Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

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

Official answer by Brendan in topic/1263

Dear Peter,

You said to Daniel:

"Now imagine each particle of matter as the driver of a car. The car is the limit of the frame. It forms the physical boundary. It contracts when it changes frame to that of a truck coming the other way, and light entering it hits the screen and changes speed, to d c wrt the car."

This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities. I will also ask about clocks. If a clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth will it slow down its time keeping function? One more question, If a common macroscopic clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth to a stable position on the Earth will it have changed size and rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects?

I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves and not about what happens to photons after having left the objects or about photons that may be arriving to the objects.

James

sorry Lorraine, but Peter and me, we don't understand anything of your reasoning :)

It is true no Peter? a ball and a sphere are in a bar, do you think that the number 11 and 42 are unified because the Ex says that the nD strings are ok.

Of course the parallelizations of quantization are universal and spherical.:) I love this platform.

Revolution spherization.

Peter

Yours is the only essay with a new fundamental mechanism adavancing physics, and it also stays right on topic identfying the wrong assumptions we've been using. it needs a new way of thinking, so many may be blind to it. I do hope more and more see it.

A 10 from me, Well done.

Rich

MAX PLANK:

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.

Mr. Jackson,

congratulations on the well written, *fun* to read, essay, packed with thought provoking facts. There are many essays in this contest challenging the assumption that space is 'empty'. Let us hope that our message will not fall on deaf ears.

After the things will settle down, which thankfully is soon, and we all can relax about the ratings, I would very much appreciate your feedback on my essay (topic 1547).

Congratulations on making the list of finalists! (even though I confess that I disagree with one of your opinions and that is, "In reality there is only ever ONE absolute time!" -- the important thing is that we can agree on most).

Peter,

I posted a message with questions above in this thread. Am pointing to it in case it got buried too quickly to be noticed. Thank you.

James Putnam