Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

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.

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

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

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.

Sergey Fedosin

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

Dear Peter

The points you cover in your essay are fundamental. I totally agree with you that, as you said in my entry, ''motion seems at the heart of misunderstanding in physics''. Physics actually is the science of motion, and any new thoughts or conceptions of motion can lead to major breakthroughs. And I think your essay could provide a new such conception. Besides that, I feel your writing style mixing poetry and science makes your essay very beautiful. I will now adress a few of your points:

''As seeing is believing we set our stage for those who have not yet

seen the content of 'space' (Fig. 1) It's now well evidenced that only

~ 4% of the total mass-energy of the universe is 'matter'. The intergalactic 'medium' (IGM) quantum vacuum is real.''

This is a significant topic. What would happen if Einstein had access to the quantum vacuum by the time he proposed SR? What would happen to the ether hypothesis? I´ve discussed this with Israel Omar Perez in his entry. Actually the quantum vacuum is explained (and predicted) by QFT which in turn relies on both special relativity and quantum mechanics. And special relativity does not support an ether. So we can choose to leave things as they are, but also propose a new conception of motion based on the ''quantum vacuum frame''; that would certainly happen if people back in 1905 had access to the quantum vacuum. If this conception of motion is fruitful or not would require more thought.

''Accepting the IGM as a real diffuse particle 'medium' has implications fundamentally different to empty space wherever the particles 'came from'. The Relativity of Simultaneity within the Special Theory of Relativity (SR) allows no absolute 'preferred background frame' in space. Speed can only be relative

between bodies. This seemed to limit SR's domain to true vacua with no propagating 'ether' medium. Assumption 1, that 'Space is nothing' was implicit, but this has now been disproved, both by exploration and at CERN. So confusion and dissent remain.''

Indeed, confusion remains. My view on that is the following. I don´t believe the presence of a quantum vacuum entails the existence of a prefered background frame upon which we could define preferred positions. That is because of the snapshot argument: Suppose you have a snapshot showing physical objects in euclidean space. Now suppose after some time has elapsed, you take another snapshot. How can we know if any change has happened? It is necessary to have an equilocality relation: a relation that tell which point in one snapshot is the same in the other snapshot. The equilocality relation is necessary to make motion of objects in time a meaningful concept, and Newton´s absolute space does exactly that, and that was the reason why it was introduced (see Barbour´s book The discovery of dynamics). The presence of a quantum vacuum field does not entail that there is a preferred system of reference. The reason follows from the same argument above: suppose you have two snapshots of field configurations defined on a 3D euclidean space taken at different times. How can we tell what´s the difference between them without a way of identifying a point in one snapshot with a point in another? The quantum vacuum would have to somehow provide preferred positions, that could be used as equilocality relations.

But saying the quantum vacuum does not entail the existence of a prefered background frame does not mean that there can´t be a preferred frame. This is a conception of motion which, in my opinion, should be evaluated only by how fruitful it is. I must admit that I have to think more about this. Some relevant essay on this matters are Israel´s and ''Hawking versus Unruh temperature as a measure of the health of the equivalence principle''. I see you also thought a lot about light speed. Special relativity can be summarized in one postulate: the interval is invariant. This is something empirically verified, and the constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of it. SR does not have so much to do with light speed per se, but the covariance of Maxwell´s equation assure that electromagnetic waves travel on null paths. However, the idea of searching for new conceptions of motion based on thinking about light is interesting in view of its possible results.

I was very pleased to read you questioning your assumption 4:

''Assumption 4. Cartesian co-ordinate systems adequately model motion.''

This is very deep. Coordinates are the basic conceptual and mathematical basis of our understanding of the universe. It is very difficult to replace them however, since so much was produced and predicted upon the notion of (x,y,z,t). In my opinion, this is where conceptual modifications to our understanding of motion could arise: by thinking about ''coordinates''. I agree ''points and lines are not 'real'. All particles and systems have non-zero dimensions and can move, so may be assigned a state of motion''. I´m also intrigued by your mentioning of dynamic logic. I don´t what it is, but it seems very interesting, specially if it can be used to think about motion.

''Relativity Safe and Well. We violate no key assumptions of SR by invoking preferred background frames because our frames are not the absolute frame which SR falsifies. Matter, and dielectric media, can and do all move, so ours is an option not originally considered.''

Indeed, a original and consistent conception of motion. Very good point. Personally, I feel relational conceptions (and maybe extensions of it) are more adequate but the only way to find a conclusion is by exploring all the consequences of any new proposal.

Best regards and good luck.

Daniel

Dear Peter,

Congratulations for the essay. Nice way to package as a play interesting ideas.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Peter, I also suffered the attack. I was oscillating about 21-26 since the last week and suddenly yesterday I dropped 50 positions in about 15 minutes.

I have very important information about what happened. I sent you an email for discussing the actions to take before I post this delicate info in my forum and in topic/1263

Regards