Recognising Top-Down Causation by George F. R. Ellis

Once again, why G and c not fundamental.

Because in the same space - time they vary synchronously, but in Planck units of length and Planck unit of time they have different dependencies, and therefore none of them are true.

My approach close to John moffat proposal a variable speed of light approach to cosmological problems, which posits that G/c is constant through time, but G and c separately have not been. Moreover, the speed of light c may have been much higher during early moments of the Big Bang.

You might not think John serious scholar?

Then another thing ..

Quote from http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0305099v2.pdf

"By contrast, the theories of Bekenstein [46], Clayton and Moffat [47], and Bassett et al. [48] are genuine bimetric theories...."

O.K.

In my approach in duration cosmological time

Appendix 2 Cosmological values of mass

Mp =10^-24; 10^-24; 10^-24

Me =10^-28; 10^-28; 10^-28

Mpl=10^-4; 10^-4; 10^-4

Mhbl=10^16; 10^16; 10^16

See Scale invariance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance

Scaling law has not been canceled.

See also http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1554

Scaling Laws in Particle Physics and Astrophysics

I am also used George Gamov idea

G. G a m о w, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 759 (1967). е2 ~ t.

Dear George,

I've already read some of your paper, f.e. the prize-winning essay --Is the Universe expanding?-- I think it touches a deeper truth that is still unrecognized.

I think, too, that your issue of the top-down-causation is indeed a key missing element in current physics. You explicitly mentioned boundary conditions in cosmology as such a top-down-effect, in particular Mach's principle.

I investigated the possible physical meaning of TRANSCENDENCE and discovered that it implies a specific set of boundary conditions at infinity.

According to this set there must be a COINCIDENCE at the outmost edgde of the universe, otherwise the transcendence of the ONE would not be secured. That's the basic idea behind this approach: How must the physical Universe look like if its foundation (i.e. the ONE) shall not be describable or detectable in any way?

Actually, this demand though sounding paradoxical is higly restrictive with respect to the observable universe, but no one discussed it seriously, because Metaphysics is still a taboo in modern physics.

However, the predicted empirical coincidence could actually be found at the edge of our (!) universe. It is known as MACH0. Surprisingly this observational fact represents an ANOMALY within modern physics that cannot yet be explained convincingly. To my opinion it is - to make use of an Einsteinian metaphor - a Signature of GOD inside our universe. Or more generally, metaphysics is a promising top-down-approach.

In my FQXI-Paper 2009 I have sketched this approach: TAMING OF THE ONE.

see: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/502

Kind Regards

Helmut

Dear George,

I cannot understand why you show so much hostility to my involvement in the discussion.

I have explained to you that I have no problem with the 'tightly integrated package' of experimentally verified phenomena you mentioned. So what is the "debate" over relativity that you are talking of?

What I was proposing to discuss with you in my previous post was that another well known RELATIVISTIC EFFECT gets superposed on the 'Top Down' causation to augment the Galilean transformation to the Lorentz transformation.

This well known relativistic effect is that when a quantity of energy breaks up into two parts (like a photon forming a electron and a positron in pair production) the sum of the energy of the products is greater than initial quantity of energy; and in the reverse case of two quantities of energy fusing together, it is found that the fused product is less than the sum of the two original quantities.

I had already shown in my previous post to you that as Einstein envisaged, the same general principle (Top Down Causation) underlies the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile also governs the LT (upto the level of GT).

Then this latter relativistic effect gets superposed on the Top Down. In my paper

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

I have shown by figures 1C and 1D, how the above relativistic effect of having the sum of the parts to be greater than the whole occurs.

(I attach an extract of it separately for easy reference).

Accordingly, when the energy of motion p'c = Mvc fissions out into the two parts - Mvc (u/c) and Mvc (1-u/c) under the Top Down causation, these two parts get simultaneously augmented by the factor gamma = 1/(1- u2/c2)1/2 by the other principle as explained in my essay.

Here is an extract:

"Hence the energy of motion momentaneously inflates to gamma.(Mvc), by drawing energy from the field, just at the instant of fission, and thereby the two parts become gamma.Mvc(1-u/c) and gamma.Mvc(u/c) where gamma = (1-u2/c2)-1/2. With the latter component, the system co-moves with the earth's centre. And what it is left remaining available to move relative to the earth is the former component gamma.Mvc(1-u/c). From above, the velocity that corresponds to energy gamma.Mvc(1-u/c) is v' = gamma.v(1-u/c)

The displacement that corresponds to this velocity is x'=v't= gamma.v(1-u/c)t. (Let x = vt)

Then the general equation of motion of a particle x' = gamma.(x- ut.v/c).

This equation is universally valid for all velocities 0< v < c , unlike Lorentz Transformation. We may call this equation as the "GDE Transformation" as opposed to Lorentz transformation.

At "classical velocities" when v 0, gamma=1, then x'->x = vt as in Newtonian mechanics and at "relativistic velocities": when v -> c v/c -> 1. Then the general equation of motion of a particle

x' = gamma(x- ut.v/c) -> gamma.(x -ut) Lorentz transformation as in SRT.

It will now be clear that it is this modified version (which is only applicable to the restricted case v ->c) of the general equation, is what has been recognized as the "Lorentz-transformation".

QED.

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: FUSION_AND_FISSION_INTERACTIONS_OF_ENERGY.doc

Please note that in the above post the last part has not come out clearly.

It should read as:

At "classical velocities" when v is very much smaller than c, as v/c tends to 0, gamma tends to 1 ,

then x' -> x = vt as in Newtonian mechanics and

at "relativistic velocities": when v -> c v/c -> 1, then the general equation of motion of a particle becomes:

x' = gamma(x- ut.v/c) -> gamma(x -ut) Lorentz transformation as in SRT.

It will now be clear that it is this modified version (which is only applicable to the restricted case v ->c) of the general equation, is what has been recognized as the "Lorentz-transformation".

QED.

Dear George Ellis,

If someone is persistent then she or he may be stupid or correct. I am hesitating to assume anybody stupid.

Being an old EE, I cannot confirm that the Lorentz transformation "is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators". Well, Maxwell's equations were made Lorentz invariant because Michelson failed to detect the medium in which light propagates as a wave.

I gave you hints to belonging papers by Phipps Jr.

Didn't you read them?

You might judge yourself the appropriateness of statements like: "This relation is tested millions of times every day by the way standard electrical equipment operates."

What about binding energies, I am quoting your whole section 5.2.3 Binding energies:

"When there are such extra terms in the interaction, this will result in changes in energies. A crucial example is nuclear binding energies, the cost of putting emergent nuclear structures together, which can be reclaimed on dismantling the structure. These energies would not be there if the structure (a nucleus) was not there, so it is a direct result of the existence of the higher level structure, nucleons on their own have no such energy term. Molecular binding energies are another example, of crucial importance in chemistry."

This reminds me of making negative (differential) resistance an issue.

Sincerely,

Eckard Blumschein

Dear George Ellis,

May I kindly suggest to you for the third time, please read "On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations" in Physics Essays, vol.6, number 2, 1993 and also subsequent papers by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.?

My own knowledge is limited because I was just pointed to the matter by discussions here at fqxi. Nonethelees, I did my best reading and understanding the many belonging textbooks and original papers which were available to me. Unfortunately, I did not manage getting your "Flat and Curved Spacetime".

While your argumentation is understandable, it is incomplete according to Wikipedia:

As early as 1877, while still serving as an officer in the United States Navy, Michelson started planning a refinement of the rotating-mirror method of Léon Foucault for measuring the speed of light, using improved optics and a longer baseline. He conducted some preliminary measurements using largely improvised equipment in 1878. At Helmholtz's laboratory in Berlin Michelson designed and built a fundamental experiment. He had in mind a new sort of interferometer, sensitive enough to measure the second-order effects depending on the velocity of the earth's motion through the ether--that odd, stiff fluid which physicists of the day required as a medium to carry the vibrations of light. Michelson got a null result, and was disappointed. He felt that he had failed to measure the ether. Strictly speaking, the experiments were performed in Potsdam near Berlin because Berlin was too noisy. While the result was published in America in 1881, the European community was certainly earlier aware of it. If I recall correctly Stachel mentioned that Maxwell was skeptical.

The four modern Maxwell's equations can be found individually throughout his 1861 paper, derived theoretically using a molecular vortex model of Michael Faraday's "lines of force" and in conjunction with the experimental result of Weber and Kohlrausch. But it wasn't until 1884 that Oliver Heaviside, concurrently with similar work by Willard Gibbs and Heinrich Hertz, grouped the four together into a distinct set. This group of four equations was known variously as the Hertz-Heaviside equations and the Maxwell-Hertz equations, and are sometimes still known as the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.

Heaviside's notation is still used today. Other important contributions to Maxwell's theory were made by George FitzGerald, Joseph John Thomson, John Henry Poynting, Hendrik Lorentz, and Joseph Larmor.

Both Larmor (1897) and Lorentz (1899, 1904) derived the Lorentz transformation (so named by Henri Poincaré) as one under which Maxwell's equations were invariant.

In the usual formulation Maxwell's equations, their consistency with special relativity is not obvious; it can only be proven by a laborious calculation that involves a seemingly miraculous cancellation of different terms.

It is often useful to rewrite Maxwell's equations in a way that is "manifestly covariant"--i.e. obviously consistent with special relativity, even with just a glance at the equations--using covariant and contravariant four-vectors and tensors.

I assume, you do not like continuing the debate here. More than 400 postings are perhaps already too much.

If you have anything to add, I consider 1364 a more appropriate place because I claim having made Michelson's mistake obvious and hence the block-univere inapt.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reveal widespread mistakes.

Sincerely,

Eckard Blumschein