic 'infinity curve' is not REQUIRED, as light is already limited to c everywhere by Stokes/Anti Stokes scattering It never WAS required here! It was only invented (with no mechanism) to try to explain an anomaly, but the way we assumed it applied just gave others. It is already applicable to the 'power input/resistance' curve on acceleration so is not needed elsewhere, and the paradoxes evaporate. Yes, ..I do know this is NOT current understanding!
Thanks for your Wiki link on virtual electrons/photons. Bless you. There are many ways of looking at them and I agree yours is as valid, and indeed that they are real. I've always tended to read CERN courier more than Wiki (for 30 years!) and worked with their understanding, if not limitations. A few nearby quotes of hundreds;
"(QFT), as the theory of interacting quantum fields, includes the remarkable phenomenon of virtual particles, which are related to virtual transitions in quantum mechanics. For example, a photon propagating through empty space (the classical vacuum) undergoes a virtual transition into an electron-positron pair." -and- "rather than a Coulomb force described by a potential, the interaction corresponds to an exchange of virtual photons, which, in turn, propagate in space-time accompanied by virtual electron-positron pairs." -and, from way back-; "It holds that the electron is surrounded by a cloud of 'virtual' photons that are emitted and reabsorbed."
Now, again away from mainstream, these are of course unbound, which is PLASMA. I agree most are taught plasma in a different lecture so little connection is seen, but the model is about nature, not the physics we're taught. I'm fine with 'tickle', though it still means index 'n' is "non-one", so light speed in a plasma cloud in space is c local to the clouds state of motion, and will be diffracted (curved). As Plasma is 99%+ of matter the Tokamak is just one environment, but again, I agree, the cloud interaction is of dynamic Stokes-Navier form; as the Earths bow shock, in both Earth's and the solar wind's frames (as also found by Venus Express) and analagous to the 2 frame jet section attached.
You are far closer to various aspects than I am, but my main viewpoint is from kind of outside the structure containing the room the 'box' is in, so we will see things very differently, but I'm in and out all the time so must often pass close by!
Best of luck with Jonathan on SR. If you'd like an actual mechanism to help formulate it we have one spare. We're trying to keep it to SR but GR effects keep exposing themselves in the mechanism. Unavoidable I suppose.
I hope you'll remember real electrons and 'pairs' have mass, so also have gravitational potential, so a 100ltYr thick cloud of them (diffuse ion plasma) will curve light paths. That falls out of the DFM - but your right, it's more just nature not 'Physics'.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the "Best of Luck", and the same to you. I think I understand most of your ideas and most of how they differ from SR - we just have different ways of saying it. Jonathan challenged me to study an area with which I was somewhat familiar, but which deserved further study. I really think that this study will prove fruitful. There are many different models in String Theory, but perhaps the "truth" requires that more of these models converge (similar to Witten's union of five 10-D String models into an 11-D M-Theory).
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT
Dear Peter,
You say: "SOUND Consider this; In the Doppler equations there is no fixed Lab Frame. Even in sound, if the observer is closing with the siren he hears something different than if he's moving way. If he's in the same frame as the siren he hears no shift. There may be 100 people in different states of motion and they'd all hear something different. Each would have to know his relative speed to calculate the actual REAL emitted signal, so each is INVALID for direct measurement. Light is the same. I'm at a loss to understand why this seems so incomprehensible!"
For sound, there is no fixed lab frame, but there are all of these air particles floating around that amount to a fixed frame. I think you're trying to argue that the air itself is made out of N particles all flying around at different velocities. Are you trying to recapture the LT on the grounds of N different particles with different velocities? I have to go to work in 5 minutes, sorry.
The LT and invariance of c might not be infinitely reliable, but it's a good enough approximation to abolish the absolute reference frame. The question becomes: what is it that holds the energy between a speeding car racing towards the wall, and the wall? Is it,
a) a point particle field disproved (prematurely?) by M&M? ...or
b) a quantum entanglement field (wave function field)?
I vote for b). I think you would vote for a). Can you help me understand your reasoning?
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 19:23 GMT
Jason
Light in a dielectric medium propagates similarly to sound, particle to particle via atomic scattering. The point I made applies equally to both, and is fundamentally important. The index n of air = 1.0003, plasma ~0.999998 (and coupling constant of ions is so high radio waves bounce off them!)
I didn't say "For sound, there is no fixed lab frame." You need to use more than...
view entire post
Jason
Light in a dielectric medium propagates similarly to sound, particle to particle via atomic scattering. The point I made applies equally to both, and is fundamentally important. The index n of air = 1.0003, plasma ~0.999998 (and coupling constant of ions is so high radio waves bounce off them!)
I didn't say "For sound, there is no fixed lab frame." You need to use more than your front cerebral cortex while dashing off to work if you want to understand nature! It takes careful considered thought.
What I said, in another way, was; If you observe the lights of an approaching ambulance you will find them blue shifted. Check again once it's passed and you'll find them red shifted (jokes aside!). The dynamics of what we NORMALLY consider with Doppler shift ignores the importance of consistency of observer inertial reference frame EQUALLY WITH LIGHT AND SOUND!!
Now imagine the ambulance is all glazed and the siren and lights are inside. (the lights actually are inside glass lenses anyway). When you sit inside it you will be in an Einstein inertial frame where the laws of physics are the same, as in ALL ambulances!, ..light does 'c' with respect to the ambulance, sound does Mach 1. (we'll ignore n etc. for now as it will only confuse you).
If you are on a moving bus when the ambulance goes past you will see and hear the light and sound Doppler shifted. However, when you measure their speed you find it is both 'c', and Mach 1.! ...as it is locally, IN ALL INERTIAL BUSES! ..(the DFM's discrete 'fields').
Now here's the key; to VALIDLY measure what happens to light and sound when it changes between inertial frames, i.e. Delta, you must change inertial frames WITH IT (or have two observers and compare notes RELATIVE TO A SINGLE FRAME i.e. either one or the other, or the sidewalk.)
What you will then find is that they change speed to do 'c' and Mach 1, LOCALLY.! You'll find both f and lambda change, to maintain c = f x lambda.
Check it very ...very...carefully. ..and perhaps try what I suggested at the end of my 30th May post!
And before you mention it..,Yes, I agree, I've already admitted this is NOT current Physics, it is nature, which seems a bit different, and SR has a quantum mechanism.
Now, LT is irrelevant here, and 'c' IS INDEED INVARIANT - WITHIN EACH FRAME! which is precisely what the postulates of SR say!!
It is our incapability of recognising that fact alone, and checking the consequences, that has prevented us from uniting physics and moving on, for over 100 years! If you check there carefully you will find all the answers.
So; both a) and b) are wrong, and correct. There are no POINT particles. It is non-'point' free (unbound) electrons and protons (plasma = 99%< of matter) that implement change. The waves from the wave field (there are no 'functions' in nature) interact with the particles (i.e. refracting and reflecting radio waves back and changing their speed to the local 'c' if needed when re-emitted.)
You need to visualise, take your time, and have both sides of your brain at full volume working as one! Best of luck!
Peter
PS. Energy is relative. A wall racing towards a parked car would do the same. But BOTH have a velocity in the local background inertial frame of the road/air, or even where n=1. If they meet, and one transforms to the others frame, we find length contraction, (noisy if a rigid body!) which is simply equivalent to Doppler shift.
If you throw the bricks through the windows of a passing train the wall dilates. (red shifts). Occam says ok, but stop that!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 20:54 GMT
Peter,
"Light in a dielectric medium propagates similarly to sound, particle to particle via atomic scattering."
I don't think that they do. Could you please explain why they do?
James
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 10:31 GMT
James
Can't do the full quantum optics course here, but Atomic Scattering is all about particles. The voids between change nothing. (and remember I said 'similarly' - and qualified it). I'll post a few links. Check out; Coupling, polarisation mode dispersion, (PMD) Huygens construction, HFP, Fourier Optics, Ewald-Oseen Extinction (& Bragg refraction) etc. Optical Fibre science is at the cutting edge and worth keeping an eye on.
Did you know the ionosphere is a dielectric medium, (free elecron ions are the best refractors money can buy - and leading stealth technology). It also has birefringent qualities (two refractive index n values subject to particle/wave polarity relationship).
For sound you could check out things like Wave Field Synthesis. Billiard balls are a bit old hat. Science has moved on a bit in the last 200 years!
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.24.1980
http:/
/www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ol-3-2-60
DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145
http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mc
donald/examples/EM/miller_ol_16_1370_91.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0204/0204009v2.pdf
htt
p://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JQE.1982.1071432
doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.17
Rev. Lett. 97, 054801 July 2006 http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.054801
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610039v1
http://arxiv.org/pdf/p
hysics/0703101v1
If you need any more on any aspect just let me know which.
I hope they help. But it's the big picture that matters! We know the Earth centred inertial reference frame NASA and GPS use also has relevant counterparts locally to Venus and Jupiter. Why we think that wouldn't apply anywhere else is a bit of a riddle.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 17:45 GMT
Photons can be imagined as dipole field, phonons resemble a breathing sphere.
"I think your focus on Now is the appropriate focus. Past and future are ideas."
Let me focus on Now. The ideal Now is just like a point without any extension: It is the actual border between past and future. Nothing can happen within it because it does not have parts. The common use of Now denotes in a deliberately imprecise manner processes that may include past as well as future parts.
What is to do? Please get aware that only the past is observable. Do not conclude from the fact that imagination extends over the future as well as the past that traces are just ideas. Let's make physics realistic.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
Peter,
Thank you for all of those resources. I admit that I, perhapos naively, wasn't asking my question as something complex and expecting a long answer.
"Light in a dielectric medium propagates similarly to sound, particle to particle via atomic scattering."
When I questioned this I was thinking in much more simple terms of an obvious difference. Their speeds are different. There are reasons why this is so. I was wondering about your view on these reasons. I should have said more and narrowed the question down. I will look into your links.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 3, 2011 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Peter,
I have an answer to your riddle. I would use solutions to the Alcubierre drive to help explain a 6c jet from M87. While there are more boring explanations for the 6c jet out there on the internet, general relativity can still explain how particles can move less than c, locally, while their reference frame can move 6c relative to observers further away. This way, the particles themselves are not obligated to explain the 6c jet. Severe curvatures of space-time can account for frames that travel 6c relative to flat space-time.
A GR expert can find you a space-time interval fit that more closely models your 6c jet.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 19:23 GMT
Hi Jason
A little stroke of genius again I see; "while their reference frame can move 6c relative to observers further away. This way, the particles themselves are not obligated to explain the 6c jet." Yes, Like a fish swimming in a fast flowing stream. Many physicists driving past in cars currently insist the fish has to shrink to a minnow as it can only swim at 3mph with respect to their cars. No comment!
Actually it's up to 8c for the inner 'blobs' near the source, and much of the effect comes from the fact that, aimed at a shallow angle towards us, the first bit of light from the pulse heading for us is being 'left behind' by the pulse itself, so the later light starts much closer! But that only covers SOME of the thousands out there (SDSS) probably pointing at all angles I postulate. In fact the DFM predicts a 'time reversal' (Doppler) effect for shallow angle jets, long ago found with sound and recently found in the lab with light.;
Chen J. et al. Jan 2010. Observation of the inverse Doppler effect in negative-index materials at optical frequencies. Nature Photonics Volume: 5, Pages: 239–245 (2011) doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.17
But forget 'space-time curvature' as a mechanism, it has NO mechanism and never did. The mechanism is diffraction. Minkowski's metric is fine, - with the mechanism, index 'n', and Doppler wave 'contraction'. Simple really! Keep that mind working.
Best regards
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 19:59 GMT
James,
"I was thinking in much more simple terms of an obvious difference. Their speeds are different. There are reasons why this is so. I was wondering about your view on these reasons."
Sorry, it doesn't fall out of the DFM, though I might not have noticed. Obviously the mechanisms are different, as EM waves can propagate in the energy condensate and only needs particles for 'change', but sound needs the medium particles to propagate at all.
I do however have this amazing bit of kit to make them interact. Mine only works at low wavelengths, below the IR, and is a bit complex, though it only uses commonly available components like transistors etc, but I've seen more direct interaction results at higher frequencies recently, and been watching development of a system that works at visible wavelengths. Mine can convert, send and receive quite complex 'codes', and also re-convert and decode them. The BBC 'Rough Science' simple conversion experiment worked too; sound carried on sunlight, with the simplest of kit!
I call my own ones 'radio' and 'tv'. I think those ones are quite common and pretty well taken for granted now, but the direct conversion ones are quite new. The Max Planck Institute is doing much interesting stuff at present.
In both cases in a dielectric speed is of course a function of medium particle configuration /frequency/polarisation/density etc. Do let me know if you think you have a handle on it yourself.
Best regards
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 22:10 GMT
Hi Peter,
"But forget 'space-time curvature' as a mechanism, it has NO mechanism and never did. "
I'm really not a fan of space-time curvature either. Yet, they're like magic words for some people. In general, I think words like gravity field or gravitational potential can be substituted for space-time curvature. Although, while discussing my shift photon idea on another website, I said that:
a. wavelength change of the shift photon interfaces with space-time curvature, and
b. frequency change interfaces with time dilation.
This assumes that the primary function of the space-time continuum is to faciliate the movement of photons, of light.
I have heard of negative index of refractions. Interesting development.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 9, 2011 @ 09:13 GMT
Jason/Ray/James,
Very important new result evidencing discrete inertial fields; the theoretical Dynamic Casimir Effect (DCE) has just been proven - light created from the vacuum by a moving mirror (actually pair production,- at microwave for the mirror oscillation frequency used).http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.
346.html and
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714
The motion is in the reference frame of the LOCAL vacuum, where; "the ideal mirror represents a boundary condition for the EM field". This is also precisely as Chandrasakhar Raman's ignored 1922 thesis saying much the same, consistent with the DFM mechanism.
Jason - if you read and interpret carefully you'll find the equivalent of Doppler shift as time dilation in the paper.
Of course everyone will re-interpret it in their own way I suppose. What do you guys think?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 9, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT
Peter,
Very interesting articles. I don't think anyone has really grasped the significance of "virtual" particles and virtual other stuff. Tangible and observable are the only things that left brain intellectuals can comprehend. The same brilliant thinkers cannot seem to understand that many things that implement physics are non-tangible, not solid, and are only quasi real.
It's kind of amusing the physicists recoil in horror at things like spirits, haunted houses and ghosts. If there can be virtual particles, then why not virtual larger things? Why not virtual organisms? Virtual life forms? Virtual beings of light? Long dead virtual physicists?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 9, 2011 @ 23:26 GMT
Getting back to physics, the Casimir Effect has proven the existence of a quantum vacuum that is all around us. You could say that empty space is a quantum foam of virtual particles. This virtual foam must be responsible for action-at-a-distance phenomena. The invariance of the speed of light (locally) contradicts the more reasonable idea of an absolute frame of reference, so the speed of light between two objects must be fixed by the interconnection of those two objects within the quantum vacuum. The implementation of physics has to be related to the quantum vacuum.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 06:23 GMT
Virtual means not real. Does DCasimirE confirm "Nothing comes from the past"? I see my strength in revealing fallacies, and I am still waiting for response to the four arguments I uttered concerning the published article by Aephraim Steinberg.
My reasoning is as simple as unusual: Well, past and future are ideas. Nonetheless, if we agree on how to idealize a process, e.g. a lifespan, then we can exactly decide between earlier and later, and there is never a back-causation. Any cause precedes its effect.
What caused the wild speculations on virtual/imaginary objects? Trial and error created not just gods as tools. Speculations are less demanding as compared with what I prefer: critical reasoning. Having used imaginary object in a strictly rational manner for my whole career, I would like to suggest: consider imaginary objects always a result of a merely mentally/mathematically performed arbitrary split of reality. The possibility to build circuits that nearly behave like a negative resistance or "materials" with negative refraction does not contradict to the impossibility of non-causality. Nonetheless, it is common practice for good reasons to use non-causal theories ;-).
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT
All of physics is a grand jig saw puzzle. There are millions of pieces to the puzzle. But the goal is simple: Solve the puzzle. How can you tell that you've solved the puzzle? Answer: certain critical pieces fall into place. It becomes easy and intuitive. From that knowledge, one should be able to unlock the mystery of gravity. I think I solved the mystery. Frequency shifting of photons (light) fits both gravitational and relativistic time dilation. I think I can construct a simple circuit that will generate frequency shift photons. Frequency shift photons will cause space-time to curve in a way that appears to violate conservation of energy.
Please feel free to dismiss me as a crackpot. Because if my gravity field generator experiment works, I will relish making you rewrite all your physics books.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 12:44 GMT
Jason, Eckard.
I agree; "I don't think anyone has really grasped the significance..." ..of the other 99 thousandths and 99% "of what nature has revealed to us." (AE)
Sorry Jason, the puzzle's done, the picture was of the DFM.; We can't "see" light till it's scattered, inertial fields are mutually exclusive, and light does move with respect to local scattering dynamics, and the whole lot fell into place! (Your 'shift photons' had a different name, but pretty well the same bit of the jigsaw). POur problem was simply arrogance, thinking our own frame was important. ..But, like the bomb we can't un-invent, it seems we may not be quite ready for it yet.
Eckard, The 'DCasimirE' essentially confirms 'real' photons,' though it seems entirely equivalent to pair production and ions. Our 'tags' are pretty sloppy.
The DFM also predicted Doppler time reversal, which has also just been found. but only a simple mechanistic effect on OBSERVED' reality. I've derived that there are two classes of inertial frame, most are arbitrary, and all are invalid for remote vector measurement (thus the failure of Snell's Law with co-motion).
Interestingly I've just found Chanrasakhara Raman found almost the same in his 1922 paper! without space exploration to help. Astonishing, or perhaps not.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
Peter,
I think we pretty much agree on how physics is being implemented. But let me check. I believe that all of these statements are true. Which ones, if any, do you not agree with?
1. The quantum vacuum has been proven by the Casimir effect.
2. The quantum vacuum exists everywhere including empty space.
3. The quantum vacuum contains virtual photons and other virtual particles.
4. All particles (all things) are interconnected through the quantum vacuum.
5. The quantum vacuum fixes the speed of light c = wavelength * frequency.
6. The quantum vacuum is closely related to the space-time continuum and is responsible for the space-time interval.
6. The quantum vacuum implements action-at-a-distance phenomena.
7. Newtonian gravity and Coulombs Law are two examples of action at a distance phenomena between two masses/two charges.
8. The kinetic energy of mass m and velocity v relative to another object is contained within the action-at-a-distance field (a.k.a. the quantum vacuum).
9. Frames of reference (intertial and/or accelerating) are interconnected through the quantum vacuum.
10. The quantum vacuum can change the ratio of the progression of time between two reference frames in order to maintain the local invariance of c; in other words, time dilation.
Gotta go.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies