Lorraine

Many thanks. Some can visualise kinetically, others not. The format was partly to help thinking in way most are not familiar with, and clearly break down the rather cumbersome set of 8 connected assumptions that reform to create the ontological construction.

I'd hoped you may comment on whether or not you agreed the rather important underlying mechanism exposed for unifying QM and Relativity. Perhaps the format distracted you. It is complex (otherwise it would have been found before) I'm certain well under half here did assimilate it.

But thank you kindly anyway.

Peter

Daniel

Thanks for your long post. You assimilated what many failed to, the 'relational conception', but didn't quite also find the link with the 'local preferred frame' structure.

I only have a mo but I'll first conceptualise then analogise; All matter has it's own exclusive state of motion (frame). Light instantaneously changes speed to c wrt all frames on arrival. Let that sink in deeply and be kicked around for a bit.

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.

Just consider all that for a while. I'll get back, or do revert to discuss.

Best wishes

Peter

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #239

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #241

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

    M.V.

    Thank you kindly. Perhaps more could resolve the Chinese puzzle than I expected, though it still seems few have completed the full ontological construction. For some it may have been written in Chinese! I appreciate your comments. I'll try to initially speed read yours, I may ever break the 200!

    I must explain the one absolute time better then you may agree. To any observer there is local time in his own frame, (Proper Time) then there are different apparent rates of passing within arbitrary many OTHER frames, and all signals emitted in these frames are Doppler shifted when entering his own frame. But for each system, i.e. universe there is a collective 'state of motion', just like there is for a galaxy. THAT is the one 'absolute' time to which I refer. It is for all purposes irrelevant for anyone inside each universe. Local background frames are the key, and always exist, hierarchically nested. My essay should perhaps now be re-read with that in mind to become clearer, though the essay is the tip of the iceberg ontology.

    Did that sound closer to your intuition?

    Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #245

      James

      You ask what happens physically to cars and drivers on rapid acceleration (frame change). I confirm I derive a Doppler shift, which is a physical length contraction, or dilation, if the body is compressible. So the bodies DO "suffer" if they themselves accelerate. It is purely an unfamiliar way of re-appraising the very familiar. The experimental evidence fills many a scrap yard and hospital. More gentle frame changes are recommended, and smaller masses do less damage to larger ones (some old Law I recall!).

      And when we consider very small masses (or even zero if you wish) like photons, the same happens because they are compressible, as is a sequence of waves. The windscreen of the car hardly notices the impact (the scattering may even be 'non-elastic' for the scatterer), but the photons or waves compress (blue shift).

      If they're coming in by the rear screen they will be wider apart after detection (which should be though of as a 'sampling' process) as the car has moved a bit between each one arriving (again either waves or a string of individual 'particles' as you wish).

      So thinking 'photon'; the effect is that wavelength and frequency change inversely on negotiating the ('fluid dynamic' coupling zone) so c changes to c'. This produces the LOCAL REALITY Einstein sought all his life, by producing the SR postulates from a quantum mechanism, giving the unification Einstein sought all his life.

      The problem is that this is all so unfamiliar (as Feynman said it would be) and simple (as Wheeler said it would be) and conceptual (as Einstein said it would be) that it is largely unrecognizable to most formally indoctrained physicists uless the necessary assumptions identified are suspended to test it.

      Lastly clocks moving at the surface. If the observer is moving with them, No, they won't change. Think about what they are 'moving' with respect to. If they do our rotational velocity they are at rest in the ECI frame!! How do they know if they are moving or not! The concept 'Moving' always has to be specified wrt the 'LOCAL BACKGROUND.' Only if a clock is in another frame does 'Proper Time' not apply, so flight time has to be allowed for, and relative change of position, so apparent change of clock speed. Simple but normally ignored.

      Your last question; You must decide precisely what type of clock as mechanisms vary and are affected differently by many things. But sorry, No. Time itself would not change as it does not 'exist' in terms of an 'entity' existing. 'Emissions rates' change for many reasons, and apparent emission rates change also due to observer motion. That would be all to be consistent with the rest of the ontology.

      I hope that position is clear, but it is initially apparently complex, so if not do ask again.

      best wishes

      Peter

      Peter,

      "You ask what happens physically to cars and drivers on rapid acceleration (frame change). I confirm I derive a Doppler shift, which is a physical length contraction, or dilation, if the body is compressible. So the bodies DO "suffer" if they themselves accelerate."

      No I am not asking about conditions resulting from rapid accleration or even any acceleration. I am asking only about conditions involving constant velocity of a clock in one cse and a stationary object in the other case.

      James

      .

      Jin

      I think Planck was correct. But they've now found a way round it. Before they 'die out' they now indoctrinate a new generation by failing those who don't toe the line. That is a portent for the end of the experiment on mankind. Perhaps a student rebellion is needed against the worst. But there are still many open minded and non arrogant and complacent Professors. Have faith and show mankind can prevail by making it happen. I can now provide the tools.

      Perhaps China or the East is the only place the change must now start to succeed.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #248

      Hi Peter,

      You indicated you would comment on my essay on my 'string'. And it seems to be your policy that you comment only on those essays whose authors have commented on yours. I have fulfilled that bargain quite well. I am awaiting your comments on "Geometrodynamics of Energy" with which I have explained cardinal relativistic phenomena without reference to space-time whatsoever. I have proved the constancy of the velocity of light etc. etc.

      Here's my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

      I request you to respond under my essay.

      Hoping to hear your comments.

      Best regards,

      Viraj

        Thank you Peter, for your comment on my page.

        Your thoughtfulness is appreciated. So that I may finish reading and rating papers all the papers I can, before the cutoff, detailed comments will have to wait. Be assured yours was included in those I read, however.

        I had to work at it, though, as the semi-conversational tone was not so easy for me to follow. Or perhaps it simply makes one stop to think often, and I was hoping it would pull me forward instead. More later.

        I wish you good luck.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

          • [deleted]

          • Post #250

          Peter

          Congrats. You and Tejinder are the only authors in the top ten 2yrs running. But why has your most fundamental discovery of the mechanism for CSL not made inroads into physics yet? I'm not a physicist, but in medicine such an advancement would be headline news within a matter of weeks (then admittedly years before the pills are swallowed). There seems an air of suspended disbelif, or has no-one noticed? I'm quite intruiged, though looking at the comments, many seem to have seen it but perhaps just not quite yet absorbed it.

          I know architecture is PhD level and also needs professional qualifications, but are you also the only non full time physicist in the top 10? As in my own discipline, there is too often resistance to those not felt as 'in the club'. I hope you don't feel any sense of exclusion. It is you at the heart, and they wandering in poorer light further from the truth. (I thought you'd like that one!) Lovely peom by the way. It may even go down in history one day.

          My very best wishes in your seemingly thankless task.

          Judy

            Viraj,

            Yes, I consider it courtesy to read & reply. I did so on 28th Sept on your string (the 'blog' comments under your essay) to which you have not yet replied as you seem to have missed it. If you reply to that there and I miss it please flag it up here for me.

            To explain my 'policy', I'll always try to respond to comments, and read the essays, otherwise my priorities are 1/ Titles seeming to disagree with my findings (valuable falsification), 2/ Titles of interest or I wish to learn more about, 3/ Titles that seem to agree with mine, and 4/ Authors I know do good quality work. I think I managed over 200, though many part speed-reading, which can 'bounce off' important concept without care.

            That does mean I missed 2 in the top 10! but can now read and absorb them more thoroughly. I've been very impressed with the hight quality, running to many outside the top 100!

            I note you have no orange bands on your replies, which means you're not 'logging in' (bottom left of page) to respond.

            I look forward to your response.

            Best wishes.

            Peter

            Hi, Peter

            I've just gotten to reading your essay, which is way over my head, though I am attracted to its general aims. I've long been fascinated by the concepts and assumptions in SR. My intuitive (and very non-professional) take has been that the constant speed of light is an inevitable consequence of using light to measure all things. In effect: a problem of self-reference! Similarly, the problem of an absolute frame of reference boiled down to using light to detect motion through the specific medium for transmitting light. At the time (c 1900) nobody imagined "matter" that was not involved with electromagnetic signals. Yet somehow the dogma was established of constant c, that "nothing can travel faster than light", and that there is no medium permeating space that could serve as a preferred frame of reference.

            p.s. I finally responded to your comments on my thread, for which thanks

            Dan

            Jonathen

            Thanks. It was designed to to help you stop and think, because the intellectual powers needed to assimilate each revised assumption and form the kit of epistemological elements into the full ontological construction are well beyond most of humankind. Most brains can hold 3 concepts at once and visualise interactions. This required EIGHT! and eight MODIFIED assumptions, then also kinetic EVOLUTIONS of the interactions.

            Stops for review and assimilation were essential. And it was no good trying it all mathematically as maths is at the heart of why it has NOT been found before. Wire frame Cartesian systems CANNOT fully model motion or it's effects. It needs real 'planes' and 'bodies' (3D) as referred by Einstein, then complex 'time stepping' maths only just now being developed. You did very well catching more than just the 'glimpses' most do.

            The underlying solution to CSL via the quanta is simple as Wheeler predicted. But getting physicists there from where they are at present is a mountain climb!

            The astonishing thing was finding that the ontology of real inertial frames precisely matches the structure of Truth Propositional Logic!! (TPL)

            In TPL, a 'proposition' may be co-joined to form a compound proposition, which may itself be a smaller part of a main proposition. Each compound part must be resolved within itself in sequence before it can be resolved with respect to the main proposition. But the main proposition may also be part of a compound proposition, which may be resolved 'locally' with the smaller compound parts remaining. This gives a nested hierarchical but mutually exclusive system of propositions, which can go in ad infinitum.

            Now we just substitute real 3D 'inertial frames' for 'propositions' and that is the structure of space-time. Each is mutually exclusive (as Einstein's space s in motion within S) bounded by a 'membrane' to provide the acceleration mechanism, precisely as a 'fluid dynamic coupling' at ALL scales! ('fine structure' surface electron TZ). We've just sent some probes up to better explore Earth's.

            This has major implications throughout physics. I've now looked at almost every inconsistency (scores of them) in science to test the model. Each time it fails to be falsified and resolves anomalies at will. It's infuriating. I almost feel I'm cursed, with the task of trying to drag the majority of physics 100 years back to reality! What chance?! All help gratefully accepted. You'd need to look beyond this tip of the 'iceberg' to the main body if interested. A number here who are like minded are interested in a large collaboration. If you really do grasp and agree the fundamental underlying mechanistic solution let me know.

            I look forward to your 'more later'.

            Best wishes

            Peter

            Judy

            So incisive. Changing a ruling paradigm in physics is far easier than changing the orbit of the sun round our AGN, but may take a little time (I may have been optimistic last year suggesting 2020). There are many 'ideas' out there, no system of assessment, and all focussed on their own agenda's so 'new' truths struggle to emerge. Your 'headline news' may be after 40 years of subjugation, as was proved with quasicrystals.

            Interesting point on what I call comprehension. See my reply to Jonathen above. I suspect you're right.

            Someone said reaching PhD level gives you the right to be wrong, which is how I felt, not any right to be right. Many in physics seem to feel otherwise, or a superiority and right to ignore or condescend to fellow man. You must know that temptation. It's easy to give in to, but we must recognise it and the rot it brings to have a chance of stopping it.

            'Exclusion'? Hmmm. No, I never felt I wanted to join a crowd as I'd only see what they saw. 'Non full time'? True I still have to run the consultancy and don't have to earn money from physics, but as an FRAS and APS member and spending twice the time on research and writing than most professors that may be arguable! No, time is tight (want to buy a yacht?) but I'm very happy where I am. Thanks for those kind and interesting thoughts.

            And strictly it was a sonnet not a poem. The Chaucerian iambic pentameter is about as initially tricky compared to rhyming couplets as learning new assumptions is for anyone indoctrinated with old ones, so I thought it appropriate in this context. But just a bit of fun really to lighten things up. Glad you enjoyed it, and great to hear from you.

            Best wishes

            Peter