Dear Peter,

Apologies for this delay in replying. I readily agree with the hypothesis that space is `not empty'. In considering space as an emergent feature which derives from underlying physics, this definitely becomes apparent.

However, I could not understand your remark on my page that Continuous Spontaneous Localization emerges from your ideas. I could not figure out from your essay how that is happening.

I understand from your essay that you accept special relativity. Given this, ideas such as `change of speed of light on arrival' are very hard for me to comprehend. Having grown up as a conventional physicist, I have, like other physicists, got habituated to seeing new ideas implemented through a mathematical formalism and equations. You have a more intuitive way of looking at things, which makes it hard for me to follow many things you say. But I do like your poetic and enthusiastic expression.

I am afraid I do not have anything more useful to say, at the moment.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Torsten

Raman scattering is of course a quantum mechanism, deriving classical effects once understood, interpreted and applied correctly. Thanks for your response. We also seem to agree that forgetting to choose an observer reference frame is a cause of much of the confusion in physics.

I hope you will read it again as apparently it does need at least two reads to fully penetrate and assimilate, and I look forward to your further comments or questions. A major fundamental new understanding and advance towards unification should emerge. Do let me know if it doesn't!

Best wishes

Peter

Tejinder.

Thank you. I see Continuous Spontaneous Localization in inertial frame terms. It is then implemented by the mechanism of absorption of incoming waves approaching an electron or proton at relative c+v, but re-emission at the new local c of the particle. This was first found by Chandraseckara Raman in 1921 in the work leading to his 1930 Nobel Prize.

If n particles are at rest wrt each other, then they form a co-moving field or 'medium', which when dense enough may be a lens or photodetector (both only ever made of 'matter'). This medium is then kinetically and physically equivalent to a discrete inertial frame, and what is more, this implements local c in ALL cases.

You may have missed the mathematical description in the end notes, it derives c' = c via the inverse changes to lambda and f on waves entering the co moving medium. It exposes an oft forgot case of Doppler shift, which is finding the new lambda of an observers lens medium. If an observer is constituted by matter, then any delta f must be accompanied by a delta lambda. I propose this is the 'simple idea' that Wheeler predicted would be found. The proof is in it's application in resolving multiple anomalies and paradoxes (and mathematically in the simple constant c = f lambda).

On that note; - No!, you misread, I do NOT 'accept special relativity'. Indeed the model proves most of it unnecessary, because (and but) the model derives the POSTULATES of SR direct from the quantum mechanism (i.e. CSL in both it's continuous... and constant... meanings). But I'm not shouting a headline "SR is wrong!". It will be hard enough to persuade most physicists to consider observer lambda as a valid concept! The domain of validity of Cartesian co-ordinate systems for motion is also constrained. Do you agree that too will shock many! The error in SR (removing ANY background instead of just an ABSOLUTE one) will logically emerge with comprehension of model.

9 pages is just half a glimpse, and I know a quick 1st read means missing most of the important elements, their implications and their construction into the beautiful kinetic ontology unifying QM an relativity. I do hope you will read again, or a co-author read very carefully. I'm also interested in your view on the application of CSL in this case.

Very many thanks.

Peter

Judy

I agree you identify Eckards 'misnomer' with precision. Eckard please do give your considered view on the 'iota.' It is valid for light at a lens, and seems as valid for sound, but certainly not as the standard traditional view to date. Is that a new viewpoint and mechanism which may be considered? (assuming science can 'move forward'?)

Many thanks.

Peter

  • [deleted]

Judy Nixey and Peter Jackson,

I am confident that electromagnetic waves behave as calculated. Nonetheless they are difficult to measure because we do not have anything that moves faster. Acoustic waves propagate about a million times more slowly. That's why I restrict my argumentation to the latter.

Do we need infinitely many spaces in relative motion in order to describe acoustic waves? As long as we do not calculate with phonons one medium is definitely enough.

The essay 1448 by RKN has a decisive advantage. Its Fig. 1 shows to the left a velocity c+v, then a medium with larger than 1 refraction index n and to the right a new velocity c. If I understood the figure correctly then v is the velocity of the body with n relative to the medium. This is obviously wrong. The velocity of a wave does not depend on emission but only on the medium.

You are nurturing false hope for rescuing SR and MMX. That's why I feel obliged to object. The idea of fresh c with each re-emission would allow velocities of light in excess of c. You merely adapted to common opinion when you admitted observed superluminal velocities only apparent ones.

Lanyi observed a blast. The expanding front initially moves faster than with c until it gets the front of a wave, and then it continues to propagate with constant velocity. I admit, physicists have a problem with the imagination of electromagnetic waves as plurality of single photons. I am an old EE.

Eckard Blumschein

  • [deleted]

Petcho

Your video shows only the simplified incomplete explanation that has been around for hundreds of years. It does not consider the quantum mechanism in interaction at an observer.

when learning potential new science, it is invalid to try to invoke old understandings to 'disprove' it. Nothing can be disproved in this way. You must forst understand the new axiom, analysis it, then falsify it. That is the only way to do science! I'm sure you're able to do that well, and will find the results enlightening.

Judy

Eckard

Sound is considered different, but my essay exposes the moot similarities. The common error is here;

There is a remarkable difference between the Doppler effect in sound waves and the Doppler effect in light waves. For light waves there is no preferred frame of reference, no material \medium" in which the waves travel... One consequence is that, unlike a sound wave, the speed of a light wave is the same to all receivers regardless of their velocities. The details are left to a careful derivation elsewhere. (SR). http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m204.pdf

Ref the RKN essay Fig 1. showing velocity in the medium n as c/n wrt the medium. you say "This is obviously wrong. The velocity of a wave does not depend on emission but only on the medium." I think you only need to read that again more carefully to see your error. You are only taking an 'anthropocentric' view, assuming somehow your own state of motion is relevant to some other medium. I hate to say this but you have NO effect on light propagation speeds wrt media!!

You forget you must first visualise yourself at rest wrt that medium, so you can use 'Proper Time' to measure speed. You will then find, (when at rest in or with the medium) that it's propagations speed is c/n. Any remaining confusion you have is due to confusing the secondary scattered light travelling from the charged medium particles to your eye (at c) with the original 'charge' propagation speed. i.e. Apparent c+v is allowable, but don't confuse that with real speed through the medium.

You claim 'one medium is definitely enough' to describe waves. I agree, but only in terms of one AT A TIME! If you claim there is only one 'globally' (your word) then you are claiming that nobody in Concord ahead of another can hear them speak!

You would be denying that sound travels within concord at c wrt concord. Or that those on another concord flying past the other way can also converse.

There are of course as many spaces/frames in relative motion as there are collections of matter particles in relative motion. You were simply forgetting you allow for your own variable observer states of motion.

The 'matter' may be hollow, or a solid medium, and big or small, the effect is the same. The important inverse 'shift' in lambda and f comes when a wave sequence move from one frame to another over non zero time.

Yet I agree. You will be entirely unfamiliar with this truth because, as you say in your own essay, we have all become too familiar with other assumptions.

Peter

(PS. Judy. Are you related to Richard Kingsley-Nixey?)

  • [deleted]

Peter,

You wrote: "There is a remarkable difference between the Doppler effect in sound waves and the Doppler effect in light waves. For light waves there is no preferred frame of reference, no material "medium" in which the waves travel... One consequence is that, unlike a sound wave, the speed of a light wave is the same to all receivers regardless of their velocities. The details are left to a careful derivation elsewhere. (SR). http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m204.pdf "

There is no such consequence, Peter. The assumption that there is no preferred frame of reference, true or false, does not entail that "the speed of a light wave is the same to all receivers regardless of their velocities". Why do you adopt and teach the thoughtless "logic" you find in relativistic texts?

Pentcho Valev

    • [deleted]

    Peter,

    I definitely do not take an 'anthropocentric' view, assuming somehow my own state of motion is relevant to some other medium. On the contrary, I blame the so called Einstein synchronization and SR for ascribing velocity to an observer. In acoustics, the speed of a propagating wave relates to the medium. Emitter, receiver, and observer like me do not matter.

    I maintain: Fig. 1 of 1448 is wrong at least for acoustics. My Fig. 5 refers to a reproducible experiment that shows:

    - An acoustic variant of the experiment by M&M yields the same null-result as the MM-experiment (MMX) with light. This confirms, acoustic and electromagnetic waves behave equally in this respect even if the SR-based theory you pointed to states the opposite. Independent of the many signers of the twinparadox petition, I trust in the experiments by Feist, by Shtyrkov and by others.

    - A majority of experts is still believing that the MMX disproved the existence of a common frame of reference. This requires reconsideration, see Fig. 5. Even Einstein himself admitted the possible existence of an ether. Israel Perez, who believes in SR, has been advocating for a preferred frame of reference.

    EEs like me consider light an electromagnetic wave, and we are in position to calculate how the components of such a wave propagates in space. Far field calculations do not let room for a theory based on emitted photons. Didn't you Peter point me to Dowdye as someone who inspired you? He offers an emission theory. Einstein as well as Ritz preferred the idea to create an emission theory before Einstein fabricated SR.

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    Pentcho

    When I write; "The common error is here;" with a semi colon followed by the text and a link address which you repeat above, it means that the 'mistake' I identify is embodied in that text.

    So you are in fact agreeing with me. Which is good. However, the finer points of the cause of the mistake are not entirely agreed. We agree the speed of an approaching light wave can be relative c+v.

    The difference is that you stop there, and suggest that alone is enough to convince the troglodyte armies to renounce their god, repent and lay down their arms.

    I on the other hand suggest there is also a fundamental quantum reason that we always find local c as a maximum speed (c=dt), giving rise to the great paradox of the 19th century that SR set about logically resolving (and failed).

    My suggestion also closes the chasm between Galilean Relativity and Quantum Physics, and resolves the paradoxes and anomalies referred in my essay.

    My logic purely explains how both sound and light in Concord travel at c with respect to the rest frame inside Concord (whichever way it's heading). No other explanation can do this. But the key is in understanding what happens to the light from the headlight of the other Concord approaching ours also at Mach 2, when it enters through the cockpit windows. And WHY we then find it does c in the cabin wrt the cabin (so very blue shifted).

    My consistent working model says the glass and air re-emit the em waves at c. (see also my bus analogy #15 on Eckard's string if needed).

    It seems you agree this, as you must, but say it's not important. I propose that as it is what we find it IS important that it be explained, thus finally allowing SR to fade into the sunset and physics to progress once more.

    Why would you wish to keep discouraging this?

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    Eckard

    You can't have both. Either waves propagate at c in the medium wrt the medium rest frame, or c wrt your own rest frame which is different and anthropocentric.

    I clearly say always c wrt the medium, so NOT wrt arbitrary observer frames. Yet you suggest RKN Fig 1, (where you are observing a moving medium from an arbitrary frame) is wrong. I am sure it is simply that you have not yet mastered the tricky task of picturing yourself in motion WITH that medium as the waves move within it at c. Your citations are not in conflict.

    Israel and many others, as I, do indeed advocate a background frame. And the problem caused by this is removed by it not being an 'absolute' background frame. i.e. (see your blog) the runner doing 15kph on a moving bus is only doing 15kph wrt that bus! NOT the road, or any other observer in arbitrary motion!!

    You say "Far field calculations do not let room for a theory based on emitted photons." I disagree. They do not currently DO so, so Snell's Law, Fresnel refraction and linear optics remain violated with media motion. If propagation speed c is changed to c' = c-v, they are all recovered! Ask yourself why reflections from a mirror in motion in a vacuum do c wrt the vacuum not the mirror.

    Q; Can you explain this, or recover Snell's Law, in any other way?

    You make three other wrong suggestions; 1. That I "have only published in viXra" (I won't tell Phil you said that!) but also the GSJ and (accepted) Hadronic Journal (for what that matters!). 2. I corrected you before about being 'inspired' by Dowdye. I agree with, but only found and cited Dowdye more recently. and 3. That I look for agreement. As I've said before, I, unusually, do the precise opposite. I fail to comprehend the point of other approaches as verification does not exist, only consistency or falsification.

    I hope you'll read the analogy on your blog, and also follow Steve's advice as you inferred you would. I promise you do NOT yet understand the models kinetic logic, and until you accept that fact you may never do so. I'd also be grateful if you'd find yourself able to refrain from the increasing unwarranted disparaging inferences.

    Many thanks

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    Peter,

    You wrote: "We agree the speed of an approaching light wave can be relative c+v. The difference is that you stop there, and suggest that alone is enough to convince the troglodyte armies to renounce their god, repent and lay down their arms. I on the other hand suggest there is also a fundamental quantum reason that we always find local c as a maximum speed..."

    This "we always find local c as a maximum speed" is mysterious. I have never found anything like that. Nobody whom I know has. Who are *we*? Aliens?

    Pentcho Valev

    • [deleted]

    Eckard

    You are a strange one. You seem to wish for help to understand but then rebuff it, and dubb me with an interesting new name. No, I am not a Nixey nor related to any. I believed I could help as an educator, but perhaps I was wrong. I'm little used to failure, but can face it well. May I perhaps assume you are outwith the age range I am familiar with teaching?

    In case you should feel you need any other opinion on physiology or reproductive systems I will keep watch on Peters work. Of those I had the pleasure to read last year it was Peters that, for me, gave the most clear and fundamental advance in understanding. But we are all quite different, with different strenghts, and any and all are probably wrong and will remain so.

    I wish you well.

    Judy

    • [deleted]

    Peter,

    For what reason do you exclude the possibility of just one common space? If Fig. 1 of Nixey did relate to acoustics then I would expect the air to the left the same as the air to the right and therefore the velocity re air the same in both cases.

    I know that MMX was interpreted as evidence against a common absolute space. I included my Fig. 5 not independent from my Fig. 1.

    You asked why reflections from a mirror in motion in a vacuum do c wrt the vacuum not the mirror. I imagine vacuum a space empty of air, not nothing but a moving re to virtually every object carrier of fields. (re = wrt)

    Eckard

    Eckard

    You ask "For what reason do you exclude the possibility of just one common space?" It is because that concept only works 'locally', as, famously, do Maxwell's equations.

    We first consider just one space at a time. But at the limits of each space there must be another 'common space', entirely equivalent. Then, as there are almost limitless cars, buses, trains and galaxies, there are, as Minkowski then Einstein (1954) concluded; "infinitely many spaces in relative motion."

    In Nixey Fig 1. Yes, the spaces left and right are the same background space. But of course the centre medium n, in motion, is also a space is it not? And the waves within that medium propagate at c/n within and with respect to it. NOT c wrt the surrounding background space.

    That 'surrounding space' may be the lab on the space station, which itself is moving at v wrt the space outside it, within Earth's ionosphere. And yes, I agree, that space DOES have a state of motion itself. It is not just MMX that falsified a 'single absolute space/frame' for all media everywhere, all of astronomy, optics and logic excludes it beyond question. That conceptual part is very simple. But what confuses most is;

    Each 'space' then implicitly must be 'thought of as bounded' (not currently conceived, as pointed out by Einstein) and the boundary condition only needs to be a modulation mechanism. This is where the logic of absorption and atomic scattering at local c comes in, which is Nixey Fig 2, equivalent to a refractive plane of a moving medium (or the moving mirror surface charge).

    So now consider your last line above. The 'moving' mirror is thick glass with a silvered back. Light does c/n through the glass IN THE MIRROR FRAME! So it then MUST change speed on exiting that frame into the DIFFERENT background frame. Yes? It is that speed change that is confusingly called the 'LT', and which gives the Doppler shift. It is implemented by re-emission at the c of the background frame. THEN all of physics falls into place. Including resolving all the anomalies I referred in my essay and many others there was no 'space' for (if you'll forgive the pun!) along with the other unique predictions.

    If you still do not agree, then please do explain how light at c/n in the glass of the mirror can change speed to c in and wrt the vacuum, so by both n and v (mirror) without changing speed!?

    Peter

    Pentcho,

    I venture you suggesting dt=c+v would be 'alien' to most. Just the suggestion of it for neutrino's caused major panics. Universal dt=

      • [deleted]

      Peter,

      When I performed experiments with mirrors I used so called surface mirrors that were coated with silver at surface. So I avoided refraction in glass. Anyway, I maintain: Refraction and reemission are effects that are not of primary importance if we are using wave equations in order to describe the propagation of waves. You mentioned spatial limitations to waves. While the extension of air with constant c is indeed rather limited, I share the guess that the em-waves carrying vacuum is effectively endless at least in good approximation. I asked "For what reason do you exclude the possibility of just one common space?" You answered: "It is because that concept only works 'locally', as, famously, do Maxwell's equations." Sorry, can you please explain this? I do not even understand how you define what border is assumed to the location.

      Eckard

      Pentcho

      It seems I used the 'up to' symbol, wiping out 90% of my above post!

      I think I discussed how 'alien' it is to most to conceive anything OTHER than dt=max c, or the max c (or c/n) always found locally within propagating media when using the standard universal assumption of frequency and wavelength being inversely proportional. How you think you stand a chance of convincing anyone of propagation at C+ you'd have to explain!

      I agree the current assumptions are wrong. You then propose different assumptions, but they are LESS acceptable (right or wrong) and anyway also not consistent. This includes with optics, (try it on KRR!) and as an astronomer I've studied everything possible on the subject and found local c=dt to first order about the ONLY absolutely undeniable thing there is (i.e. binary star light absolutey does arrive together irrespective of emitter motion). Also your assumptions don't actually really resolve anything and just adds to problems. There are dozens of anomalies and paradoxes out there. Can you give me a list of which it resolves?

      OK, so I have found a slightly different set of assumptions. I've shown that mine ARE consistent with logic and all observation, and that they CAN resolve all the anomalies. What else could it do? So the only remaining problem is to persuade people to abandon deeply held assumptions.

      The question then is, who will manage this first, mainstream or Pentcho?

      Unless of course anyone can find anything apart from belief and assumption to falsify it with. So far not one. I almost wish they could as I could go sailing. Can you?

      Best wishes.

      Peter

      Eckard

      It is important to consider a glass mirror. I suggest we can't do worthwhile science by 'passing by' all things we can't explain, or call them 'unimportant'.

      Media move wrt other media. Do you suggest waves ignore the media? Of course you wouldn't. So light in one medium is doing a different speed globally to that in another.

      Maxwell's equations are, and have only ever been, only valid for each limited local space. They famously will not transform via the LT (a complex matter of 'partial time derivatives'). So the local spaces may then represent inertial frames. You should find plenty of references to this well known limitation which has never been resolved. If not I'll find some (or just see T E Phipps). All resolves with effectively an LT at the TZ.

      Best wishes

      Peter