Hi Peter,

I referenced Judy N's article because I can follow it, while I have a hard time following your own presentation. I'm afraid that, like Tejinder Singh, I learned things in a particular way that automatically filters concepts for the most general facts. Your net is apparently made of finer mesh.

Anyway, as I said, I managed to isolate four statements that I feel competent to comment on. The first was:

"It is predicted that the Fine-structure constant effectively increases with acceleration in this way to conserve input energy in accordance with the Law of Conservation of energy. The model proposes that 'c' is constant within these quantum clouds and considers the far reaching consequences."

I replied: In this at least, I am sure that we are talking about the same thing. You can find it discussed in much the same terms in both my "time barrier" and "time counts" papers linked earlier. The idea that the universe conserves energy by accelerating, I reduced to the statement: "Volume preserving is energy conserving." What I mean, is that the limit of universal acceleration (predicted numerically at 0.86c) requires the back-action of negative mass-energy to account for the equivalence of gravity and acceleration; this limit is the approximate speed at which a massive object is contracted by about 1/2 in the direction of travel, by the Lorentz formula and special relativity.

Consider that because bow shock in one direction is negative pressure in the opposing direction -- positive acceleration in the direction of the bow shock is negative acceleration in the other direction.

I've isolated three other statements from the article that apparently agree with my own conclusions. Let's see how this one does first. Tom"

You replied in part: "I see the links with your work, but not with the 0.86c and time (redshift z = 0.8) since deceleration became acceleration. However, I do agree acelleration 'in the other direction', and indeed identify a fully fledged physical (small scale) model of it in AGN (ion) jets. The 'balancing' jet may correlate with the other half of each re-ionized body having a predominance of anti matter."

The acceleration parameter I propose assumes a normalized c = 1 (remember, I hypothesize a cosmic binding energy). Therefore, the percentage of c (~ 86%) that limits acceleration at the horizon is equivalent to maximum redshift, normalized to unity. Negative acceleration in the other direction is just a way of saying that inertial symmetry applies (equivalence principle) while an absolute acceleration limit of 1c would imply infinite acceleration.

In relativity theory, massless photons are emitted (born) at the speed of light and if not absorbed by electrons are slowed at varying rates in their travel through massive media, as you note. The absolute speed of light independent of mass is still c. Most often not taught, however, is that for relativity theory to work, it must be symmetric with faster-than-light particles, called tachyons -- which are also massless and born at the speed of light but can never slow down. Even though tachyons are not observable, even in principle, they define a horizon sharply demarcating action in one direction from the other (equal and opposite), thus preserving the laws of motion.

So when you talk about relativity paradoxes (and I realize many do, even when no paradox exists) I think you reach the right conclusions though relativity theory is itself adequate to explain them. E.g., "If there really is such a concept as 'Proper Time' (an emitted time period measured from the same state of motion as the emitter or propagating medium), then there must also be an 'improper time'."

Right. Relativity accounts for this, however -- in the symmetry between photons and tachyons. Relative motion does not violate Newton's laws; rather, it extends them. Proper time can only ever be measured relative to the limit of c; Newton's absolute time is replaced by an absolute speed limit to physical communication.

You write: "Using this (improper) time we then get APPARENT speed, which is different to PROPAGATION velocity. When actually ARRIVING AT a detector, the interaction itself modulates the speed to the local propagation speed c. That itself gives CSL FOR ALL OBSERVERS EVERYWHERE. i.e. the 'apparent speed' of an approaching rocket may be ANY speed subject to the speed of the observer, but it's real speed cannot be found without interaction, which changes the speed (to max c) which = CSL."

True. The physical laws are the same for all observers anywhere, and all observer frames of reference are valid. Because there is no privileged frame, "all physics is local." Physical influences cannot communicate nonlocally.

Here, though, is the meat that you bury in too much fat: "Relativity derived from the quanta (atomic scattering), with no paradoxes. Ether as such is NOT required but space is NOT empty of quanta, just diffuse. So a local 3rd frame CAN and DOES always exist, but a LOCAL background, not the single absolute background AE had to ban."

Einstein in fact -- like Descartes -- never accepted the idea of "empty space." This is expressed in the statement: "No space is empty of the field." The quantized field is not compatible with a continuous field theory, and that's why we have quantum field theory and its string theory extension. Einstein did not do away with the ether; the quantum vacuum plays the same essential role of a propagating medium.

Now, if you can bring yourself to settle down (!) instead of scattering your own energies (and I mean this in the kindest way) -- the deep issue of "deriving relativity from the quanta" is *the* issue of unifying physics. I noticed George Ellis commented on it in your forum, as well.

My own approach to that question is to derive quanta from relativity. (However, these approaches are dual to each other in the same way as the integral and differential calculus are dual.)

The idea you advance -- that one might show light speed in "quantum clouds" as relativistic without assuming unitarity -- is an excellent idea, I think. It's plausible that classical-analog light effects in the quantum domain may be tractable to experiment that eliminates the boundary between quantum and classical domains. This would complement other efforts (Joy Christian, et al) to derive classical results from quantum phenomena in a locally real framework.

Go for it!

Tom

Tom,

This may be a seminal moment. To find the logic from your very different viewpoint is a task I'd started to think too difficult. Too be honest you were a litmus test, but how can the result be generalised to the more deeply inDoctorinated?

I agree focus on the fundamental QM==>SR of the DFM has drifted as I chased down and falsified objections (which has exposed much new physics I haven't yet discussed!) I'm also fielding verifications of aspects in 'new findings' every day. Now 'Susy's out of the way I love Judy and will try to use her clarity of presentation.

You say "go for it". Thanks, but there's a small problem there. I've been 'going for it' for some years but PRJ editors and reviewers seem terrified of the models 'unfamiliarity' so won't touch it. Even using various different angles and aspects hasn't worked. ArXiv won't accept papers, and it seems even Judy's Wiki article was removed! Work goes on but it needs help (including an arXiv endorser!) and all is welcome. Christian has looked, but speaks a different language to the ontology. Perhaps you might help/collaborate there? at least as a translator?

On a specific note, you've given me a new view of 'Tachyons', linked to Minkowski's "imaginary" 1908; "cases with a velocity greater than that of light"

I don't pretend to comprehend all your points above, as you don't mine, but, as you say, the fundamental of Unification is the big prize.

All thoughts and help appreciated. Do let me know if you'd like to read other papers. A few earlier ones are on Independant Academia with this; Aberration Paper. The Hadronic Journal (latest) paper isn't yet out, but 2 more are on the way.

Many thanks for your encouragement. The golf clubs are back in the shed.

Peter

Peter

Peter,

Thanks for the references. I'll try to review the research report later.

However, wouldn't 'warm hot' baryonic matter, configured as a vast, gravitationally bound, rotating galactic halo ~3 times the diameter of the visible galaxy, that was sufficiently dense to produce the observed flat rotation curves of the visible galactic disk - necessarily emit detectable EM radiation?

Also, at least the ESA article you referenced makes no mention of 'WHIM' as dark matter - it instead states that astronomers cannot find as much baryonic matter as expected:

"But there's a problem: the amounts of baryonic matter detected via astronomical observations in the distant, ancient Universe and in the nearby one do not match. Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe."

The article goes on to suggest that undetected WHIM constitutes the missing BARYONIC matter - not any dark matter.

Thanks,

Jim

Hi Peter,

One can still find the DocJudith article archived on the 'net.

I expect that it got dumped from wikipedia because the references are vixra and arXiv non-peer reviewed publications. It was my own unpleasant experience earlier this year to get myself banned indefinitely from editing on wikipedia -- (and I don't even care about getting reinstated) -- as a result of one individual's shameless manipulation of the process combined with the naivete of the apparently youthful administrators. After a few exchanges with the individual in question and Jimbo Wales himself, I concluded that wikipedia is useless for just about anything deeper than celebrity gossip; the online "merit badges" that the members of the editorial club collect are demonstrably based on quantity, not quality. At any rate, the organization gets no more support from me (and this follows years of plumping for them, contributing money as well as time and knowledge). A good idea gone bad.

So I wouldn't invest a lot of value in archive publications and wikis. In this age particularly, open source trumps anonymous review -- (that was one of my main complaints about the wikipedia martinets, a lack of accountability hidden and protected by anonymity) -- and new ideas actually have a better chance than ever of seeing daylight, allowing that they are seeded in nourishing soil. I found egregious that wikipedia editors refer to Joy Christian's body of work as "self published" as if self-underwritten in a vanity press. The real case is that implied academic endorsement (and funding) always ran concurrent with the overabundance of negative academic criticism. To call Christian's work "self published" is disingenuous at best, and in my non-legal opinion, potentially libelous at worst.

With that -- let's continue trying to find what's novel in a "discrete field model." I have the same objection to the terminology as I had when you introduced it years ago -- a field is not, in principle, discrete. Because a field has elements that are discrete, field models are continuous. Yes, I do understand invoking Einstein's (and Descartes') aphorism that "no space is empty of the field" -- what Einstein meant, however, is that field influences between bodies are connected, not discrete; i.e., the continuous functions that define physical event space are not bounded (The general relativity model is said to be "finite but unbounded" for this reason.)

I said I isolated four points of the article which I am prepared to address. The first has already been discussed (and I may return to it later). The second is:

"An emitter will also emit waves at 'c', but, if in motion through a background field, once in the particle boundary with that field the wave velocity will immediately change to 'c' with respect to that field. This simple balanced symmetrical solution appears to match all observation without paradox."

Many if not most quantum theorists will insist that relativity is background dependent. For good reason -- the quantum model requires a 2-dimensional (Hilbert space) background, and this dimensionality is assumed to be an inert playing field in which for all interactions t = 1. In the spacetime physics of relativity, though, the physically real continuum is a participant in physical interactions. Therefore, I think most relativists and string theorists (I could probably come up with a reference by Joe Polchinski if I had to) will say that a completely relativistic theory including the quantum field theory extension called string theory, are not background dependent.

So I think that would obviate your statement that any new physics is introduced by a moving emitter. More later.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Thanks. Einstein's small space s moving within space S as Hilbert spaces, which may both contain quanta at rest, are implicit in QM but not in SR as presently interpreted. You can't then say; 1. 'A 'field' can not 'in principle' be discrete', then also 2.' There's nothing novel about the Discrete Field concept'!!

It's that very discretion of a 'space', implying boundaries, that is the entirely new concept. In fact the 'field' may equally be considered as a cloud, but not just a cloud of individual particles moving THROUGH a space, but as a whole 'inertial system' at rest, where the background is equally moving past the cloud.

i.e. I'm not surprised you find the 'discrete field' concept entirely alien, it is, that is the whole point. And it is ALL about the boundaries. It is at the field boundaries where the new underlying quantum mechanism occurs to derive the classical effects of SR. They are simply dense ionized 'transition zones' or 'scattering surfaces', giving the anomalous "frames last scattered" of the CMBR.

Once we identify what to look for, there they are! staring us in the face, (just as Einstein predicted). 'Collisionless shocks', Fine structure/surface charge, Maxwell's near/far field 'transition zones'. ALL matter has them when in motion wrt a background. All they actually do is absorb em waves and re-emit them at c (but the new local c of course). They are hydrodynamically mixed across their thickness. That's where your auto gearbox 'torque converter' (TC) comes in; the particles one side are at rest there, and the other side at rest there, with turbulence between. Look at a vector field across a TC and you find the rotating version of the vector field across a planetary bow shock (see 'Cluster,' & Kingsley-Nixey essay Fig 2.).

Now your Question; Waves LEAVING an emitter, say radio waves leaving planet Earth, travel at c wrt Earth until the shock, then travel at c wrt the solar system. So changing speed, just like when arriving. (At smaller scales the 'surface effect' is rather closer). That is a fact from radio telemetry, but until now it's been entirely unexplained. The explanation unites QM and SR.

The only problem seems to be that mankind struggles badly to assimilate unfamiliar concepts, as you're still struggling now even after clear glimpses, Yes? So does that now resolve the 'c wrt emitter' postulate conundrum?

And I agree about Wiki. It's dumbed down backward science, and self appointed policemen are the worst. Power corrupts! Perhaps suggest to Jimmy that science is about advancement, which is CHANGE, so he divides the Science part into 'History of Science' (Old established concepts) and Advancement of Science (as yet unproven, like ALL advancement!

Peter

Hi Peter,

You wrote: "Einstein's small space s moving within space S as Hilbert spaces, which may both contain quanta at rest, are implicit in QM but not in SR as presently interpreted."

It's not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of mathematical domain. The special relativity model is in ordinary Euclidean space; general relativity is in 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. N-dimensional Hilbert space -- which is a generalization of Euclidean space -- was chosen for quantum mechanics because our measure space is too small to accommodate quantum superposition. This could be a very long discussion -- in the simplest terms I can muster, states of matter in the Hilbert space based on the "equally likely" hypothesis of probability theory do not correspond to states of matter in spacetime that are deterministic, not probabilistic.

"You can't then say; 1. 'A 'field' can not 'in principle' be discrete', then also 2.' There's nothing novel about the Discrete Field concept'!!"

Except that I didn't say there's nothing novel about the discrete field concept. I said that we're trying to find out if there's anything novel in the discrete field concept. Don't ask me to abandon fundamental principles of mathematics and physics and then congratulate me for understanding.

"It's that very discretion of a 'space', implying boundaries, that is the entirely new concept."

The mere term "space" does not imply boundaries. The Hilbert space is infinite dimensional.

"In fact the 'field' may equally be considered as a cloud, but not just a cloud of individual particles moving THROUGH a space, but as a whole 'inertial system' at rest, where the background is equally moving past the cloud."

At rest relative to what? Here's the problem, Peter -- if you want to invoke a background space, you can't just say abracadabra and have it. This is the problem that Einstein dealt with, in showing that the ether is unnecessary for wave propagation. If you want to restore an ether and call it a cloud, that's okay -- however, you want to be aware that one still has the problem of measuring where a point particle is located in the cloud and how fast it's moving. Then you have quantum theory and the Hilbert space and probability, with the added burden of explaining the physical effects of the cloud. I'm not saying it can't be done -- I'm saying it can't be done with hand-waving arguments and hyperbole.

"i.e. I'm not surprised you find the 'discrete field' concept entirely alien, it is, that is the whole point. And it is ALL about the boundaries."

Again, just using the term "boundaries" does not produce a measured phenomenon nor a mathematical model.

That's the limit of my ability to respond to your post. The tools of relativity and quantum mechanics are not adequate to deal with the issues of nonlinear turbulence that you raise. Maybe you're looking for a complex system model that requires a different approach. Maybe you'll solve the Navier-Stokes equations.

"Now your Question; Waves LEAVING an emitter, say radio waves leaving planet Earth, travel at c wrt Earth until the shock, then travel at c wrt the solar system. So changing speed, just like when arriving. (At smaller scales the 'surface effect' is rather closer). That is a fact from radio telemetry, but until now it's been entirely unexplained. The explanation unites QM and SR."

If such waves are always emitted at c, observed at c, and received at c, whether or not they changed speed when unobserved is superfluous to the physics. I am not aware that there's something we don't understand of radio telemetry -- and I can't see, at any rate, how it has anything to do with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity.

"The only problem seems to be that mankind struggles badly to assimilate unfamiliar concepts, as you're still struggling now even after clear glimpses, Yes?"

As my wife reminds me from time to time, what seems obvious to me is not necessarily so to someone -- or anyone -- else.

"So does that now resolve the 'c wrt emitter' postulate conundrum?"

What conundrum? Photons are always emitted at the speed of light.

Tom

Tom,

"The mere term "space" does not imply boundaries. The Hilbert space is infinite dimensional."

Precisely. You misunderstood the words; "It's that very discretion of a 'space', implying boundaries, that is the entirely new concept."

It is ONLY the 'discretion' that implies the 'boundaries'. As I said, it's "ALL about the boundaries."

You then say; "just using the term "boundaries" does not produce a measured phenomenon." Oh dear, we regress! Yes, of course I know that Tom, which is why I focussed on the boundary mechanism, which is THE UNDERLYING MECHANISM which derives the LT and CSL.

Navier-Stokes then doesn't require an exact derivation, there is a ~25% turbulent 'quantum uncertainty' between A and B but we know the precise solution; Input A = 'local c'. and then also also output B = 'local c'. The deltas are to lambda and f. The mathematical model already exists, it is SR.

You suggest; "whether or not they changed speed when unobserved is superfluous to the physics."!! I suggest that view is precisely why we haven't been able to find the real underlying physical mechanisms beneath the theory. Theory assumes there is NO speed change, so we stay in ignorant bliss, and the "chasm" (Penrose) between quantum and classical physics remains.

What surprised me is your comment; "I am not aware that there's something we don't understand of radio telemetry" No, we understand the facts very well, we just can't resolve them with theory! (so for most they're swept under the carpet). Do you not recall from my essay the issues remaining from the IAU 2000 resolutions?; I quote again from USNO Circular 179;

"there is much unfinished business. The apparently familiar concept of

the ecliptic plane has not yet been defined in the context of relativity resolutions. A consistent relativistic theory of Earth rotation is still some years away;"

The 'ecliptic plane' definition is about explaining how the hell SR can explain the well known findings that the orbiting ECI and even rotating ECR frames are different, and both very much so from the Barycentric (Solar system frame). Let's be clear; SR CANNOT yet consistently explain that. The 'some years away' for a consistent theory was over 12 years ago it has NOT YET ARRIVED.

Or in fact it has, but like all major advances in science it is 'unfamiliar' so will 'first be ignored as it 'look wrong'' (Feynmans words). The Ecliptic plane problem is precisely resolved with the DFM, by the mechanism of wave-particle coupling at the ionosphere. But it can't even stick on Wiki so what chance a PRJ?

Your last point; "What conundrum? Photons are always emitted at the speed of light." That's fine, but have you now abandoned SR??; "Light propagates at c irrespective of the speed of the emitter"

The conundrum is; How can it do both? That is one of the apparently illogigal 2 postulates that Einstein set out to address. He did it mathematically, but well knew and long complained the underlying mechanism evaded him.

Finally, yes I understand the determinism issue. The core of my essay is about detection and delta lambda. I'll quote here from a draft paper re probablism etc;

"...The DFM has a quite different concept, where Hilbert spaces are themselves considered as inertial systems including 'matter', so also as rest frames but in relative motion within other Hilbert spaces. Uncertainty then ends at detection, (measurement), which itself both affects and determines the outcome so consistently resolving the issues."

You'll note the above also resolves 'The Measurement Problem' of QM. You probably need to slow down and consider a little more before you respond as most of your points so far are already answered. But do keep any fresh ones coming.

Thanks

Peter

PS send me your Email if you'd like a pdf of Circular 179.

"You probably need to slow down and consider a little more before you respond as most of your points so far are already answered."

You're right. One thing at a time: " ... the boundary mechanism, which is THE UNDERLYING MECHANISM which derives the LT and CSL."

What does that mean?

Tom

Tom,

There are a dozen ways to explain it, though obviously none already 'familiar'. I'll try a couple. It may however be time to re-read the essay and inspect the evidence as these things should now better emerge.

Take CSL as constant speed of light to all 'detectors' made of matter (we discard ones that aren't!). Anything made of matter has an assignable state of motion K, so represents and inertial system or frame.

Do stop here and think about that for as long as you wish, it has massive implications that need to wash over you and be absorbed!

Now 'Boundaries'; all matter has a fins structure electron surface layer, which increases with photoionization of incoming light as the body approaches the source. For a small body this is the Transition Zone known well for radio emitters, and from less than a micron upwards, (see also 'surface planmons'/charge etc etc.) for bigger bodies like galaxies it extends a few parsecs out, is more diffuse, and is called a 'dark matter halo'. They are most commonly found as 'inter...(planetary/galactic whatever)... shocks'.

Each is made up of dense ions, and these are in BOTH frames. They form the boundaries where em wave speed changes from c to c', the Doppler shift being the evidence.

The mechanism is almost too simple to believe; Compton/Raman 'up and down shifted' scattering, i.e. absorption at relative arrival speed, and re-emission at the local c of EACH particle in the n body boundary system. This process is fully physically equivalent to the Lorentz Transformation between inertial frames. It is a REAL quantum mechanism or 'process', giving the classical effects we call SR.

The most difficult part is probably to envisage the 'nested' frame within frame concept. However, if you revise 'Truth Functional Logic', and then substitute the word 'Frame' for 'Proposition', you will find the precise same 'hierarchical' structure, where all backgrounds are only LOCAL IMMEDIATE SURROUNDS, and there are infinitely many nested from each particle upwards. Each particle then gives the 'OTHER' CSL, 'continuous spontaneous localisation' to speed c.

It does take some thought!!

Peter

Peter,

"Anything made of matter has an assignable state of motion K, so represents (an) inertial system or frame."

Do stop here and think about that for as long as you wish, it has massive implications that need to wash over you and be absorbed!"

Massive implications, yes, if you intend a pun. It is not an assigned state of motion, however, that defines an inertial frame. An inertial frame is a state of relative rest; i.e., the standard by which one can determine that the relativity of motion applies in every observer frame of reference.

I have tried to explain that your framework, as you explain it, appears to invoke a privileged reference frame. One can't do this on one hand and preserve relativity on the other. Having already been thoroughly washed with "relativity soap" and rinsed in "spacetime water," I deeply understand this relation. If you mean something other than what your words convey to me, you have the benefit of the doubt -- you have to choose another way to explain it, however, if you wish me to absorb that meaning. As it stands, it doesn't wash.

Tom

  • [deleted]

  • Post #431

Peter,

"The mechanism is almost too simple to believe; Compton/Raman 'up and down shifted' scattering, i.e. absorption at relative arrival speed, and re-emission at the local c of EACH particle in the n body boundary system. This process is fully physically equivalent to the Lorentz Transformation between inertial frames. It is a REAL quantum mechanism or 'process', giving the classical effects we call SR."

Have you derived the 'Compton effect equation' using this model?

James Putnam

James,

My essay gives delta lambda, but I'm not sure if you mean derive conceptually or mathematically. Conceptually the model suggests the understanding of 'meaning' is incomplete, and a slightly different complete ontology is described. If you're familiar with the convention you should understand when I say; The maximum wave number in a hydrogen atom mass photon is modulated by the spin energy, which produces the limit of inelastic against elastic scattering, or the 'ionization energy.' Now spin energy is over twice 'orbital energy' for a good reason, which is topologocal and relates to a twin vortex or toroid. (remember my AGN model). But from the plank length and max wave number a direct connection to Lorentz Transformation emerges. Even a quick sketch will be complex and very unfamiliar, but you did ask!

The hyperbolic curve of the LT emerges as wavelength approaches the minimum set by good old Max, which inverts to gamma. Now take a look at the synchrotron frequency emitted by the virtual electrons (actually real!) propagated at the LHC as the bunches approach c. (see last years essay). It looks precisely like the LT curve!. This is also then analogous to 'Optical Breakdown' ion density, which is around 10^12/cm^-3. (see the nose of the space shuttle on re-entry - when em waves from the radio can't penetrate). Now we can revert straight back to e = mc^2 via the non reduced compton wavelength with the direct equivalence/connection from hc/lambda, and hf. See if you can fill ion squaring that circle. Note the fine structure constant also gains import, but I haven't yet found a sequence of mathematical expressions to accompany the meaning.

If it's just the mathematics you're after; if say h = 6.6 x 10^34 (Js), incident lambda 5.3 x 10^11m, for scattered lambda at angle theta, the solution to lambda plus (h/mc)(1-cos theta) reduces to 5.3 x 10^-11 + 0.41 x 10^-11 = 5.71 x 10^-11m.

If I were to sum all that up in a sentence; We get a delta lambda on transformation, up to the planck limit, the wave function is conserved, infinity vanishes and c' then = c, conserving causality.

Our biggest error? Not realising there is 'apparent speed' v+v as well as real propagation speed v. So the approaching space ship does look like its doing it's v + yours, but it's still really only doing v, and nothing has to 'contract' as there's no violation of CSL. (Can you find one????????.) If so do show me where.

I hope you can make some sense from that, but don't expect you to build a full picture from it. As I said, you did ask!

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #433

Peter,

"My essay gives delta lambda, but I'm not sure if you mean derive conceptually or mathematically."

"If it's just the mathematics you're after; if say h = 6.6 x 10^34 (Js), incident lambda 5.3 x 10^11m, for scattered lambda at angle theta, the solution to lambda plus (h/mc)(1-cos theta) reduces to 5.3 x 10^-11 0.41 x 10^-11 = 5.71 x 10^-11m."

I was asking for the mathematical derivation of the equation. I was asking about your derivation of the general form of the 'Compton-effect-equation' using your model as its basis. The calculation you give makes use of the equation, but, the general form of the equation was derived using Einstein's model.

Have you derived the general form of the Compton-effect-equation as the mathematical representation of the interaction of the photon and the particle of matter as described by your model?

James Putnam

Tom,

"It is not an assigned state of motion, however, that defines an inertial frame. An inertial frame is a state of relative rest;"

Precisely what I am saying, but you do need to take 3 steps back for a new, less familiar, 'overview' to see it; i.e. If we travel to body made of n particles of matter at rest relatively, and join them at rest, we are then in an assignable rest frame, which we can then assign a kinetic state K just as I proposed, and just as Einstein actually proposed. Lets say the matter forms a planet, We'll call it 'Earth'.

Now we could have chosen any of dozens of nearby bodies, it really didn't matter! (pun intended) all with separate assignable DIFFERENT rest frames K' upwards, so all with different relative v. But if we lived on one of those we'd be having the exact SAME conversation, and use the same laws! (unless it was the big one as we'd be toast!) Even if we were in a ship on the way there we'd be in an assignable frame.

Yes I know that is all entirely alien! (yes, pun..etc) that is he whole point of anything new, it MUST be alien!! So don't just reject it on beliefs and prior theory, analyse it just with cold logic. It is entirely consistent. Do the logic homework I set. The VERY STRUCTURE of truth propositional logic emerges. Each frame is physically discrete. Pauli's exclusion principle now has meaning, (and Boscovitch) no two BODIES can occupy the same spatial point, or MORE THAN ONE 'STATE OF MOTION!' K. Now we extend to Dynamic Logic; Inertial frames are REAL and 'interleaved' i.e. they cannot occupy the space of the adjacent leaf, but ONLY IMMEDIATE neighbours are relevant for the purposes of propagation speed (up to c). Motion in 'twice removed' frames may then APPEAR to be c+v, but nothing is.

But Tom, you revert AGAIN to "..appears to invoke a privileged reference frame. One can't do this on one hand and preserve relativity on the other." as if it is a 'default mode' each new time round!

I'll try it differently so it 'sticks' but it's up to you to do the 'sticking'! 'Background dependence' is precisely the same as 'privileged' frame, except that OUR privileged frames are NOT ABSOLUTE!!!!!!! It is only the 'Absolute' quality of the 3rd or 'privileged' frame that made it violate logic and SR. Take this to bed tonight; If we remove the 'absolute' nature of background frames, we can have as many as we wish with impunity. LOCAL REALITY LIVES! wavelength, and thus time 'periods' emitted in one frame Doppler shift on reaching another (any lens does it!) so CHANGE! I give you the great man's own words;

"...all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious."

He had the solution but just not completed, so stopping the causal laws he knew must exist, and unification with QM. This is what real 'discrete, bounded rest frames' provide. He was right, Bell was wrong.

If and when you DO get a grip on the logical resolution of preferred frames and hold on to it, do please remember how you did it so you can tell me! Over half of those who have grasped it well have lost it again a few days later as they didn't also 'wash away' the ingrained contradicting beliefs. Pictures work best with memory. I may need to get and learn an animation programme.

Peter

James,

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you'd seen my past comment that the DFM is not a 'replacement' for SR. Insofar as the meaning of the Compton equation is similar within the DFM ontology the equation is indeed derived a la Einstein. What it does is derive causal Relativity directly from an underlying Quantum Mechanism. So just a raft of more consistent interpretations, or the jigsaw puzzle done.

However, there is now a clarified and logical explanation of the postulates consistent with QM. But there are of course changes to interpretation, also more consistent with both observation and theory. For instance; Muons are NOT conserved between the upper and lower atmosphere. As in QM, muons only last 2.2ms, are absorbed on detection anyway, and even if possible to 'weak measure' them they decay (or rather 'transmorph') to the well know other particles as QED, (or rather 'multiple quantum states'). So the whole concept of conserved Muons was as much confused as conserved photons, removing much of the paradox.

We even find a crystal clear and logical derivation of Neutrino's emerging. They cannot be directly physically detected by interaction, but do go at apparent c+v without breaching SR! They are simply represented by the car coming the other way at 60mph. It is NOT 'propagating' at 60mph, but is doing 120 wrt you, or if you speed up to 70, it's doing 130!! But as soon as you interact with it, it's speed will change. He of most momentum then changes speed the least (representing elastic or inelastic scattering, or if v+v is too fast, decay to lower energy (smaller) particles.

As I explained in my abstract, the mists lift and a simple crystal clear ontology of all nature can then be found beneath the crud, with no paradoxes and anomalies. But it does NOT look like you first expect! (as predicted by the wise).

When I said you need to 'think differently' I was not being fatuous as you assumed. I do need help with falsification as it has proved impervious so far, condensing all muddy water into wine. So if you could suspend old beliefs and help test it by throwing rocks and problems at it I'd genuinely be grateful.

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #436

Peter,

"Insofar as the meaning of the Compton equation is similar within the DFM ontology the equation is indeed derived a la Einstein. What it does is derive causal Relativity directly from an underlying Quantum Mechanism."

The Einstein based derivation of the Compton-effect-equation requires that photons are received for absorption by a particle of matter at the same speed as that at which they are emitted. That speed is c for both circumstances, both coming and going, when measured from the reference frame of the particle. Your model is inconsistent with this circumstance. In order for you use the Compton-effect-equation, you must derive it based upon your own model. Can you derive it based upon your own model? The use of the equation in lieu of your own derivation confirms Einstein's model and contradicts your model.

James Putnam

James,

Ah yes, now I see what you're saying. No, the very instant the first 'tachyon' (relative c+v) wave peak 'touches' the electron (quantum states meet) it is converted to the local c (INelastic scattering). So when the second wave peak arrives it finds itself 'closer' to the first (all this when moving towards the source). This IS the Doppler shift mechanism of wavelength lambda in action.

The electron then only 'knows' the detected speed, which IS c!! Exactly like all our eye and detector lenses. No matter (sorry for that one!) or inertial system made of matter, can ever find anything other than c. Ergo the SR postulates!

What we've been doing wrong is not using the Doppler shift formula for wavelength on transit between to mediums, in the identical case of transit between the propagation medium and the 'detector medium'. We've just been simplistically assuming the frequency change 'does it all'. But it doesn't!

So Einstein was near enough, but Maxwell's work as modified by Heaviside with partial time derivatives just confused (couldn't transform), as lambda was considered invariant. It's the wave equation that's invariant (all as my formulae show). The genius bit there was however the near field 'transition zone', where (in current terms); 'surface plasmons' can interact with light', and "visible light can have X-ray wavelength"!!! - see if you or current theory can resolve that!

But thanks, it's excellent you flagged that up as I'd thought I'd got it across in the essay, but have checked and I'd pared it down to much to meet the word limit so I agree it wasn't entirely clear that Eddie & Penny themselves also only actually found c (it's in my main draft tome but I may now give it greater stress).

I forgot to mention, Tachyons are then imaginary 'geometrical' entities precisely equivalent to the cases described by Minkowski in 1908 as; "...cases with a velocity greater than that of light will henceforth play only some such part as that of figures with imaginary co-ordinates in geometry."

I really wasn't kidding about all the jigsaw puzzle pieces falling into place (though some seem to be from some other picture). I think they were right about science being all about "finding hidden likenesses."

Please do find the biggest toughy you can find to throw at it.

Thanks

Peter

PS, today I didn't look but still found another unexplained discovery explained by the DFM, the complex stellar production curve. I'll note it in a new thread below.

Birth rate crisis.

Cosmic star birth going ever lower. A pattern was predicted by a cosmic recycling model a few years ago, (and referred herein) evolved from the Discrete Field Model. DFM Cosmic Recycling Evidence This implied a high production rate in the first 2bn years reducing steadily to a trickle but with a small bulge at around z=1.7 corresponding with the maximum individual galaxy recycling rate some 6bn years ago correlating with a peak in AGN/qausar activity.

This precise and quite novel pattern has now been found, with production now at some 3% of the early peak, and no explanation offered from the apparent bulge, which has been considered as simply within wide error bars. The Gaussian tail off suggests less than 5% of star formation is still to come from now to eternity! Stellar birth rate drop shock. Unfortunately the full submitted PR paper with the detailed predictions and derivations was rejected by the reviewer seemingly as being too far from current theory, i.e accelerating inflation and the big bang. Hey ho. No change there it seems. Perhaps it's approaching time for a recycling!?

Is it me whose crazy or them? Do someone tell me if it's me.

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #439

Peter,

"Ah yes, now I see what you're saying. No, the very instant the first 'tachyon' (relative c+v) wave peak 'touches' the electron (quantum states meet) it is converted to the local c (INelastic scattering). So when the second wave peak arrives it finds itself 'closer' to the first (all this when moving towards the source). This IS the Doppler shift mechanism of wavelength lambda in action.

The electron then only 'knows' the detected speed, which IS c!! Exactly like all our eye and detector lenses. No matter (sorry for that one!) or inertial system made of matter, can ever find anything other than c. Ergo the SR postulates!"

The particle is not moving toward the source. Your new speed, as determined by the emitting particle of your model, could be higher or lower than the arriving speed. The derivation of the Compton-effect-equation uses a constant wavelength and constant speed of light for the arriving photon. The emitted photon will have a different wavelength. That difference is not due to Doppler effects. The difference is due to the change in energy of the particle. In your explanation above, the photon's energy will have increased immediately upon absorption. The energy of the emitted photon and the change in energy of the particle must then total the total energy, including your Doppler increase, of the arriving photon. The Compton-effect-equation uses the non-Dopplerized energy of the arriving photon. The equation will not balance for your model.

James Putnam

James,

I agree, viewed from that approach the equation wouldn't balance. It needs to be thought of differently, and the equations are shown to balance. We should probably start with the electron e, a high energy quanta with spin energy double any simple orbital angular momentum, so a 2-sphere envelope comprising a twin vortex torus would, for instance, work well. (Earth's magnetosphere and galaxy AGN's have similar forms). In non elastic scattering the e dominates the incoming photon amplitude (In fact we need to stop thinking of the photon as a 'particle', and just imagine the QM version, as a wave train or amplitude fluctuation distribution).

Now, the e experiences nothing of the outside world except what 'arrives' and then 'leaves'. The waves of a relatively weedy little photon are dominated by it, so whatever 'rate' they approach at (subject to relative propagation speeds) the speed IN the e is the same, c wrt e, so the wavelength lambda is not only dictated by the e but is the only one it 'knows!

Now to the re-emission. This is exactly the same process. The e does not know or care what happens after it re-emits each 'wave peak' at the only speed it knows (c wrt e) it doesn't care what happens to it, it just emits the next, and the next, at the same speed it 'absorbed' them at, which is still c wrt e.

Now the fact that that particular c 'after leaving' may NOT be the same as the c before arrival is no business of the electron (I call it the 'datum' for speed). which has no data on it. So, as far as the electron is concerned the accounts all balance perfectly. The emitted 'wave packet' will be more 'quantized' in amplitude, but just like the wave from a pebble in a pond, will spread again in time (Shrodinger sphere surface reduces by the ^3). That also wasn't all in the essay due to 'space' (lol).

Now step back yet again for overview and and consider; Nature does not wast effort. The whole point of the systems and the electrons job is to modulate c. All very simple. But one more touch of beauty in tidying loose ends;

What is true is that 'outside' the e lambda has changed, but of course frequency has also changed (in the propagation frame). The sums are then dead simple, and represent the Galilean Transformation, with 'gamma' growing towards optical breakdown frequency (NOT 'infinity'!) or minimum lambda (L). We then have;

Observed from at rest in the approaching frame; c = fL, electron frame; c' = f'L', then in the receding frame c" = f"L". That gives conservation of energy everywhere, the point of the whole business. Also remember, electrons are doing this job with all signals from all angles all at the same time!

Now if you are the observer and don't like undergoing all those accelerations to check actual propagation speed you can use apparent speeds from trigonometry and a calculator. Pick any state of motion. You'll find frequency appears to stay the same whatever the relative motion of the electron, so wave speeds 'appear' to vary. All you need do is add or subtract your own speed relative to the medium of propagation in each case and you will find the same REAL results as above.

Now the 'EM cross section' of plasma is virtually zero (it's 'dark') so the only giveaway is the kinetic effect. See the Emsellem et al formula in my essay. That's how we work out galaxy rotation speeds. Lateral motion and harmonic resonance must also rotat the wave charge density axis, so give tiny rotations of optical axis. This would provide the same effect we find and have many names for; i.e. 'stellar aberration, 'curved space time', 'refraction', 'diffraction', etc, all subject to local particle density, so very gradual in diffuse media such as space, but pretty instant in dense dielectrics such as glass (prisms). Faraday rotation of polarity, also not previously explained, is an accompanying consequential effect. (That's all just one bit near the middle of the jigsaw puzzle).

I know that's a lot to absorb (I must stop the puns!) but it does all matter!

Peter