Peter,
Excellent essay. We are both trying to prove the same point. My essay is very basic but I am attempting to point out something about the Einstein field equation. I have recently added a sketch to help explain it (you can find the essay here. ) and would appreciate any comments you have to make on how to more clearly bring my point across.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff
Thanks. We give very different proofs of very similar things. I'll comment on your blog, but I turned from maths to ontological construction testing for the reason you give. Ken Wharton also exposes our foolhardy reliance on maths.
You might test this model; The axial anisotropic CMB flow is a scaled up version of a quasar jet. The CMB anisotropy itself has been resolved by computer into a helix, which precisely matches the quasar model, as the outflow jets from AGN's.
I have shown that AGN's are part of a galactic recycling process, re-ionizing all the dead stars and planetary matter to re-start the process with an open spiral on a perpendicuar axis. The common 'Kinetic decoupling' (perpedicular halo rotation) is thereby also finally explained along with other effects. Take a look at Centurus A (NASA HST) for a scale model of the universe.
Expansion is thus not accelerating but mainly reducing, except from the other end of the axis to the 'great attractor' (nonsense of course) in the direction of Leo. I've determined galaxies recycle every ~10-12Gyrs (a massive quasar peak is at z=1.7) so our 2nd iteration of the Milky Way is in middle age. A better analysis of the CMB anisotropy might constrain the same factor for our universe. (There may then be infinitely many numerically as well as temporally). If you're interested I'll link you to a past paper (new one in review).
Last technical point; I've found algerbaic vector apace cannot model motion as it's based on geometry where motion is an invalid concept, but I do know that to get a 'plus' sign hit; ampersand hash 43 semicolon. Like this; +
Peter
Peter,
I would be very much interested (and perhaps others) on the papers you referenced.
Thanks (and for the advice on the +, drove me crazy!)
Jeff
Jeff
Good, links below. Rob McEachern's brilliant analysis is also consistent with the basis of my analysis method, but I think you've read it.
You'll have to allow for the fact that the ontological construction termed the 'Discrete Field' model has continued to come on by leaps and bounds over the last year. The resolutions of anomalies are like a flood from a breached dyke. This means the papers are far from up to date. (The latest ones are currently either in review or accepted but not yet published).
The first short read may be last years essay. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803
Then the helical CMBR asymmetry one posted on vixra. http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016
A 2010 one on aberration was http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022
There are more but all older still.
Do point out any obvious updates needed!
Thanks
Peter
Peter,
So far, I have only skimmed over your paper, but I would like to make a few initial comments.
In your essay, you ask: "How is the constant speed of light (CSL) logically explained?" You also stated "Assumption 2. Frequency is real..."
For Einstein these two points were closely linked, and represented a rather intractable problem. His solution to the problem was, in effect, to DEFINE the speed of light to be constant. Why?
Consider the idealized case of a single frequency light wave. The light waves coming from most objects of astrophysical interest, first arrived at earth long before any observer existed to measure the characteristics of the wave's leading edge, such as how many meters it traveled in a measured number of seconds. And the trailing edge has still not arrived, so it cannot be measured either. In other words, the wave is always there. In other words, it never "moves" at all. Furthermore, most such objects produce waves that have a constant amplitude. In other words, the only actual observable, that ever changes, is the wave's phase. By computing the derivative of the phase, one obtains an inferred frequency.
There are three possible reasons for the phase to change as a function of time. First, the source of the wave may be doing something that creates a wave with those phase characteristics. Second, relative motion between the source and the observer may create those phase characteristics. Third, the wave travels through a medium, that induces a phase change. Einstein's problem, was that there is no way to decide between the first two phenomenon, or any combination of the two, for the case noted above. Furthermore, he believed the third to be of no importance, in a "vacuum".
From an intuitive, causal point-of-view, one "should" define the frequency to be a constant, and equal to the frequency created by the source, and then "blame" any resulting observable phase changes as due to the relative motion. But Einstein had no way of determining what the created frequency was. So instead, he defined the relative speed of the wave to be the constant, and "blamed" any resulting peculiar, observable phase changes on a peculiar "Addition of Velocities" law. This choice was also a logical choice, given Maxwell's computation of a constant speed of light. But, of course, that computation is tied to the fact that the source is at rest with respect to itself, so no motion induced phase changes need to be considered.
As you have suggested, since frequency, wavelength and propagation speed are all coupled, once you fix one, as a constant, the others have to bend accordingly.
Robert.
Binary star evidence confirmed flight time irrespective of emitter vector, (etc.) so there was also empirical logic to fixing c, even if he couldn't build it into a consistent ontology. Yes I agree with your analysis, but a deeper read should hopefully expose natures underlying ontological construction.
A good new viewpoint may be this one; Consider Earth and our iono/atmosphere as a (non rotating for now) glass sphere. It has a refractive index say n=1.5, so light passes through at say 200,000kps. This is approximately equivalent to ALL lenses, and we can NOT detect (see) light except via such a lens.
Of course n is a constant, so n=1.5 in all frames, as found, and as the SR postulates. So light changes speed by relative 'n' entering the frame F', and also, if the lens is in motion, (wrt the propagation medium and another nearby lens F) by relative v of the lens. It must of course do so if interacting particles scatter at c. So, as we find, light within all media of n=1.5 does ~200,000kps in the medium frame.
The observer in the medium frame (ALL direct observers!) finds c/n, plus a reduced wavelength lambda (you term 'phase'). So what of frequency? f is only a derivative, and c=f.lambda is a constant. But only considered LOCALLY
An observer would have to change frame to observe (directly detect) a 'change' in f. An observer in approach frame F may, via scattered signals, see 'apparent frequency' with respect Frame F, which would be DIFFERENT to f with respect to frame F', which is REAL.
The implications of this are quite massive. The SR postulates direct from a Quantum Mechanism, which also produces space-time and removes all the paradoxes. It IS the Local Reality AE sought. You may need to sit and think over this for some time.
The big problems with it are; that it is entirely unfamiliar, seems too obvious and self apparent, does not emerge from mathematical abstraction, and conflicts with all our beliefs and many assumptions. In which case it would seem to stand zero chance of being comprehended and assimilated. There is little extant in our minds to 'hook' it on. It is however, literally, hiding right before our eyes, spread over the surface of the lenses ever ready to change light speed to local c.
The main assumptions challenged are those I've identified in the essay. But it does need a slow read and much thought, so unfortunately again, as last year, only a handful seem to see the implications.
I believe and hope you can extract them as you've already found and falsified the biggest barrier to open the way ahead.
Peter
Peter,
I am aware of the binary star evidence and the much older moons of Jupiter evidence. But there remains the problem of the difference between phase velocity and group velocity.
Peter
I remembered your post
" My last years essay was a top 10 finalist but not a winner (a crime perhaps?). Fair? and expert? I don't now, but the Solution, of course."
I often watching community rating and wondering when i see lady among leaders
Her submission was Sep. 6, 2012
Robert
I agree waves are still poorly understood. I've written the odd paper from optics and more original viewpoints. I eventually resolved to the term 'signal velocity' for the purposes of c, more equivalent to group velocity. I have no clue how this may relate to information theory. Does it?
An aspect poorly considered in representations is that, considering a soliton as a 'wave bundle' moving at c, the phase of the waves moving within the bundle only has a relevant speed wrt the rest frame of the bundle. Indeed they 'die out', as they are only 'fluctuations', or in a 3D particle model represent 'spin' so may 'return symmetrically' anyway. This puts to bed the issue of electron spin being superluminal. It's also consistent with light waves being re-emitted on an 'optical axis' NOT normal to the causal wavefront plane (as proved in Calcite crystals etc.) rather than; "'rays' made up of photons on 'vectors'!"
So the 'flight time' across space of the 'entity' or wavefront containing the information would remain the tool we have to work with wrt c.
But now my point. We have to consider the propagation 'medium', which we can consider as Boscovich's 'particles with sphere of influence' or Einstein's 'mass spatially extended' without invoking 'ether'.
My proposition is that massive bodies, from particles upwards, can move, WITH their local 'spaces' (i.e. Earth atmosphere & ionosphere, and the Sun's Heliosphere), which is why we find the dense astrophysical shocks at the boundaries (See Kingsley Essay Fig 2.)
Now everything else falls into place. And I do mean everything. CSL, CMB anisotropy and frames last scattered, the BCI/ECI frame issue, the aberration problem, Pioneer/Voyager/Flyby anomalies, Local Reality, Twins Paradox, etc.
But as those are all swept under the carpet what value has a model that explains them?
Does that make any sense to you?
Peter
Yuri
Decrypting natures fundamental secrets was tricky, but somehow seems a little easier than decrypting you messages!
I've seen a few good ladies essays doing well. Has this one admitted her sex?
I'd hoped you may have read and gleaned some of the findings worth discussing from my essay. (This is after all the intent of the blogs here, yes?)
But I know there is much to read and digest.
Peter
Peter
Accepting the reality of space as a medium not big discovery
Major question to guess all picture one cycle
I see the Universe only this way
Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch
c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10
G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28
h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28
alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1
e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12
Yuri
Agreed. What IS big and missed is the implications. If something IS there, like all the pair production ('fluctuations') then it modulates light speed by re-emitting absorbed light at c.
If is simple kinetic logic that then UNIFIES PHYSICS because all such matter can only re-emit at c, so we, a 'detector' can only ever FIND c!!!!!
When applied, this mechanism not only gives 'Local Reality' but also resolves about every one of the many scores of anomalies in physics. Unfortunately is doesn't 'LOOK' the same as the old familiar assumptions, so isn't recognised. It's simply dismissed however successful it is.
'Seemple' as the Meercat said to his human audience. Was he correct?
Peter
Who is Meercat ?
Yuri
A meercat is an animal. They appear to have learnt the English language very precisely and rapidly (I'll try to find their teachers if you wish). They now look out at human beings and say; 'Seemple' (Which is 'simple' with a meercat accent.
I'm not sure if humankind is bright enough to yet understand to irony and veracity of the meercats opinion.
Peter
Now i understand your sarcasm...
Hi Peter,
I'm looking now at the Doppler equations in your essay near the end. First of all, I should point out that a couple of posters have asserted that the Lorentz [math]\gamma[/math] factor is due to refraction. That's close but not quite true. Refraction requires there to be a differential in the speed of energy propagation between different points, or some type of boundary interface so that different parts of the wave progress at different speeds. The proper description of the origin of the Lorentz [math]\gamma[/math] factor is dispersion.
I've not yet seen what I consider a rigorous derivation of the relativistic Doppler effect and haven't had the time to develop one myself yet. So what will follow is only a preliminary analysis. I'll post again shortly as I need to hop off a train on my way to work now.
Cheers,
Steve
Stephen,
What dispersion at c locally achieves in my model is a differential in the speed of energy propagation within different spaces (frames), by implementing a boundary interface mechanism so that different parts of waves progress at different speeds.
The key here is that relative closing, or APPROACH velocity, is v + v, so therefore also c + v, but that at the moment of interaction (detection, or 'absorption'), because the absorbing boundary particles can only emit at c, then the speed is changed to the NEW, particles own, c. This then fully meets your (agreed) requirement"
"Refraction requires there to be a differential in the speed of energy propagation between different points, or some type of boundary interface so that different parts of the wave progress at different speeds."
It is so simple and self apparent that it seems it does take a massive intellect and visualization skills to assimilate and rationalise, though I was pretty sure you were already most of the way there.
But the Lorentz transformation does 'fall by the wayside' except as a close replica of, for instance, the synchrotron frequency curve of a bunch of protons being accelerated towards c in the LHC. This curve closely matches the increasing electricity bill they face during the acceleration process. At almost c almost infinite energy is needed.
If we study the increasing 'virtual electron' (pE) density around the bunch, and look at the oscilloscope reading, it is quite intuitive that we CAN discern a 'speed' in the vacuum, and that the LT curve is a resistance 'power' curve.
The LT itself is then simply the acceleration between media in different states of motion (frames), or rather it's effects.
All this is embedded quite deeply in my essay, and each part of the essay evidences a crucial component of the ontological construction. It seems that just a cursory read, or using old assumptions, will mean it's missed.
The essay shows just the tip of the iceberg, which seems to me to be about the biggest advance ever in physics, so I suppose if it was that easy to initially comprehend it would have been done in the 1800's. Or am I missing something.
I hope you didn't hop off the moving train just behind someone else, the Doppler effect of the LT would have compressed the pair of you, leaving you a bit bluer!
Peter
Very good Essay, Peter. I am going to give you an high score.
Cheers,
Ch.
Peter,
The following "simple answer" of yours is absurd (and accordingly catapulted your essay to the top of the community rating list):
"If light travels at a speed of distance d divided by time t (d/t = km/sec) then how can it be found always at c (~300,000km/sec) by all moving observers? A simple answer would be that light changed speed on arrival. Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."
Pentcho Valev
Dear Peter,
You have written yet another essay in defence of SR and I appreciate your saga regarding that.BTW,please go through the essay of Benjamin F. Dribus who, like your DFM, wants to use 'quantized reference frames' inorder to describe reality.
Please,go through my essay too and send in your comments to my forum.
(http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.)
Warm regards and good luck in the essay contest.
Sreenath.
