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
Viraj
Reply to Pt.1. You introduce the term "when the photon confronts a constraint" and say; "In this case mass m and lambda L vary conjugately to m' and L' while the linear velocity c remains constant."
My thesis starts by stating that I am considering only the condition where the 'photon' confronts and interacts with a medium particle or 'constraint'. I am thereby proposing that the standard assumption (which you outline well) is not the prime case in reality (except where birefringence occurs during progressive interaction in diffuse media). In fact I have identified that the 'constraint' you refer largely occurs at the surface (fine structure electrons) of a dense medium, including a lens. This means that in ALL cases involving lenses made of matter (i.e. all cases period!) your derived f x L = f' x L' = c is the case.
I thought that was entirely clear in my essay, but it seems not as I go on to the consequences, which is why I complimented you on your clarity. If you look at my last years essay that may emerge more clearly; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803
So, as I suggested, CSL is derived from photon interaction (and detection) and re-scattering at c locally, precisely as the upper case lines you write above.
I did not take offence at your accusation that my Act 1 is based on a "whimsical fiction" because I now that only meant you hadn't yet grasped the above, or realised that I do indeed know what 'current physics' suggests, and that, and why I am proposing differently. You can see a detailed explanation of the primary effect on lambda on entering a new medium in my reply to Pentcho above. (14.09 Analogy;...). This is a completely new fundamental understanding of the mechanism of 'detection'. But as Steve agrees below, we need to dig far deeper to extract the hidden assumptions preventing us seeing it in a different way.
We have come to the same basic conclusion from very different directions, and I've carried on and explored the beautiful new simple world of intuitive physics that it exposes. I also uncover the actual quantum mechanism that produces CSL. You must consider that perhaps these extra dimensions you are not familiar with yet may be a reason why my essay is scored highly and yours is still underrated. But I must say there are still many who cannot see even the obvious bits of mine which we have in common!.
As say to you and Fred below, I am completely honest about my thoughts and intentions, but normally don't rush into scoring until I've had a response, to see how much comprehension it shows, and in case it's insulting. I have to say your initial response is testing! But I also well understand your frustrations.
I haven't looked at part 2 yet, and will respond below.
Best wishes.
Peter
Pentcho
Can you calculate frequencies of arriving signals without using your brain?
The process between the lens and brain is therefore essential, and the bit we've been missing all along.
We are trying to CHANGE the poor understanding of the past, not extend it further!
Peter
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
Pentcho
So as your brain measures the frequency, the impulse spacing that REACHES your brain is the only spacing that matters. Yes?
Ergo any change between the surface of the lens and the brain is of the utmost importance! Ignoring this is why physics has remained in the dark.
Assuming that mechanism is "completely irrelevant" as you suggest is the big mistake science has been making, and quite falsifiably. The frequency the brain measures is a direct result of the wave peaks CLOSING UP on detection (interaction) at the lens as it moves towards the source; so f and L BOTH change! That then must always conserve local c.
Surely even the most deep rooted of old assumptions are exposed as lacking when you apply your brain to this.
Peter
Viraj
I agree, engagement and critical review are most valuable. Just dismissing new ideas without effort to understand the viewpoint they arise from, as you felt Lawrence Crowell did (he seems experienced at it) is of little value to anyone. But let's be honest with ourselves, this is precisely what you've done with mine. Most of your comments on my string are about your own ideas and essay, not mine!. It's human nature.
But let's discuss those criticisms. I don't accept nature is just mathematical. As Wheeler said "we should not do calculations until we already know the answer" (I'd just say an approximation is needed.) This is as the important sequence of; Correct conception first, THEN apply the maths. That is all I am suggesting. I would think you must surely have done that as a naval architect? There are a swatch of brilliant essays explaining the real place and limitation of maths; Wharton, Schafly, Mc Eachern, Sycamore etc. Maths is an 'abstraction' which information theory shows is capable of far less complex evolution than nature, so our algorithms can only ever be simplistic abstracted models of the real thing, and wgen we try to 'renormalise' or map them back against evolved nature they wont do it accurately. Some mathematicians even think that means 'nature' is 'wrong' and the maths is correct! I think we need better maths, not more reliance on it. One tiniest wrong concept to start with and a thousand pages of maths can be rendered nonsense, so let's explore possible better fundamental understandings first. I cite the results as proof of the success of this, but you have not yet studied and assimilated them.
I also agree "We need to set aside the dichotomy between particles and waves." But your explanations do look apparently rather fixed on photons. My own findings are consistent with the Plank ('loading theory'), Reiter, Regazzas, etc, concept of quantized emissions, blending out until next interaction so non zero 'time of charge'. Now think conceptually and very carefully; In fact the 'ban' on a background medium is lifted by OUR ontology, which always gives a LOCAL 'background frame' because all scattering is at c LOCALLY. Therefore we need no 'absolute ether' frame, which is the only thing logically falsified.
And have you analysed my responses to Pentcho yet as suggested? Or my previous essays? You don't mention them. I'm happy to go into yours in more depth on your string, but please do re-read mine without using prior assumptions so jumping to conclusions, and I think you'll find the clearer commonality, and perhaps valuable hints to better present yours. I think the fact we arrived at stage 1 CSL via different routes makes the thesis far stronger.
I hope that's helpful. Best wishes.
Peter
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
Viraj
I absolutely agree about non-liner affects. As an astronomer these can however become significant due to scale, such as in lensing. Another is the kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovich (kSZ) effect I discuss, still not yes assimilated into mainstream theory. At smaller scales is 'kinetic reverse refraction' (KRR), well proven but still totally ignored by present theory as it simply won't fit!
All does fit once you stop stumbling over axioms like f and lambda and fit the parts together. An axiomatic theory can only be tested with the specified axioms! I well know that frequency has always been considered the fundamental property, and why. It seems here that I am up against one of the deepest rooted assumptions we have. However clearly I show that wavelength lambda (unobservable) DOES change with f on actual detection ('sampling' by the matter based medium of a lens) still few can accept testing, in an unbiased way, dropping the priority given to the only 'observable'; frequency. It also means grasping the differences observed from different observer frame cases, which Pentcho for one has studiously ignored to the point of dipping his head in tar! You didn't say if you'd read our conversation, do comment on the analogy I identified.
In fact the algorithms I provide show simply how c' is derived from c by not trying to conserve lambda but conserving the wave function itself, i.e the laws of physics! KRR also violates Snell's Law, but this can again be recovered once we apply the known fact that lambda DOES change between media and treat c as conserved between frames, again as actually found!! Only 'beliefs' stop us recognising this underlying physical truth. Yes there are other aspects to explain, all explained elsewhere, but the 9 pages was crammed too densely as it was!! (did you also look over the formulae in the end notes).
Thanks for the other agreements, and I'm clearer on photons. I agree we must focus on commonalities not semantics, but the strict dynamic logic followed needs dynamic visualisation of evolution of interaction to follow it as 'vector space' maths is yet not able (it needs 'time stepping' quantum maths). If you can take each stage on board as axioms then the complex kit of unfamiliar parts turns into a thing of simple beauty at the end, just like a yacht perhaps?.
Best wishes.
Peter
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.
Juan
Thanks. That gave me a little more insight. I do also see Yukawa with a little more flexibility, mapping the sharper cut off to virial radii, and a physical analogue from the high particle shock densities we're now finding in space exploration (10
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.
Dear Peter,
That's a very interesting essay and creative writing style. Your ideas and though experiments conduct us to an entirely new view on relativity and light. But I'm afraid I couldn't understand your ideas more in depth since I couldn't follow all you math. It will take more time. I'm not very good on relativity so I need a step by step reading and checking the equations for understanding it in depth. I was also interested in your use of propositional and dynamic logic. I believe these other logics (temporal or dynamic) will be very important for understanding not only relativity but all physics. You do not apply these logics more carefully in this essay, have you already done or you are currently working on it? Anyway, we have similar interests, and I would like to keep our discussions beyond the scope of this essay...
Wish you all the best!
Frederico
Peter,
Your statement (and respective "theory") that the Doppler shift depends on "the process between the lens and brain" is just as reasonable as the statement "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length". The fact that your community rating is so high speaks very badly of the community.
Pentcho Valev
Hello Peter,
You have a well constructed essay which should gain you high marks.
Since I endorse an Emission-theory model of light, there are very few contentions in your paper to which I can relate. An issue I would like to discuss relates to three of your comments in Act 1:
"Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."
"Extinction distances ('Ewald-Oseen' etc.) for the 'old' signal are commonly ~1 to 200nm< (also lambda dependant) but may be on < parsec scale in space."
"It may be hard to envisage light speed changing at all on entering a medium from a 'vacuum' yet it does so by Fresnel's Refractive Index n to c/n. Glass n = ~1.55 so light slows from ~300,000 to ~193,500k/sec. then accelerates by the same amount on leaving."
I like the Ewald-Oseen extinction modification to Emission theory which was added by J. G. Fox in [Fox_AmJPhys_v33n1(1965)1-17.pdf]. It explains how and why light always appears to travel at speed c, even from the proceeding and receding stars of a binary system. Based on your inclusion of the extinction concept, you apparently embrace it as well.
In the Emission theory, light is always emitted at c with respect to the emitter. It can be captured at c+v or c-v, but the v is extinguished upon re-emission.
I believe that refractive index as commonly described is an illusion; rather than a predictor of speed it is a predictor of how many extinction events will occur per unit thickness. When light enters glass from air, for example, it undergoes a huge number of extinction events, while maintaining speed c together with the entering wavelength and frequency as it travels from emitter to re-emitter.
Using Fox's formula for extinction distance, one can calculate that blue light undergoes approximately 13,000 extinction events while traveling through 1 cm of glass. If each event occurs in 1.4 femtoseconds then the cumulative time delay would be equivalent to light traveling at 193,500 km/sec without undergoing any extinction events. It is interesting to note that the oscillation period for blue light is approximately 1.4 femtoseconds (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtosecond).
It should be evident to anyone who has looked at the color of the sky while submerged under water and then again upon emerging: the sky is the same color blue in both cases. This indicates to me that wavelength and frequency do not change while passing through a dispersive medium. Frankly, I believe the model I have just described fits your DFM model better than the one you are using because I have light traveling at local c (in water or glass).
Additionally, there is no acceleration when light exits the glass. There is no alteration in the momentum or energy of the photon as it passes through the glass. The only time there is a change in frequency and/or wavelength is when there is relative motion between the emitter and re-emitter.
I was pleased to see that you left the door open in modeling light with the inclusion of the word 'photon'.
Good luck in the contest.
Tom Miles
Peter
i gave 10 to you
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.
Please don't forget impartially evaluate my essay
I gave you maximum today
Please don't forget impartially evaluate my essay
Hi Peter,
your essay presents ideas in a very original and creative way. However, I hope you won't mind if I say that the 3 act play format hindered rather than helped my reading!
Best wishes,
Lorraine
