• [deleted]

Vladimir,

Your analysis of the constancy/inconstancy of the speed of light is insufficient. You wrote:

"Unfortunately by proposing that the speed of light (c) is constant, Einstein imposed a strange requirement on Nature: Space itself expands and contracts, and time dilates, as measured from a moving inertial frame. He made measurement absolute, i.e. (c) is constant (light being the 'tool' that measures distance and time), but the universe itself became relative - there is no absolute ether in which events occur. This is the exact opposite of what happens in the Lorentz transformations that inspired (SR), whereby the universe is absolute (a universal medium or ether exists) but it is measurement that is relative (clocks slow down as they move, not time itself, and measuring rods physically contract, not space itself, and (c) need not be fixed. In any case both in (SR) and in Lorentz' theory, the measured speed of light ends up being the same."

If, according to the ether theory that you defend, the speed of light "need not be fixed", just give an example showing how the speed of light varies.

Are time dilation and length contraction RECIPROCAL according to the ether theory that you defend? That is, does any observer see any other observer's clock running slow?

Pentcho Valev

Dear Pentcho Valev

Thank you for your critical response. You are quite right - my analysis is insufficient. Three factors contribute to that: 1- the format of the fqxi contest wanted us to ask foundational questions, and specifically discouraged 'shoehorning' our own 'pet theories' in the discussion; in other words not to give the answers! 2- the word-count limit did not allow a lengthy discussion. Most importantly 3- my conclusions are based on my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory which is admittedly qualitative and needs mathematical development in many areas. Having said that I feel confident from thought experiments imagining how energy hops across the ether nodes, and how force on a body 'compresses' its length before it starts moving (see attached figure from the BU paper), that the equivalent of SR can be developed including reciprocal *measured* clock-time retardation, and *measured* length contraction. This becomes obvious if you think of time measured by a clock made up of a bouncing ray of light in a box whose length contracts along the way it travels.

The payoff for this way of thinking is in the great simplification of gravity, because it is not spacetime that warps so unrealistically, merely the ether medium has a density gradient, which slows down (c) as described in Q.4. As I mentioned Einstein himself later admitted that (c) has to slow down when curving in a gravity field. SR plays no role in such a situation because both the light and the star are in the same inertial frame. The required formulation of all this in (BU) should be based on discrete 'steps' between nodes, at a *maximum* speed of (c) in a vacuum free from masses and fields.

Any help translating these intuitions into more rigorous mathematical form would be welcome!

VladimirAttachment #1: 1_BUFIG26.jpg

    • [deleted]

    In Lorentz ether theory time dilation and length contraction are not reciprocal, Vladimir. This fact is usually ignored but still some authors do mention it:

    W.L. Craig, The Tenseless Theory of Time, p. 26: "Kroes, however, disputes Dieks' s claim in this regard. He charges that Dieks has overlooked the fact that in Einstein's theory these relativistic effects are RECIPROCAL. Lorentz's dynamical interpretations of the shortening of rods and of time dilation only make sense because they are not reciprocal."

    Pentcho Valev

    Thanks Pentcho you have gone into this matter more than I have and I need to study more, starting with reading your essay! Since in (BU) theory we are considering a new physical situation with new possibilities, perhaps a new understanding may evolve, rather than stick to what Einstein or Lorentz have presented in terms of the physical understanding of Nature of their era. They both differentiated between matter and the vacuum, while in BU matter is made of the same stuff as the ether.

    In BU theory there is no time dimension, so the concept of speed of light itself becomes academic. This may seem less drastic than it seems: In a timeless universe absolute simultaneity is automatically established everywhere, but relativistic effects will be measured locally from inertial frames. BTW what does the experimental evidence have to say about whether time dilation and length contraction are reciprocal or not?

    Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      What a great essay! When I read the sentence "Clever mathematics allows defining the same phenomena in different ways: in geometry a circle is realistically defined by its center and radius, but a relatively complicated algebraic definition is also possible - the latter however gives no idea of its shape." I said, there's a man after my own heart, an art-science creator unbound by a single category. It's hard not to think of the successful math that proved for eighteen-hundred years the Sun circled the Earth.

      An artist friend, Harry Holtzman, long gone, used to say that, "Hardening of the categories leads to art disease." Isn't something like this true also of science? I remember a Robert Oppenheimer interview in which he emphasized the need to create or maintain bridges between disciplines, the most likely fertile ground for making new discoveries.

      My argument is against the bullying long ago by the Copenhagen powers that excluded forever students with strong visual sensibilities and talent from participating in the world of quantum physics. Since 1930 people have been scared to death even to hint that the atom might possibly be a real and logical device. Sorry, Vladimir, but I've set off my personal tick, that hidden spring that gets me started the moment I think atom.

      I admire greatly your image of science as a dwelling with many separate rooms disconnected from one another. Looking at your brilliant illustrations it occurred to me that one day when you've mulled over the architectural possibilities you might find yourself sketching an improved architecture, a co-op to house the different disciplines but with connecting rooms.

      With great admiration and best wishes,

      Ken Snelson

      Ken

      I treasure the kudos from you, the inventor of tensegrity and the creator of the stunning world-famous sculptures gracing so many museums and plazas from Baltimore to Tokyo. In physics I was thrilled to discover your rotating circular magnets that move in sync - a beautiful illustration of how I think nodes making up matter move in my Beautiful Universe theory, as I credited you in my 2005 paper. I still need to study in depth your models of de Broglie atomic waves. But as Paul Dirac felt concerning theories in physics - on account of its beauty alone it must be true!

      Unlike you I have gone into so many directions at once and many of my ideas or project are left unfinished. Not out of laziness or lack of opportunity, but because in the same way you describe the entrenched positions of the Copenhagen people, most fields are dominated by successful 'experts' who do not like upstarts daring to present new ideas that challenge old ones. So the project is left dangling! Slowly however things are changing.

      You mentioned Dr. Oppenheimer - he pioneered the Exploratorium science museum in California. Another fqxi essayist Eric Reiter knows -(he exhibited his Sun Harp there) - Eric is himself a brave pioneer against entrenched ideas and experimentally disproved the point photon idea.

      Viva American inventiveness, and creativity everywhere, with free minds coupled with hard work and faith in one's own ideas, taking them where they might!

      Thank you again for your visit and generous encouragement.

      Vladimir

      Vladimir,

      Although your analysis of the constancy/inconstancy of the speed of light is insufficient, you have gone far enough towards the truth so you get maximum rating from me.

      Note that my essay is no longer in the contest so there is no bargaining in my message.

      Pentcho Valev

      Dear Vladimir,

      In the framework of the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay) I answer your question in such way: 1). The world consist of numerous objects (particles, stars, galaxies and so on). The matter of every objects consist of particles of low levels of matter. The physical state of matter of different objects is different. But it is possible to find coefficients of similarity between similar objects at different levels of matter and with them predict properties of objects. The wave quanta may be represented as changes of density of fluxes of gravitons which consist of neutrino, photons and charged particles similar to cosmic rays (all of it was born at low levels of matter by particles much more less then nucleons). Space is mathematical construction and realized only throw real particle and material reference frame. Flexibility of space is the same as flexibility of all reference frames - it is no more then mathematical trick. 3). How we can understand that speed of light c is constant in all inertial systems? This question is well seen in Extended special theory of relativity . It is shown that constancy of speed of light in all inertial systems may be a consequence of constancy of speed of light in isotropic reference frame where the speed is the same in all direction and may be connected with isotropy of fluxes of gravitons. Another reason is procedure of space-time measurement in special relativity which uses two-way propagation of waves. With such procedure averaging of speed of light take place giving the value of c. But real speed in a direction may be not c. See Metric theory of relativity. Ether consist of fluxes of gravitons. 4). Gravitation change only paths of photons and their energy, not the spacetime itself. Since space-time measurements use electromagnetic waves then the metric of space-time is changed in the field of gravity in relation to the Minkowski metric. So some one thinks that spacetime is warped. 5). The model of photons is in paper Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles.. The photons consist of numerous charged tiny particles, rotating around axis of motion. The model of electron is in the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter.. 7). There is the model of quarks and in the model quarks are quasiparticles not real particles.

      Sergey Fedosin

        Vladimir,

        Great discussion. I for one think that the vacuum of space can change or be changed to break the constancy of light speed.

        For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

        I think yours comes under that guideline.

        Jim

        Hi Jim

        Thanks for your message - the constancy of the speed of light is applicable only in cases where *measurements* are involved from one inertial frame to another. But because Einstein enshrined it into an absolute postulate in SR the concept played havoc when applied without any necessity to do so to describe gravity . SR need not apply in cases 'out there' with no observer involved, for example in the bending of light in a gravitational field.

        Thanks for your kind words about my essay. In general I do not think the peer-evaluation of the contest system is fair or a good way to select the best ones. For example Eric Reiter's fqxi essay is the only one with experimental groundbreaking evidence that can really make a difference. But he chose to write it too technically and it seems to be languishing in the ratings. Please check it out and rate it. I have read and rated som 80 essays (I cannot believe I did that!) including yours. Good luck.

        Vladimir

        Dear Sergey

        Thank you so much for your detailed explanation.I have so much to learn, and am learning everyday from interesting thinkers like you - I read about 80 fqxi essays. The papers you mentioned cover subjects of great importance, but in order to comment on them I have to read them - and I hope to do so in the near future as time (and energy - I am 70 years old!) permits.

        In general I do not subscribe to the concept of photon particles, nor to gravitons. In my Beautiful Universe theory I see gravity as the effect of twisting of ether dipole nodes ...almost a topological rather than a particle explanation. I see you have read Eric Reiter's essay - where he experimentally proved that the photon is not a particle. This is an important development that will necessiate the revision of a lot of conceptual ideas.

        I wish you the best

        Vladimir

        • [deleted]

        The problem with the speed of light is existential, not just scientific, Vladimir. If the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, that is, if Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, an unavoidable conclusion is that not only Einstein's relativity but modern physics as a whole has been long dead. Einstein hinted at this in 1954 but hid the real problem behind a euphemism:

        Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

        Joao Magueijo is more explicit:

        Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

        Pentcho Valev

        Dear Vladimir,

        I've read your very interesting paper and taken a peek at your website. I have a great appreciation of the artistic way you have expressed yourself, both verbally and pictorially. Your diagrams really are beautiful. I very much agree that the spirit of investigation and specifics you define in the title of your essay is just what is needed for the advancement of Physics today. I haven't had prior communications with members of FQXi so perhaps I'm a little behind the ball in knowing what each essay stands for besides what is actually presented within it.

        I'd like to ask if you find in the contents of this essay a very real and very rigorous realization of the command "Reverse Engineer Relativity"? The mathematics may be a bit heavy in places so I wouldn't expect many to be able to follow every item, except for plasma physicists who routinely deal with the constitutive relations. But there is possibly enough verbal description to understand what is taking place there.

        With best wishes,

        Steve

          Dear Tamari,

          Thank you for an interesting essay. You are one of the few in this contest who has discussed a number of different assumptions and this reflect your broad worldwide vision of physics.

          We agree in many more forms that I can write here. For instance, you quote Einstein saying that the speed of light has to "vary with position" when light curves in a gravitational field. We obtain the same conclusion from the field theoretic approach to gravity presented in my Essay. The velocity that we obtain (in the weak field limit) is

          [math]v = c - \frac{2GM}{cr}[/math]

          where M is the mass of the star (e.g. Sun) and r the distance. The above expression gives the observed light bending due to the gravitational field. In my essay and in the cited references I also show how the geometric interpretation of gravity is only valid as approximation, in agreement with comments you made in your Q4.

          We also agree on the artificial character of the particle-wave duality. I have presented in my FQXi forum (1356) a new formulation/interpretation of QM that avoids the usual paradoxes and puzzles and demonstrates that Einstein was right in his ensemble interpretation of QM, whereas Bohr was not in their individual/Copenhagen interpretation. I loved your intelligent use of the term "zombie cats" for referring to the Schrödinger cat paradox. In future, I will use your term "zombie cats" when discussing about this paradox.

          Regards

            • [deleted]

            So the speed of light decreases as the light leaves the gravitational field of the star. If this light then comes here on earth, is its speed still decreased? Is the gravitational redshift we measure evidence for this decreased speed?

            Pentcho Valev

            • [deleted]

            If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, as Vladimir and Juan claim, does it vary with the speed of the observer in gravitation-free space? The answer is "yes":

            "Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction: f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

            The stationary observer measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v. The equivalence principle converts the stationary observer into an observer "traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver". This observer also measures the speed of light to be c'=c-v.

            Pentcho Valev

            Yes, when light comes here on earth its speed is still decreasing per above expression.

            No, the gravitational redshift is not given by the decreased speed. Note that during its travel from the source to the detector, the photon's kinetic energy varies so as to ensure conservation of energy. When the photon gets absorbed by the detector it disappears completely, so its total energy gets transferred to the detector rather than the kinetic energy alone. The photon's total energy (and its frequency) remains constant during its travel, so the attraction of photons to massive bodies does not play any role in the gravitational red shift. The true origin of the red shift is the variation of energy levels in the source and/or in the detector if they are placed in the gravitational field.

            Moreover, the above result is obtained from the Hamiltonian for a photon in a gravitational field. For a massive body (e.g. atom) in a gravitational field the Hamiltonian is, in a first approximation,

            [math]H = H_0 \left( 1 - \frac{GM}{rc^2}\right)[/math]

            Which gives the well-tested red-shift formula

            [math]\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta E_0 } = 1 - \frac{GM}{rc^2}[/math]

            Dear Juan Ramón and Pentcho

            Thank you for your stimulating messages. I am glad that Juan , with his sophisticated mathematical background, seems to have found many agreements with my statements, even though they are based on the mostly qualitative Beautiful Universe Theory model and earlier studies refred to therein. I have read Juan's "General relativity as geometrical approximation to a field theory of gravity"(viXra:1203.0042) and see that like a skilled matador he has tackled the General Relativity bull with skill and panache. I wish I understood the mathematical details, but from my own analysis, GR became vastly complicated because it was formulated using the language of Special Relativity SR. The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern. In my theory gravitational potential is due to local energy gradient in the nodes making up the universal medium (the quantized ether).

            To answer Pentcho's concerns, I must explain the difference between the presuppositions and hence mathematical language of SR and GR on the one hand, and my BU on the other. In SR and GR time, velocity, distance are all continuous functions, but they obey a strange and abstract rule: c is constant. These starting points lead to the Lorentz transformations and the sort of calculations Pentcho derived above.

            In BU the starting points are that there is a discrete absolute background space, like points on the corners of a fixed graph. Absolute also refers to time - there is complete simultanity in this world. The maximum speed momentum can travel between nodes is c, but when the nodes are denser, they momentum travels at a slower rate. From the above starting points I have concluded through much thought-experimentation that all the experimental results of SR (clocks slowing down as length contracts, and GR ( clocks slowing down and light bending near massive objects etc.) can be derived from this BU model.

            I know that such a verbal and arguments (plus visual illustrations) is not enough. When I finalized the BU model in 2005 I was hoping, and am still hoping, that some more skilful mathematician will describe this world in a rigorous mathematical description.

            Take the matter of velocity addition. In a continuous medium 4+5 =9. But imagine a world where the maximum allowed number is 9 where 7+5= 9 ! What kind of math do I need for this? Perhaps an easier way to understand this 'maximum velocity' rule is to imagine a long line of soccer fans making a 'cheering' wave one person lifts his or her hands when the one before does so. Imagine the healthiest people can transmit the wave at c, but some older, less healthy people take time to transmit the wave at less than c...

            And thanks Juan - no more zombie cats (and no more point photons please - read Eric Reiter's essay!) in the brave new world of physics!

            Vladimir

              Dear Stephen

              Thank you very much for your generous comments - it is a pleasure to find that what amounts to my daydreaming and doodling over the years has found confirmation in many quarters.

              I enjoyed perusing your essay and got enough out of a first reading to understand and approve of what you have done. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have started out with the Maxwell equations and by proposing a velocity=energy equivalence you have derived or explained the lambda factor of Special Relativity. Bravo! This is exactly in line with the starting assumptions of energy transport in my Beautiful Universe Theory upon which I have based my essay. As momentum is transmitted from the node stepping stones of the universal ether in this theory, it does so at a maximum velocity of (c) but when the nodes themselves rotate at higher energy the velocity is less.

              The payoff in this approach is when the description of GR is reduced to a density field with variable index of optical refraction. BTW can slowing down of c in a gravitational field be expressed by a change of the ratio of the permittivity and permeability in Maxwell's equations?? Further clarification of my other ideas is in my response to the discussion below with Juan and Pentcho.

              fqxi is mostly a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) world - there is some private communication as people get to know each other year after year - this is my second contest I entered. On the site itself there are no hidden variables, except the kindness and hard work of the administrators like Brendan Foster, but I think the rating system is not working to lead to the best essays.

              I wish you success

              Vladimir

              • [deleted]

              Dear Vladimir

              You make me realize I should have paid more attention to Young and Eddington. I do so elsewhere http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/30/4/014 but not in relation to Riemann. Thanks for making me think more deeply about the issues.

              Your essay was sometime out of league but always fascinating, original and creative. Hope more thinkers adopt your style. Beauty is not a scientific add-on but a necessary requirement.

                • [deleted]

                "The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern."

                Correct but this implies that physics has been long dead, Vladimir:

                Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

                Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

                Pentcho Valev

                Dear Pentcho

                Thank you for quoting me, Maguijo (which I will read) and Einstein - but I am not sure what you yourself believe on this matter when you say

                "Correct but this implies that physics has been long dead, Vladimir".

                I would not say dead, because even with its latter-day 'epicycles', it works. But because our minds are locked with 'constant c' and other unphysical suppositions, physics remains deadlocked.

                I know that in 1916 Einstein said that the speed of light in a gravitational field had to vary - it seems that he derived that idea already in 1911...we live and learn!

                See Variable Speed of Light in General Relativity

                But do not worry, in the area of physics that you seem most concerned with, even in my theory in the absence of gravity or other fields measured lengths contracts and clock time dilates, so in effect c remains constant.

                Vladimir

                Dear Juan Miguel Marín

                I see you have duplicated your reply to me on your fqxi page. I hope many people read your fascinating article for this contest. Thank you for confirming the importance of Young and Eddington's concepts of 'density' of space. I wish I could read your IOP article, but I have no means to do so from here.

                Thank you for appreciating my style. And if you mean I am sometimes out of my league I must admit that of course it is true. When you fight windmills you realize your true size :)

                Best wishes,

                Vladimir

                Dear Vladimir,

                Thank you for comparing me with a "skilled matador" although I must introduce the next disclaimer: "No theories or cats were harmed in my essay" :-)

                GR is based in a geometrisation principle, which states that gravitation can be completely understood in geometrical terms. This is the source of the well-known problems of GR, including the impossibility to quantize it.

                The field theory of gravity (FTG) abandons this geometrisation principle and embraces an unification principle where gravity is described as a force (although the gravitational force is more complex than the electromagnetic force of course). Geometrical gravity (GR) is an approximation to physical gravity (FTG), somehow as geometrical optics is an approximation to physical optics. Below I attach images of light bending as spacetime curvature (GR) vs light bending as gravitational force (FTG). Feel free to reuse them in your future works if you like them.

                Finally, I must say that I agree about abandoning the point photons. My point of view is similar to that by Feynman. As stated in my essay. I could not write about other topics because of the size-limit for this contest!Attachment #1: flatspacetime.gifAttachment #2: curvedspacetime.gif

                • [deleted]

                Vladimir,

                You contradict yourself:

                You wrote: "The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern."

                But then you wrote: "But do not worry, in the area of physics that you seem most concerned with, even in my theory in the absence of gravity or other fields measured lengths contracts and clock time dilates, so in effect c remains constant."

                Perhaps, if Einstein's speed-of-light postulate is "unphysical and unrealistic", then its consequences - length contraction and time dilation - are just theoretical artifacts that correspond to nothing in the real world?

                Pentcho Valev

                  Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

                  First I would like to thank you for pointing out some 5 very good essays in this competition. All of them are great and represent a new thought process integrated into contemporary interpretation of nature. They all represent a much higher level of understanding of contemporary physics than that is available with me. My comments are therefore reflective of an enterpretation from Pico-Physics point of view of reality that is subject matter of the discussions at these blogs.

                  I will try to summarise my comments in a logical fashion, and provide the same in this blog. In this essay, you have brought out the difficulty of contemporary thought processes in physics to present an integrated view of nature.

                  Pico-Physics starts with the assumption that this is very much on the cards and identifies a power statement (Unary Law) 'Space Contains Matter (Knergy)' as the point of integration. PicoPhysics starts from here, and with minimal additional assumptions is able to explain observations on nature. You will get a glimpse of the same on my comments on the topics of these essays.

                  Thanks & Best Regards,

                  Vijay Gupta

                  Note:

                  PicoPhysics was the name given to my thought process to make it in-personal. It means a thought process which is independant of dimensions of object and observer. Thus the mother law is valid and true in all dimensions sub particle to dimensions of universe (astronomical).

                  Unary law - 'Sapce Contains Matter-Knergy', In PicoPhysics is new first principle sought in your essay.

                  My essay 5-dimensions of universe is an attempt to guage the reaction to basic concepts in PicoPhysics. It is simple, and power statement at variance to general preception and thought process 3-4 dimensions of space without contradicting the same that reflects truth. It was expected that it will attract people's attention.

                  In Picophysics we prove 'space' in unary law needs to have 3-dimensions and then identify with space of contemporary physics.

                  I believe still more factual evidence is required for people to get out of the concept of conservation and understand need to ammend the same to Konservation.

                  I am more or less retired, as a result of stroke I suffered last year. So I spend some time on this blog and document some thoughts that I developed since 1960s. PicoPhysics work gives me a satisfaction of being able to understand the nature and being at piece with it. The short life expectancy is also a motivation to create my blog at picophysics.org

                  Dear Mr Vladimir,

                  I wholly subscribe to your views expressed in the essay 'Fix Physics . . '. I agree that A paradigm shift in physics is now overdue and assumptions such as 'photon-as-particle' 'quantum probability' and 'flexible space-time' are required to be understood in a better context. I also agree with the statement 'present day physics appears grossly and unnecessarily complicated'.

                  I agree with statement 'Physics was not invented (or discovered) in one go, but was built, one assumption on top of another.' Now it is time to fix it at foundations itself. The foundations define the dynamics or change that occurs in universe. Force and its reaction are drivers of the change. Behind these drivers is the conservation concept. In PicoPhysics we are improving this concept by making a distinction between Konservation and Conservation. This small distinction re-enforces the contemporary physics by integrating all of it together into a single statement (Postulate) called unary law.

                  You have posed a proper question - If simpler explanations can be found shouldn't they be adopted?

                  The answer to same is very complex. FQXI is giving us a platform, where we can speak our mind and we are all thankful for the same. For new radical thinking - there are multiple barriers to surpass. Language itself is a problem in expressing something fundamentally different. I have always found language to be a challenge to express thought process of PicoPhysics

                  Fix Physics

                  PicoPhysics View: Physics has developed thru generalization of human intuition into concepts and statements valid in different environment. Later the scope of these concepts is made conditional, making room for continuous improvement as human knowledge of nature gathered steam. So the truth and validity of concepts and statements of contemporary Physics can not be denied as at there base is human intuition based on observed facts of nature. It can be qualified and new ground level set for concepts and statements developed. PicoPhysics is an effort in this direction.

                  The reconstruction of first principles is thus a need of the times as contemporary physics gradually failing to keep pace with continuously increasing human knowledge about universe.

                  Mis-match assumptions 'photon-as-particle' 'quantum probability' and 'flexible space-time' are required to be understood in a better context.

                  As a PicoPhysicist, I would like to answer questions raised by you;

                  Q1: ARE MATTER, SPACE & RADIATION MADE OF DIFFERENT STUFF?

                  Yes, while matter and radiation are geo-forms of Knergy, space is independent of Knergy.

                  Q2: DOES TIME REALLY EXIST?

                  Yes, It exist as a dimension of Knergy. This dimension is mapped onto space in the drift direction and provides meaning to word 'Contain' of unary law. However Samay is chronological dimension and defines the gap between instants and simultaneity.

                  Q3: IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT ACTUALLY CONSTANT, SPACETIME FLEXIBLE & THE ETHER NONEXISTENT?

                  Yes, qualified - needs to account for space heterogeneity introduced by presence of matter in the vicinity. Presence of matter increases space density and apparent reduction in speed of light.

                  Q4: DOES GRAVITY REALLY WARP SPACE AND TIME?

                  Question is not relevant to PicoPhysics. Gravitation is due to heterogeneity of space. For gravitation force to exist a space density gradient is a pre-requisite. Greater is the gradient; greater is deviation of light towards higher density (lower radius of curvature).

                  Q5: IS THE PHOTON A PARTICLE & DO PARTICLES GENERATE WAVE FIELDS?

                  Yes, Photon is a particle composed of unit Knergy.

                  Yes, it creates a disturbance in space it traverses due to consumption of space by Knergy. The disturbance propagates with the photon, and appears as a pulse.

                  Q6: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF QUANTUM PROBABILITY,

                  UNCERTAINTY & ENTANGLEMENT ?

                  When in an interaction, a transfer of Knergy is involved, it happens between period identified between two states of the system. Exact instant when it happens is unpredictable. To intuitive visualization of interaction - position of reactants or time of exchange is undefined during the period. Uncertainty principle is an expression of this phenomenon. A rejection of Knergy Quanta by receiver results in Entanglement - an interaction without final change of Knergy of reacting particles.

                  Q7: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL BASIS FOR THE STANDARD MODEL?

                  As of now, PicoPhysics do not understand Standard Model. Its model of particle is based on confinement of Knergy in repetitive circular motion due to unary interaction (Refraction) resulting from self-sustaining Knergy distribution.

                  Q8: Are Dark Energy and Dark Matter the same as a repulsive Universal

                  Dielectric ether?

                  No, Dark Energy or Matter is low density distribution of Knergy, such that consumption of space by Knergy present equals the generation rate of free space. This practically isolates the dark energy from affecting other Knergy identities. (Dark Energy does not interact with others by gravitation).

                  Q9: If the Ether is made of repulsive particles would the Big Bang start not from a point, but a volume cluster of these particles?

                  This question is not relevant. As the universe is in a continuous equilibrium state, where some matter is being formed out of dark energy and other is transformed into dark energy. Knergy follows something like a matter cycle - changing its form from Dark energy, Elementary Particles, Matter, Astronomical objects, Photons, Cosmic Back Ground Radiations, Dark Matter. The matter cycle begins and ends with Dark Matter as most stable form of existence of Knergy.

                  Originally, I thought I would provide a glimpse of my comments on other excellent essays suggested by you. But after reading your essay, I thought otherwise. But my comments are available with discussion on individual essay.

                  Thanks and best Regards,

                  Vijay Gupta

                  Proponent - Unary Law 'Space Contains Knergy'.

                    Excellent Juan

                    I like your "no theories or cats were harmed in my essay" - but if (FTG) and my (BU) are the correct theories then (GR) is not only harmed but mortally challenged! I will have to study your work more in detail.

                    Thanks for the two figures - well done! They perfectly parralel my own views that flexible spacetime (a la GR) can be replaced by the idea of energy density of space. I am sure a classical explanation can show the equivelance of the force and density concepts. Please see the attached two figures from my 1993 paper "United Dipole Field" (its on arXiv) . The colored figure is from my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory which is a generalization of the dipole paper. The question is when will the physics community accept our views?!

                    VladimirAttachment #1: 1_BUFIG27.jpg

                    Dear PicoPhysicist Sri Vijay

                    I appreciate your having closely read my fqxi essay - you are the only one who has answered all nine questions posed therin! Please forgive this hasty reply, but for the moment I will list below just your statements that I unequivecally agree on:

                    Q3 ..."Presence of matter increases space density and apparent reduction in speed of light." Yes.

                    Q4 "For gravitation force to exist a space density gradient is a pre-requisite. Greater is the gradient; greater is deviation of light towards higher density (lower radius of curvature)." Yes.

                    Q5 "Yes, it creates a disturbance in space it traverses ... The disturbance propagates with the photon, and appears as a pulse." Yes (omitting for the moment reference to K energy which I do not yet understand.

                    Q.8 "Dielectric Ether?" Yes.

                    Respectfully

                    Vladimir

                    Dear Pentcho

                    I find it strange that you did not respond to my comments about Einstein's statements concerning the speed of light (1911 etc.) but changed the topic to the 'contradictions' you have pointed out.

                    Actually there is no contradiction. In these fqxi essays and discussions there is no room for a full description of one's ideas. When objecting to the constancy of the speed of light I should always add that I believe there is a *maximum* speed of light c in a vacuum free of gravity and e/m fields, but that light slows down in denser media such as a gravitational field, air, water or glass etc.

                    "Perhaps, if Einstein's speed-of-light postulate is "unphysical and unrealistic", then its consequences - length contraction and time dilation - are just theoretical artifacts that correspond to nothing in the real world?"

                    Not at all: There is actual contraction of the measured length of the object *not of space itself*, and a slowing down of clock time *not a dilation of time itself* in different inertial frames.

                    Cheers

                    Vladimir

                    Dear Vladmir,

                    I belive you will appreciate the answers to your questions are resulting from an integrated thought process based on Unary Law - Space Contains Knergy.

                    I read your paper, as it has much better readability. There are some others who are fit for publication in Physics Review and written for, by and readable to contemporary scientists.

                    I will appreciate if you can evaluate my comments on other papers pointed by you as significant contributions in the competition.

                    Thanks & Best Regards,

                    Vijay Gupta

                    Proponent - Unary Law 'Space Contain Knergy'.

                    After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

                    Cood luck.

                    Sergey Fedosin

                    Hi Vladimir,

                    Thanks for your further explanation. It's good to know that our perspectives are aligned and I'll read more from your website to get a better understanding. Your question is important but I'm afraid it's not so simple to give an answer right away. I'm not aware of any literature treating the issue outside of the GR paradigm. I just checked Penfield and Haus "Electrodynamics of Moving Media" and though there is a very brief discussion of gravity I see no analysis of how electrodynamics is affected.

                    Permittivity and permeability for a medium are derived from the dispersion relations. i.e., the equations for determining them would be derived in a similar manner as the Lorentz-Lorenz formula. To do that, I'd use a similar procedure to what is shown in my essay for the interaction of an electron with incident fields, but would add to the Lorentz force law a force equation for the difference of gravitational force on 2 sides of the electron.

                    Without doing the work, I think you would find that yes, there would be a change in the effective permittivity and permeability values in the vicinity of an object of strong gravitational fields. But that is a very preliminary assessment.

                    Cheers,

                    Steve

                    • [deleted]

                    Vladimir,

                    You wrote: " When objecting to the constancy of the speed of light I should always add that I believe there is a *maximum* speed of light c in a vacuum free of gravity and e/m fields, but that light slows down in denser media such as a gravitational field, air, water or glass etc."

                    The problem is different. See this:

                    Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

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

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

                    Is c'=c+v correct, Vladimir?

                    Pentcho Valev

                    If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

                    Sergey Fedosin

                      Thank you Vladimir,

                      I did mean that only people who still believes that GR is a kind of final theory will be troubled by the new research. However, the theory itself does not care!

                      I have downloaded the Beautiful Universe theory figure to my desktop.

                      Recall that the force is computed from a field potential. Therefore the density of energy varies locally (in the special case when this density is uniform, the force is zero).

                      Regards

                      Pentacho

                      I am sorry but please excuse me from engaging on these SR questions with you here. I have certain ideas and they may be right or wrong, but they need more study.

                      Good luck to you

                      Vladimir

                      Thank you Sergey, I read and rated your essy with a comment on your page. I agree with you, as many have noted, that the current rating system is badly flawed. I am sure the administrators realize it by now after all the complaints.

                      Best wishes,

                      Vladimir

                      Thanks Juan

                      The Beautiful Universe theory needs a lot of work, especially in converting the ideas to quantitative formulations. And there are a lot of particles to be assembled from the dipole nodes, like spherical lego sculptures.

                      Yes the gradient of the potential is what creates force - but in BU the local density is not simply a scalar, but it has vector properties. The angle between adjacent node's magnetic axes defines gravity. I really need to illustrate and analyze this in better ways.

                      Vladimir