Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

See me pretty helpless looking for something that could explain to an old EE like me which of the models of particles and waves may be already the correct ones. I am simply not in position to trust in presumably rather premature intuitions. I naively guess that particles are not at all directly observable. Aren't only their effects evident?

While I still like the idea that photons like phonons are merely fictions, neither Duda nor someone else seems to already offer mature models of elementary waves. To my layman-knowledge, solitons are not necessarily elementary waves but just stable during propagation solutions of differential equations. Thank you nonetheless for your highly appreciated effort to explain me a lot.

Best,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #104

Eckard,

You wrote: "Feist should have measured a factor 1.005. He actually measured 1.010 ±0.0005 which would fully compensate the apparent length contraction in the direction of motion. In other words, Michelson's null result was to be expected if Feist's measurement was correct and the two experiments were comparable to each other."

Please elaborate. For instance: If Feist's measurement was correct and the two experiments were comparable to each other, light propagates in ether just like sound propagates in air (the analogy is straightforward). So the speed of both sound and light, as measured by the observer, is independendent of the speed of the source but varies with the speed of the observer.

Is that what you mean, Eckard?

Pentcho

Pentcho,

The speed of a wave relates to the medium in which it propagates. Feist's experiment and the MMX can be plausibly explained by careful reasoning.

Hence there is at least the possibility that the whole Fitzgerald/Lorentz/Einstein explanations were misleading.

Not even the speed of a moving car relates to the perception of an observer. Of course, in case of a crash, the velocity between the two bodies matters. However, it is not reasonable to ascribe a possibility to measure the speed of a wave or the speed of a car to an observer. Christian Doppler correctly calculated how the relative motion changes e.g. an apparent frequency.

In case of a body, the speed of the emitter re a reference matters. In case of a wave, the constant speed re medium does not necessarily depend on the emitter.

Let me clearly separate two possible mistakes. If I am correct then the first was the presumably wrong expectation by Michelson which led to unjustified speculations. The second was Einstein's stunning mathematical alternative to Lorentz' attempts for explaining the actually unexplainable because fallacious "fact" of length contraction by Einstein.

Eckard

For the observation or evidence of negative mass(energy)

In 1998, an observation by both the HSS team and SCP team obtained a negative mass density from inspected field equations over 70years.(field eq. has a Lamda=0)

SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M= - 0.4(±0.1)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 7P

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M = - 0.38(±0.22)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 14P

However, the two teams which judged that negative mass and negative energy level could not exist in our universe based on "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" and they instead revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

We must to know that not the equation has disposed the value, but our thought disposed the value.

Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant Lamda, but the current result of calculation shows 10120, which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

However, if "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" does not occur, and thus negative and positive mass can coexist, what would happen?

It is well known that a cosmological constant can respond to the negative mass density.

peff = -Lamda/4piG

Lamda is positive, so peff is negative.

Please view to my article and simulation video

Hi Hyoyoung Choi,

According to your bio, you might have the chance to perform scientific work for many decades to come.

Good luck,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #109

Eckard,

Hi. Good essay! I like your ideas about how the abstract/ideal doesn't necessarily correspond to reality and about time and points. My comments are:

1. On time, I think that there is no independent thing called time. All time is is a sequence of events that physically existent states go through. If there were absolutely no motion in any existent state in the universe, there would be no time, IMHO. For people that claim that time is a real thing, independent of matter, energy and motion, I'd say: Show me where this "time" is. Point it out. This reasoning also implies that in reality there is no ability to reverse the direction of time. Even if events were to run in the exact opposite sequence (Z to A) that they had been running in (A to Z) , while this may mathematically seem like time running in reverse, in reality, I'd say that time is still running forward because the events in the sequence Z-to-A occur after the events in A-to-Z. Time is just a sequence of physical events. I think this is what you were getting at in your essay if I understood it correctly?

2. On points, I agree that a "point" is not a physical possibility. It seems to me that any state which has one or more of its dimensions as zero (not just approaching zero, but actually zero) cannot exist in reality. This is the problem with infinitesimals. While they're useful in the abstract, if one can never reach the boundaries of an infinitesimal amount (ie, it's always just a little bit smaller), I don't think it exists, at least in our numerical dimension.

Anyways, good essay. Thanks.

    Dear Roger (Granet?),

    Your style is different from Roger Schlafly's from whom I am expecting an answer. Perhaps you are also not Roger Pink who used to sign Roger below his posts.

    You are questioning that the size of an infinite set is the same as the size of an infinite subset derived from it. While Dedekind did not use the notion set, he published this definition of infinity, and Peirce was proud of having found it independently. They "corrected" the old Euclidean tenet that the whole is larger than its parts and ignored Galileo Galilei who logically correct inferred that the quantifying relations are not applicable for the property to be infinite even if Galileo inconsequently still spoke of infinite "quantities". Any genuine in logical sense quantity is discrete in principle and therefore exhaustible. It does not have the properties of being endlessly extended and endlessly divisible. The mathematicians preferred to deviate from this logics.

    When you imagine a series of subsequent states, then you are sharing the view you are denying. As an EE, I prefer to consider elapsed time as continuous.

    Dedekind was certainly correct when he ascribe little importance to such sophisticated questions.

    Did you realize that my essay also includes a not yet refuted argument against the MMX interpretation since 1887 as the only basis of Lorentz invariance, SR and all that?

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #111

    Thank you Eckard!

    Have a nice day!

    --- Hyoyoung Choi

    • [deleted]

    • Post #112

    Eckard,

    The following argument of yours, which is not even wrong, introduces irreversible confusion in our discussion:

    You wrote (Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT): "Not even the speed of a moving car relates to the perception of an observer. Of course, in case of a crash, the velocity between the two bodies matters. However, it is not reasonable to ascribe a possibility to measure the speed of a wave or the speed of a car to an observer. Christian Doppler correctly calculated how the relative motion changes e.g. an apparent frequency. In case of a body, the speed of the emitter re a reference matters. In case of a wave, the constant speed re medium does not necessarily depend on the emitter."

    Pentcho Valev

      • [deleted]

      • Post #113

      Pentcho,

      You seem to intend detracting from the MMX issue. Of course, emission theory relies on it. May we infer that you are unable to explain Feist's measurement?

      I consider what you called "irreversible confusion" just a secondary mistake introduced by Albert Einstein when he postulated that the speed of light is constant without directly specifying what it refers to. He merely excluded the possibility that it depends on the emitter, and by misusing Poincaré's still correct observer-related synchronization he created individual realities of each observer or its inertial system, respectively. I expected Georgina Parrey to clarify: There is only one objective reality and only one true past.

      What does confuse you? Is there at all the possibility that a confusion can never be resolved?

      Eckard

      Dear Eckard,

      I like your excellent essay and appreciate your viewpoint. I wish you good luck in the contest.

      As you know, our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

      In order to ensure fair play in this selection, each participants in this contest should select about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next they should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual, if time permits. If all the participants rate at least 100 essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group will certainly get mitigated.

      You may rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

      Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

      Best Regards

      G S Sandhu

        Dear G S Sandhu,

        I apologize for not yet having checked your proposals for experiments because I was unable to open the files. I just wonder why you wrote: "When two clocks A and B are

        synchronized through a GPS satellite in common view mode, their synchronization is effectively equivalent to e-synchronization." I consider Van Flandern correct when he called Einstein-synchronization a de-synchronization. This adopted from Poincaré method is only correct as long as A and B do not move relative to each other. It introduces an unrealistic observer-related view of reality. True simultaneity of events belongs to the objective reality of the objects where they happen, not to an observer who has merely a delayed picture from them.

        Well, there are many strong arguments indicating that SR is wrong. What alternative theory do you favor? I didn't find the words Lorentz and Michelson in your essay.

        Sapere aude gives: Phipps Jr. Dr. Thomas E., Urbana IL 61801, USA.

        Best,

        Eckard

        • [deleted]

        • Post #116

        Eckard,

        The only speed both relativists and antirelativists care about is "the speed of light relative to the observer". Einstein did not have to specify what the speed of light referred to because that was obvious. If he had known that you would blaim him in 2012, he would have written:

        http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

        "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which, AS JUDGED BY THE OBSERVER/RECEIVER, is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

        Pentcho Valev

        • [deleted]

        • Post #117

        Initially the observer is stationary relative to the light source. In his frame the frequency, speed of light and wavelength are f, c and L:

        f = c/L

        Then the observer starts moving with speed v towards the source and if v is low enough relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency he measures becomes:

        f' = (c+v)/L

        If c' and L' are the speed of light and wavelength in the frame of the moving observer, we have:

        f' = c'/L'

        and the crucial questions are:

        c' = ? ; L' = ?

        Pentcho Valev

        Pentcho,

        Meanwhile Einstein's mistakes are almost as boring to me as your refusal to accept that the emission theory is wrong although Newton, Laplace, and Biot were proponents of it. Nonetheless, I used the search function in the Fermilab translation you provided to me and found out:

        You added "AS JUDGED BY THE OBSERVER/RECEIVER", and Einstein wrote (only once) elsewhere "velocity seen by the observer".

        Who receives a wave without any further information cannot at all judge c and L. He can only measure a frequency. This holds for electromagnetic as well as for acoustic waves.

        Again: I am already questioning the interpretation of the MMX.

        Eckard

        Dear Eckard,

        We agree on the power of math to distort physical reality. And you have been a consistent voice in these blogs on the limitations of math as applied to physics. I have made a reference to your views on this in my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics".

        Since the beginnings of my participation in these forums I have come to respect and rely on your thoughts and ideas. And on your support. I ask you to read my essay and share with me your thoughts on the arguments and mathematical derivations I make in it. Especially my proof of the proposition, "if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave". This, together with Maxwells result, "if light is a wave, then the speed of light is constant" seems to conclusively argue light is a wave, and not a 'particle photon'. And this naturally infers the existence of a 'propagating medium' and the necessity for CSL independent of the 'source' and the 'observer' (if we consider that the speed of light can only be measured 'locally' to the medium of propagation).

        A point of interest. Eric Reiter in his essay, "A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory", has presented experimental evidence for my 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy' idea. This played a crucial role in my explanation of the double-slit experiment, if you recall! You may be interested in reading about it.

        Best wishes,

        Constantinos

          Dear Eckard

          I like many aspects of your essay. I agree with you about the flow of time. And I think that it is the idea of infinity that is the real problem with a lot that is done in theoretical physics. As Hilbert said, infinity is an idea needed to complete mathematics bit it occurs nowhere in physical reality. This is related to the idea that in reality, physical *points* (i.e. entities with no extent) do not exist. From Wikipedia on "ActualInfinity",

          "The overwhelming majority of scholastic philosophers adhered to the motto Infinitum actu non datur. This means there is only a (developing, improper, "syncategorematic") potential infinity but not a (fixed, proper, "categorematic") actual infinity". Sounds good to me.

          Where I disagree is your statement "SR is kept more directly justified by the fact that Maxwell's equations are lacking covariance." But Mawell's equations are Lorentz covariant: they were the one part of classical phyiscs Einstein did not have to alter when he developed Special Relativity. That is why for example the transformation between electric and magnetic fields follows directly from the Lorentz transformation laws (see my book with Ruth Williams: Flat and Curved Spacetimes).

          George Ellis

            Daryl,

            I apologize for late answering you questions of 22. Aug. 23:56 in Edwin Klingman's thread.

            Do not blame me for sloppiness in language. With "for observers" I meant as observers may observe it. I did not write "the" observer but observers. Different observers at the same location may observe it differently if they are moving with different velocities relative to the observed at distance object. There is perhaps no decisive difference between "according to" and "as determined by" while I tend to be reluctant using the biased construct "in the proper coordinate system of".

            Writing "time-coordinate of one system" you are assuming that there is no universal time. You are a good fellow of Lorentz/Einstein. I see my Fig. 5 an understandable to everybody explanation why Potier, Lorentz, Michelson and Morley were wrong when they expected a non-null result. This is utterly important in so far it puts Einstein's special theory of relativity in question too. What I cautiously called your weak parts are therefore not YOUR mistakes.

            I consider you quite right: "The past, present, and future don't all "exist" in the same sense". Didn't you read my firs appendix? While the notions past and future exclude each other, the present time belongs to quite a different, deliberately undecided view. To me someone who writes past, present, and future, as did Einstein, does not show that he seriously deals with the role of past and future in physics.

            By the way, the correct spelling in German is not ideel but ideell.

            You wrote:

            (Einstein's) "relativity adds another layer, complicating this picture further, because it comes to mean that together with the dual meaning of the copular verb "is" in relation to the dimension of time, there must also be a dual meaning of the word "time" if the theory should be reconciled with a Heraclitean flowing present. Thus, the common-sense impression of "time" that we have when we consider present "existence" in three-dimensional space---which is what we refer to when we say two events occur "simultaneously"---must be separated from the sense of "time" that's described by any space-time coordinate system."

            I agree with the caveat that only the common sense notion - not impression - of time is necessary as to be concluded from my Fig. 5.

            You added: "This is precisely because any claim that two events occur at the same "time" in the latter sense cannot be universal, since any change of coordinates describes one event as preceding the other; i.e., "synchronicity" is relative." My Fig. 5 implies what other experiments also have shown: We may admit a universal frame of reference and also a universal time: absolute synchronicity.

            If you understood this then you may reconsider your further reasoning yourself.

            Sorry for my disillusioning words.

            Eckard

              Dear George Ellis,

              I appreciate your effort to read my essay and hope my effort was not in vain when I tried to convey an important message with each of my five Figs.

              I have almost nothing to add to what you wrote concerning actual and potential infinity. I already dealt with these questions in earlier essays.

              What about lacking covariance of Maxwell's equations, I was initially confused by two arguments:

              - MMX

              - Maxwell's equations

              Did you read papers by Thomas Phipps Jr. concerning Maxwell's and Hertz's equations? I gave just one reference. Others are easily to be found at Apeiron.

              By chance I have at hand: "On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations" Physics Essays, vol.6, number 2, 1993,

              Thank you for your hint.

              Sincerely,

              Eckard Blumschein