Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

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

Eckard,

Thank you kindly. I've read your M&M notes and agree some of the fundamentals, also Cahill's wrong assumptions, but I have identified a number of additional factors and effects in a paper due out about now in the 2012 Hadronic journal.

The reflection aberration is reasonably simply explained in terms of 'kinetic reverse refraction', where Snell's law is violated, from surface plasmon resonance as a continuous spontaneous localisation from the approach to the medium frame and back, so implementing reflection at c wrt the vacuum NOT the mirror, as always found experimentally but never understood.

An explanation for the small but non zero positive result is also found. In a nutshell; the atmosphere is dragged with the rotating Earth, but the non rotating ECI (ionspheric) frame waves are not quite extinguished by the time they reach the surface of the Earth (this also explains the birefringence found). This is what causes the scintillation of starlight and probe telemetry. In fact it's a little more complex than that, as the Alfven waves in the ionosphere are quite inconsistent so often we find birefringence, or three propagation axis, in the atmosphere. The effects are tiny so have been written off as 'atmospheric' effects in explaining the reasons the IAU had for giving up on the 'aberration constant' in 2000.

Other effects also seemingly ignored in most interferometers are the reflection and refraction time delays. Count the number of 'crossing' on each path and you'll find the paths are asymmetric. Now try to find how they set up the fringes in the first place to ensure they weren't already overlapping by a fringe or three. They could not! I've detected that this was why the Michelson Gale Pearson 1925 experiment contradicted his others and found moving ether. LIGO's are now far more sensitive, don't have the same problem, and don't find the same result.

The ontology I have seems to be the only one that resolves ALL the difficult questions at once. I hope to have a link for the paper shortly. Can we post pdf's here or just links?

Commiserations with you too on being overlooked. it seems anyone criticising an absolute belief in current use of mathematics is, lets say; 'left to one side'. I think it'd be a shame if John Templeton's special ethos is continuously eroded and lost for good to the false god of kudos.

Best wishes. Let me know if there's a place to load files to and I'll do so.

Peter

James,

My starting point was purely deriving a common logic to SR and QM, which is where Einstein left off. Once a consistent kinetic ontology emerged everything else just kept flowing out.

Your photon question does have some assumptions, i.e. an 'entity' hitting another, wearas it works better with the 'entity as a 'trigger energy' built up over non zero time (as Planks loading theory, Constantinos Regazzas, Eric Reiter etc) but none the less it is still a 'photon' of energy acting on the electron. In the case we're considering the electron doesn't move, and the same energy is emitted as received (and a million times a second from all directions at once remember!).

The 'approach' is NOT necessarily at relative c, the emission IS, and the lambda/frequency delta is the result. E and c are thus conserved. Very simple mathematically because f is the inverse of lambda. Look to my essay and the end notes for the terms.

Ions (i.e. free electrons) behave very differently to bound particles, molecular gas etc. They self focus. It's called in optics 'coherent forward scattering', and has zero detectable EM 'section' as normally no change occurs. (Ergo 'dark' matter.). Only if the electron is in motion wrt the arrival frame does the effect become detectable. In macro terms (detecting galaxy rotation speeds via spectroscopy) the term used is; λR ≡ (R |V |)/(R√V2 σ2) but you'd need to chase down the full papers to decypher it; Emsellem, E., et al., MNRAS 379 401-417. 2007. Emsellem, E., et al., Atlas 3D. MNRAS 414 2. 888-912. June, 2011. Try here; Sauron publications. Also see my post to Jonathon on Ben's blog. It is an 'averaging' process, so no precise calculation works any better than the Navier- Stokes limit. Ergo- 'Quantum uncertainty' as simply massive complexity.

Put another way, each electron may have a slightly different state of motion. 'Scintillation' results (and the ~5% fluctuation of the aberration 'constant').

Energy is still of course conserved in the overall sense. J D Jackson was close conceptually in the 1970's using a cube with I think 10^16 particles in it, then multiplied up. But with 'matter' it is mainly a surface effect, (electron plasmons, Kerr, static electricity, Maxwells TZ etc.- up to optical breakdown electron density at high velocities) with annihilation lengths within 1micron for light - excess energy is then released as heat conserving the total.

I hope that covers enough of conservation at interaction?

Peter

Eckard,

Do you consider that when an emitter emits a signal, taking a certain time to do so, and the emissions travel across space and through media, that that signal represents 'time' itself?

It is that signal that is assumed as a 'space-time period. The DFM simply states it is non commutative. i.e. that when it is met by an detector in a different state of motion, the period of time it takes to pass by (propagate) in the detector medium frame will change. This demonstrates that because all local atomic scattering is at c, then c is co-variant.

The signal emitted in the other frame will then be measured as contracted or dilated when using an identical clock in the new (invariant) frame.

I'm now off on an experiment. I've just had a whirlwind romance and am off across the Atlantic to catch up with time, to end up in Cancun Mexhico via JFK. My prediction is that my watch will not slow down on the way, and that 'time' will also not slow down, but that I WILL have to wind my watch back one way, and then forward the other. Also, as I approach JFK at 700kts, the one second light flashes will appear a little quicker - so contracted (with the same wavenumber so contracted lambda). Yet those emitted from the cockpit door in the plane will NOT be contracted! The whole plane then represents an inertial system.

If not the case, then I have at last proved my thesis certainly wrong! Would you predict a different outcome to that of the DFM?

I even venture that on the return journey the signal from JFK will be 'dilated'.

Do think about the above emission case, as it's not the assumption made by Einstein, and I can't logically falsify it empirically, so please do so if you can.

I hope you have a nice Christmas.

Peter

Eckard,

You said; "A process proceeds even if it is not receiving any signal." Of course I agree, but that is not the important question asked. I'll put it another way;

You are on the space station and a short signal pulse of laser light from Earth passes by 1km in the distance. You are told the emission was z picoseconds (ps) long. You measure it's length in two ways; with a clock (as the start and end of the pulse pass a fixed star) and also by recording it's full length with a precise camera. You can then calculate it's speed. OK?

Now another pulse approaches, but imagine a large glass cube (n=1.5) moving rapidly towards the signal source, so the signal pulse enters the cube and, propagates through it as you again record the pulse length and speed.

If the x ps signal itself represented the TIME 'z' ps, you would always find c. I suggest however that it does NOT, and that once emitted, the evidence of the emission time can be 'tampered with'. In the case of the glass cube, the light in the cube will slow to ~ 2/3rds it's previous speed, so the pulse will be compresses by 1/3.

However; As the cube will have moved between the start and finish point of the pulse entering it, the pulse length will be compressed even more. THIS then is the Doppler shift due to motion of the receiver. (which is of course additional to the 'static' Doppler shift purely due to medium refractive index n). The equation is of course well known.

Now, the secondary light from the cube to your instruments of course does 'c' over the 1km, so nothing breaches c. Yet the light pulse propagating in the cube moving at v APPEARS to do c +/- v, because it is only an 'apparent' speed from secondary evidence.

If the cube is replaced by a fast moving space shuttle, the shuttle occupants will tell you that the light pulse time WITHIN the shuttle confirms that it is propagating at c (or in fact c/n) locally in the shuttle.

Now if you think all that through very carefully you should find that it not only consistent will ALL experimental findings but (putting 'relativity' aside) is also entirely intuitive. If not so please now re-read carefully to ensure you have understood, and start drafting your reply, telling me precisely where and how you think it is wrong scientifically. If it was all ok then do please make a mental note of that fact and continue.

Although no flaw exists, the scenario will confuse most, because it will not fit into the 'network structure' constructed in the neural networks by previous theory. It then proves almost impossible to assimilate 'as a whole' and remember, or indeed see the consequences of. This causes the 'denial' alarm to sound throughout the neural system. However true, the scenario and 'mental note' will be rejected by any not aware of the faults in the neural system. I suggest this process is the real reason why science struggles to progress. Only once the scenario is 'installed' can it's truth and consequences be confirmed and found.

Peter

Paul,

If you read my reply to Eckard a little more carefully you may find an important point you have missed. You shouldn't be concerned to have done so as you are in the majority. You may yet still not escape that majority, but here is the opportunity;

In our detached observer scenario, Where we have always only recognised ONE factor slowing down the 'apparent' propagation speed (the 'impedence' as you put it), I am identifying that there is a SECOND independent factor.

Consider our observer watching TWO space shuttles A and B, both 1km away, A at rest, and B moving past A at velocity v towards the light pulse source. (Let's use twin side by side pulses so A and B don't collide!) We can see through the windows as the short pulses move through the cabins.

Now we first consider shuttle B, moving at v. You have correctly agreed that as the light enters the shuttle it is compressed in proportion to the motion of B (whether wave peaks or photons is irrelevant). Now we switch (intentionally!) to the crew of shuttle B, who, we will agree, find that light compressed because it has slowed to now propagate at c/n through the air in THEIR FRAME 'B'.

Now let's return to our original observer frame and look back at the shuttle. We of course see the progress of the light pulse apparently slowed, to c/n - v where the occupants of B find it doing c/n! Picture these logical dynamic observations in your mind and play them through as you re-read it to ensure they are embedded.

Now as B disappears we look at Shuttle A, remaining at rest (in our frame). As we watch the light hits its thick glass windscreen it is, as you say, slowed down. But hang on, stop and think more deeply. The shuttle IS NOT 'MOVING'! so the speed change is purely due to the refractive index n of the glass, then the n of the air.

This 'slow down' is, as above, ALSO do the the shuttle impeding the pulse, but this time it is only related to n, (as relative v is zero). This is an entirely independent factor. Both factors are well known, but normally confused and thought of as one.

The implications?; all the confusion and paradox of SR unravels. Unfortunately due to 'pre-programming' of the brain it seems that an IQ of somewhere around 200 may be needed to unravel the two elements and embed them separately into the neural network. You previously failed, and will need to 'let go' of your current 'knowledge' to grasp the new realization, but please do try it again.

Best of luck.

Peter

Paul, Eckard, et al.

Yes Paul, as predicted. Maybe Eckard/others may find another result. Wittgenstein's final thesis of the relevant importance of logic's truth values v preconception & viewpoint seems to be verified.

Happy and enlightening new year.

Peter

Paul,

OK I'll elucidate, just once more. But if you remain unwilling to release your grip on your 'starting assumptions' its unlikely you'll be able to properly assess any others.

There's inadequate room to identify 'what is wrong' and explain why. It may be more helpful to identify the lines that are correct, which are as follows;

"I am not sure that the relative speed at which this is moving wrt light pulkse has any physical effect (strictly speaking I do not know)." ..and;

"I am not sure that the speed of the glass wrt light pulse makes any difference to that physical effect. If it does then that needs to be factored in."

Indeed it does Paul. The speed of light through glass of n=1.55 is 120,000 miles/sec. That number is a constant. It does not matter what 'state of motion' the glass is in with respect to ANYTHING else. To make the consequences easier to visualise lets double glaze the windscreen and fill the gap with Bose-Einstein condensate (very high 'n') so it takes 2 seconds for light to traverse the windscreen, (wheron it returns to speed c/n wrt the air in the cabin - i.e. the local 'frame').

During that 2 seconds shuttle B is of course moving at velocity v wrt shuttle A and wrt our distant (~perpendicular) observer (let's say v = 0.5 miles/sec).

Now both shuttles are identical, so any 'obstruction' effect due solely to the refractive index n of the shuttle windscreen and air will be identical.

But the shocking and so far completely unrecognised truth is that there is another, independent factor, affecting wavelength in moving shuttle B and 'delaying' the light pulse passing through it compared to the pulse passing through A.

I won't try to explain what it is, see if you can tell me.

Peter

Eckard,

I answered your question above, but re 'local frames' you also asked;

"Did you suggest three local frames: Earth, sun, and milky-way galaxy? If so, were Shtyrkov and others wrong concerning measured aberration?"

But firstly; The DFM's 'propagation' axiom agrees with your 'engineer's point of view", up to the point of impact of the first wave peak with the detector. But tell me, can a detector derive a frequency from one wave?

I propose not. I also axiomise that detectors must be made of matter, and include a processor to derive frequency from the time (in the DETECTOR frame) between two waves interacting. We then assume that the job is complete and we understand all that we need to. I suggest not. We certainly have a frequency, and then make an assumption about speed ignoring the distance between waves; lambda (in the constant c = f*lambda). But the TIME used is in the new frame, NOT the approach frame, and as all waves will be absorbed into all media, there is also a lambda in the NEW frame we can draw on. The result of this would be local CSL for all observers. The fact that this mechanism is entirely unfamiliar makes no negative contribution to it's logical truth value. But as we are Human not Vulcan we have not yet assimilated that.

Back to frames. The full(ish) hierarchy of local frame steps is; ECRF (Rotating & orbiting) ECI frame (orbiting only i.e. magneto/iono/plamasphere), Solar wind (radial in below;), Barycentric Frame (Solar System) [slightly different to Heliocentric, plus various virial radii shock frames out to the heliosheath shock], Local Galactic arm frame (orbiting galactic nucleus GN), Galaxy frame (at rest with GN - rotating in 'lockstep'). Various virial radii frames out into the halo (rotational speed steps), Local Group frame, Local Cluster frame. etc..

We discussed Shtyrkov some time ago and I went into some detail of the implications, which ironed out the remaining inconsistencies in his thesis (though to minimise confusion I simplified the above sequence). The inconsistencies of Gezari's lunar ranging analysis are also removed by including both the ECI and ECRF along with the small local moon centred frame. We must remember that extinction is not completed for some distance in diffuse media, explaining atmospheric birefringence, scintillation etc, and the reason Dayton Miller 'bizzarely' found reducing aberration at higher altitudes. This 'nested' hierarchical system follows the pattern of truth propositional logic, where only the next adjacent proposition is relevant.

To complete the full derivation of stellar aberration then just needs the 'asymmetry of charge' on wave particle interaction giving the rotation of re-emission axis due to lateral particle motion, precisely as found and quantified in the phenomena of 'Kinetic Reverse Refraction', itself not yet assimilated into current interpretation (all as discussed in my essay, but rather abridged). The rotation is at each particle, deflecting the 'observed position' away from the causal wavefront plane, as proved the case by the 'invisibility optics' experiments cited.

Peter