Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Dear Peter,

Here is Part II

(I am attaching this same text since there is a diagram which will not show on the blog directly. So it would be better if the readers open the attachment right away. And also on this blog what will appears as sin q, is sin(theta), cos q is cos(theta)

Peter wrote: "I suggest a 'simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea' was yet to be found, and describe one that seems to work very well. It involves kinetics and waves, but as someone used to the dynamics of boats negotiating waves I assume that's not a problem. It's a multi part self build ontological construction with foundations in logic, that seems to me too unify relativity and QM. I'm really interested in your view as to whether you see it as heading 'the right way.'".

Nature's processes are inherently mathematical for the simple reason information is not written in English or French or Chinese. Natures Information is written in short hand in the form of Geometric Algorithms. I hope you remember Galileo's statement: . "Philosophy (i.e. Physics) is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and ITS CHARACTERS ARE TRIANGLES, CIRCLES, AND OTHER GEOMETRIC FIGURES without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth"

So I cannot agree with your proposition to embark on a journey, setting the very first step itself in the wrong direction (simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea). If we take that direction we will go still deeper into the dark labyrinth. That's for sure.

Nature's processes are non-linear. However Physics has started off from the very beginning with linear approximations of what are non-linear relationships and still proceeding on the same trail. This is one of the main reasons why physics today is ad hoc and fragmented as Bohm has pointed out. It cannot give a coherent explanation to a group of interrelated phenomena in their concatenation. For all the talk about holistic physics, if this vulgarization of non-linear relations into linear approximations is not remedied, no unification will be possible. Non-linear mathematical representations must begin from the most basic level of development of physics. And it should not throwing of complex equations into the bargain half-way down the line when things have already got muddled up. In my work non-linearity is established by discerning trigonometric relationships with reference to geometric algorithms at the very basic level.

We need to set aside the dichotomy between particles and waves. Both fermions and photons need to be considered as quanta of energy in general. Photons are quanta of energy behaving in a different mode to that of fermions. Photons have no inertia, therefore they do not need another quantum of energy (pc) to excite them into motion. Yet a photon too has a mass. And a photon consists dynamically of an oscillation piggy-backed on a linear motion. In perspective it looks like a wave. Oscillation is defined by c = fL (L for lamda) and linear velocity c.

You are quite right about: (1) In the variability of the velocity of light in different media and (2) in the recognition that refractive index is determined by the 'Lorentz factor'.

From these we can demonstrate the algorithm of photon motion. (i.e. a "Simplest conceivable mathematical idea").

Energy of the photon E = hf in air represented by AB when moving in air (say).

When moving from this medium to another the energy AB resolves into two components AD and BD. (See the basic principles of Geometrodynamics in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 ). In this process the photon loses energy equal to B'D = hf(1 - cos) to the field.

AD = hf.cos q (the "reduced component") and BD = hf.sin q (the induced component). The induced energy comes from the field and is used to overcome the constraint of the medium.

As an illustration, consider a boat moving (at velocity c) in a flowing river of flow speed v, trying to reach the opposite bank exactly at right angles by pointing the bow at angle q. By this the boat forms a component c.sin q = v, equal and opposite to the drift. (AB = c, BD = v, sin q = v/c).

In the heavier medium photon has a similar behaviour. The component of energy hf.sin q is used up to overcome the constraint of the medium. And consequently the energy available to move relative to the medium is hf.cos q.

In this case when f has changed to f' = f.cos q, the wavelength L (lamda) remains the same. But the internal composition of h changes from h = m.c.L to h = m.sec q.c.cos q .L.

Then we have c' = c.cos q = f.cos q.L

Refractive index = c/c' = c/(c.cos q) = sec q.

When sin q = v/c, sec q = 1/(1 -v2/c2)1/2.

So your notion that the refractive index is given by the "Lorentz factor" has some truth, if we assign the value mvc to the component of energy BD induced from the field to overcome the constraint of the medium. (It must not be mistaken that v is the velocity of the medium as in Fizeau's experiment).

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: Refractive_Index.doc

Peter,

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.

Jim

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your impartial observations.

I would like to clarify one point. You seem to think that the essays with the highest aggregates of scores are automatically at the top of the list. Not necessarily.

How the ratings work is, if you get even one very good score, at this stage you are high on the list. It is the average that works. So at this stage even if a few have read and rated your essay, your position on the list depends on the average and not the aggregate.

But come the end of the rating process, your average needs to be in the highest 35 with at least ten ratings to enter the finals. That's all you need,

If one has a lot of good scores aggregated early enough by canvassing, then it is difficult to bring the average down by the other authors ganging up against you and giving you low scores.

I think the contest is not properly organized. The authors should not have been given the option to do the ratings. It should have been left for an independent panel.

Who in the Community will have the time to read all 270 odd essays and do a systematic rating? In such a situation, FQXi should not put ( as they are doing now) a few "Top Essays" only in their main site highlighting them in the Community Forum, while leaving no opportunity for other essayists lower down to get the attention to their essays, of the Community who are the real voters. By this highlighting of "Top Essays", by FQXi, it is those essays that will tend to get rated by the Community and not others. (Others only randomly if at all).

Instead of the funds being used for Prizes, these funds should have been given to independent reviewers to select the best 35 essays for the Judges to decide. (No Prizes means only those who are serious would have entered).

Best regards,

Viraj

Peter,

I wrote: "At least for waves other than light waves, when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the wave source, the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, the speed of the waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v and the wavelength remains unchanged: L'=L. This is trivial, Peter."

You replied: "Wavelength (lambda) and frequency change inversely to conserve c. Wheeler was correct. It was TOO simple to see! Your ingrained assumptions are blinding you. You claimed the change to lambda was not true "other than light waves". Well firstly; when sound waves actually ENTER and propagate through a co-moving medium of COURSE the wavelength changes! You are not thinking about the important mechanisms between the detector interaction and the brain. This is indeed new, so will be unfamiliar."

Peter, I was referring to what the whole world - both relativists and antirelativists - teach. I did not give quotations but now I am forced to do so:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

"If an observer moves towards a stationary source with speed Vr, the observer sees the wave crests with a speed: V'=V+Vr. Wavelength remains the same, so the modified frequency is: f'=V'/(lambda)=(V+Vr)/(lambda)=fo(1+Vr/V)"

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

You also wrote: "You are not thinking about the important mechanisms between the detector interaction and the brain. This is indeed new, so will be unfamiliar."

I find this more than irrelevant. However the FQXi community find it extremely valuable, hence your top rating.

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

As far as the Doppler effect is concerned, the "observer" or "receiver" or "detector" is just a line the wavecrests reach:

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."

So your "important mechanisms between the detector interaction and the brain" are completely irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

You asked: "Can you calculate frequencies of arriving signals without using your brain?"

Certainly not. Using one's brain is indispensable. For instance, Tony Harker uses his brain and calculates both the frequency and the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer:

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is c'=c-Vo, in violation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

1. I will accept your comments about my essay are sincere.

(Funnily, it appears some readers did not like my attitude in my posts to you about this matter. My essay plummeted yesterday by about 30 places!!! Who cares!!).

2. You wrote: "One thing to improve may be publicity, getting more physicists and 'public' to read and comment. A lot of effort by authors seems to go to waste".

Whatever publicity there is, it is skewed.

Firstly against the essays it shows the"Public Rating". If a non-participating physicist were to use this rating as a tool to pick 'worthwhile essays' he gets completely misguided. There are essays at the top, with over 300 ratings!!

Here's an interesting comment made about one on Sep 08:

"WoW! Submitted on Aug 29 and already (80 ratings)!!! I wish I had so many friends and relatives interested in 3D strings. Way to go .......!".

Secondly, if an independent reader looks at the main FQXi site, he sees the"Top Essays". Essays other than these few "Top Essays" do not get this exposure. I tried to put an introduction to my essay in the forum of this site, but it was soon removed.

So you are right: "A lot of effort by authors seems to go to waste".

In this regard for me this "Competition" is not about winning or even getting a higher rating. But I consider it to be an opportunity to get attention to the ideas I have put forward and getting them CRITICALLY reviewed so that I may reformulate the ideas in a more understandable way in the future. But the possible unfettered exposure and publicity are getting blocked by what I have mentioned above.

So far it was only Dr. Sergey Fedosin who made an effort in this direction in regard to my essay. And he concluded: "About your geometrical approach. I think it is possible to use geometry for deducing of SRT results. But you must give good explanation at every step". Although there was no long discussion with LB Crowell after a quick review he commented: "The calculations I just looked at and they seem alright. ...... Your procedure appears to be some euclideanization of relativity. At the end you arrive at equations which are the same as special relativity".

Best regards,

Viraj

Peter,

First of all I would like to correct something you have mentioned about someone else. What I meant about Lawrence Crowell is the exact opposite. In my opinion he seems to have the exceptional ability to get the essence of another's view point even with a quick browse. And I quoted his comment to confirm, that he too had come to the same conclusion as Sergey Fedosin, that all RELATED phenomena can be depicted in their concatenation by simple Euclidean algorithms, which (phenomena) SRT purports to explain (in an ad hoc and a fragmented manner) by complex mathematical formalisms and far-fetch propositions.

It is true that I did not cover the whole of your essay in my critique. In fact it is impossible for one to do this in a single post. It has to be done through a series, even to have a partial effect. I started off with your Act 1. Your position there about the frequency indicates where you were heading. Given the fact that E = hf, for you to state that frequency is a derivative appears a misconception. Am I then just to state it and leave it at that? Or am I to demonstrate that frequency is primary, by discussing it in reference to CSL and refractive index etc.? The latter is what I have done, to go step by step into other areas. So what I have done is an in-depth critique of your position than making mere statements.

My point is that physics from the very beginning has started off on a wrong footing, leading to wrong kind of mathematization, viz., linear approximation of non-linear processes. It has started off with Newton's corollary to the second law. "If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion ......".

There is nothing special or magical about relativistic phenomena. It is only that at classical velocities, the EFFECTS OF NON-LINEARITY REMAIN IMPERCEPTIBLE. At very high velocities, the effects of non-linearity develop exponentially, and what were imperceptible before (at lower velocities) MANIFEST THEMSELVES PROMINENTLY. And it is these effects that (appeared as if sprung up from nowhere and unaccountable by classical mecahnics) have been given the term "relativistic phenomena". This simple point has not been grasped. Once this point is grasped, then the task is to DISCERN how the non-linearity works in all conditions.

Relativity theory asserts that laws of physics are the same in all IFR, but at the same time it is based on the idea that physics is different in one and the same frame for particles depending whether they move at classical velocities or near light velocities.

By "simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea" if you meant that we should first think in terms of physics and then DISCERN the mathematics behind it, then I agree fully with you. Well then, we must start off by correcting Newton's above proposition to "If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate LESS THAN double motion".

In trying to discern the geometry of this relationship, since the linear addition of Mc2 and pc (represented as line segments) does not get you there, then we must go for the non-linear addition. This is exactly what the energy-momentum equation confirms. But nobody has thought of considering the Pythagorean implication behind this equation and to extrapolate it downwards for motions of particles under all velocities.

Having taken the first step in discerning the geometry (of the energy-momentum equation), we then have to go back to physics. How do Mc2 and pc combine and form a system. You then look around and see such things as that when an electron and a position are created they have more energy than the photon that generated them, and when they re-combine the whole is less than the sum of the parts that combined. This gives a clue that it is by LOSING a fraction each of Mc2 and pc that they create the NECESSITY to combine. It is their mutual depravity of energy that make them share their energy to overcome their mutual deficiency. It is found the fractions lost have to be Mc2(1 -1/gamma) and pc(1 -1/gamma). Now you feed these back into your geometry and find the nexus between all the phenomena in their concatenation. And this is how the process has to go on.

You have commented: "I also agree "We need to set aside the dichotomy between particles and waves. But your explanations do look apparently rather fixed on photons". I disagree. In my essay, I have dealt with fermions (particles), and in my posts to you since they referred to whether of not frequency is a derivative and to CSL, I obviously had to refer to photons.

Best regards,

Viraj

Peter,

As said in my forum, I think that your essay deserves to be evaluated by the judges. I will comment now in the specific question that you asked me about the Yukawa or 'screened Coulomb' potential.

The Yukawa potential is a modification of the Newtonian potential based in some distance scale r0. For distances r0 >> r, we obtain the Newtonian potential. For larger distances, we obtain deviations from the Newtonian potential. There are at least two difficulties with this approach. First, we obtain a series of 1/r, r0, r1, r2... corrections to the Newtonian 1/r2 force. You need fine-tuning of r0 for minimising all except the 1/r term. Second, we observe both Newtonian and non-Newtonian behaviour for a given distance, whereas a Yukawa potential provides different behaviour only for different distances.

Milgrom proposed an acceleration-scale modification of Newtonian gravity for solving such issues. This scale is a0. For small accelerations a0 >> a we obtain the non-Newtonian 1/r force. For larger accelerations a >> a0, we obtain the ordinary Newtonian force 1/r2. Milgrom law explains why there exists both Newtonian and non-Newtonian behaviour at the same distance. Concretely, Milgrom law explains why some galaxies show non-Newtonian behaviour, whereas others do not.

Further research explained in my essay allows us to go beyond Milgrom well-tested law, explaining phenomena that his law cannot explain, including the physical meaning and value of a0 (Milgrom obtained the value from observations).

Regards.