Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Escard, the paper: Feist N: Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment - ; Proceedings of the NPA 6 (2010), 1-4, Fig. 7. is unavailable for me, I can say nothing about it.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Eckard,

Hegel continuous to be among my most favorite modern philosophers. His "Phenomenology of Spirit" had a profound influence in my thinking. I draw much insperation and intellectual guidance from him still. But my criticism of "atomism" is different from Hegel's.

I am less concerned with "atomism" in Nature than "atomism" in our thinking. The "particle view" has dominated our thinking and our theories of the Universe since Newton and beyond. And though unquestionably successful, such 'mental frame' reflects Western values and norms which have their inherent limitations. I believe we've reached such 'theoretical limits' in Physics now. And breaking through this mental barrier requires we think differently.

For me, this starts with a 'non-quantum' view and derivation of Planck's formula for blackbody radiation. My mathematical derivation of Planck's formula does not use 'energy quanta' but simple continuous processes. Eric Reiter in his essay, "A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory", has presented experimental evidence for this. He needs our support!

Eckard, can you please comment on my mathematical derivations at the Endnotes of my essay? ( "The Metaphysics of Physics"). Specifically, 1) Planck's formula, 2) The Law of Inertia, 3) de Broglie equations with freguency and wavelength being any real number positive or negative, 4) "if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave" 5) my explanation of CSL in my reply to Pentcho under my essay.

Fondly,

Constantinos

P.S. Have you rated my essay yet? Please do! I am hovering between 'being and nothingness' !!!

Dear Eckard,

I read your essay with interest. I too take an approach, without regard to the conventional notion of time. In fact my attempt is to extend the principles of TD to the rest of physics with a timeless Geometric approach. It concerns very simple Geometric relationships leading to trignometric expressions between inter-related phenomena. It makes relativistic phenomena quite understandable visually. I am sure you would like my essay

The gist of my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

1. It identifies the PRIMORDIAL Foundational Problems in Newtonian Mechanics (NM) that runs through ALL BRANCHES OF PHYSICS. (Please see the short attachment "Primordial Foundational Problems").

2. It eliminates the problematic concept of POINT-MASS (common to NM, QM, SRT) to allow internal structure for a particle. This in turn enables to resolve the other interconnected primordial problems.

3. The result: By taking these two steps, ALL THE EQUATIONS OF SRT are DYNAMICALLY derived by identifying the trignometric relations within the energy-momentum equation, and by restoring Galileo's principle of relativity. (I request you to have a glance at the attachment - "Geometrodynamics of Energy" to verify this claim). - See also comment by L.B Crowell below.

4. This achievement will establish that I have not just treated these problems at the level a speculative discussion as in other essays, but that the problems discussed are real problems, by virtue of their solution leading to the unification of NM and SRT (by finding an equation of motion which is equally valid for slow and very fast motions).

Here is the impartial comment made by Ben Dribus (essayist in no 2 position): "One thing I will say is that it appears as if you made an honest effort to answer the question posed by the essay contest rather than just writing down your favorite ideas about physics. You will notice that I made a similar effort..... I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing".

Here's the comment made by LB Crowell (essayist at no. 20 position): "The calculations I just looked at and they seem alright. ...... Your procedure appears to be some euclideanization of relativity. At the end you arrive at equations which are the same as special relativity".

In order to enable follow up of your comments easier for me, I request you to reply to this under my essay : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: 4_Primordial_Foundational_Problems.docAttachment #2: 4_GEOMETRODYNAMICS_OF_ENERGY.doc

Hi Eckard. Translation is indeed a problem. I own text, translated from English into Russian, I learn the hard way. Machine translation. I read your answer. The reason for the light, I did not write anything. The women also did not write. On today's physics: Einstein's physics in the air does not need (Latin - aether). Atsukovsky I called in addition to Shtyrkova. Atsukovsky better not to read, write bad waste of time. In my essay should be questions. I can answer them just me. This is a true metaphysician. Sincerely, Vasily.

Eckard,

Let us assume you are right - based on the ether theory (stating that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source), Michelson and Morley should have calculated and expected the NULL result, not otherwise. This implies that the null result is incompatible with the miracles, length contraction in particular, later introduced by Lorentz and Einstein.

On the other hand, time dilation and length contraction are direct consequences of the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source - initially you don't even need the relativity principle for the deduction - see David Morin's text, pp. 12-16.

So David Morin's (valid) inference shows that you are wrong - there can be no reasonable expectation of the null result based on the assumptions that, on the one hand, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, and that, on the other hand, there is no length contraction.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Eckard,

I posted the following in George Ellis' thread but it has disappeared. (Just now reposted anyway). I am copying it to you now.

Dear George,

I shall clear the theoretical side first, and address the personal allegations/misunderstandings later.

George wrote: "The Lorentz transformation equation ..... is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators, ....... I show how the standard relations between electric and magnetic field due to relative motion follow from the standard Lorentz transformation laws, and specifically the equation [x' = gamma(x -ut)]".

Eckard wrote: 'Being an old EE, I cannot confirm that the Lorentz transformation "is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators. ... This relation is tested millions of times every day by the way standard electrical equipment operates."

It is no surprise that among those who question the strict validity of SRT, a very high number of them are EE's. This is because, SRT theorists, dogmatically and zealously, for propaganda and pedagogic reasons tend to cross the line of SRT's area of applicability (v tending to c), and try to generalize it to claim that it applies for all conditions as regards "standard electrical equipment" etc. And by such exaggerated claims these theorists only discredit and bring disrepute to SRT. We must remember, the theory has been named "Special Relativity" because it HOLDS STRICTLY TRUE ONLY for the condition v tending to c. And for this reason in French it is called the "Restricted theory of Relativity", i.e. the theory is of restricted validity to the condition v tending to c.

a) In all experiments conducted on earth on fast moving particles, beginning with Kaufman's experiments from which Lorentz elicited the empirical equation by iteration of data, the term u in the equation is earth's orbital velocity. So I would have been surprised if this term did not appear in electric motors as well under analogous conditions.

There is no dispute about George's statement if it is referring to a term involving earth's motion being involved in electric motors and generators. However, "involvement" does not mean it manifests clearly under all conditions. It will manifest clearly in strict conformity to the equation only in case of high electron velocities (theoretically). As the electron velocity drops progressively, the results will conform less and less to the equation. Even at moderate velocities, there will be a 'fuzzy term' involving u, if very accurate observations are made, but it will not strictly confirm the equation. At very low speeds at which ordinary electric motors run, this term will be almost imperceptible. This is what Eckard is confirming by his experience as an EE.

Here is why.

(Please open the attachment to refer to the diagram).

I have already discussed the physics of LT in my previous post. Now let us look at it from a logical view point.

If the LT equation holds strictly for the condition v/c tending to 1, then the equation that will hold for all velocities is

x' = (v/c)(c -u)t.gamma.

= gamma.vt - gamma.(ut.v/c)

If we take the term gamma.(ut.v/c) = ut sin(theta) (see the diagram attached). When v/c tends to 1, this term looms large approximates to ut. And it forms the area of applicability of SRT.

Where v/c tends to zero the term vanishes, then x' = gamma vt. This is the area of applicability of Newtonian mechanics. For all experiments conducted on earth gamma = 1.000000005. However in Newtonian measurements an accuracy of the order of 10-8 is not realized. Therefore, by rule of thumb, in practice the equation for displacement of x = vt has been accepted.

(See Attachment)

There is a vast area in between the two areas of applicability, where mixed results will be obtained.

By recognizing the equation x' = v/c(x -ut).gamma, it breaks down the areas of applicability and automatically unifies Newtonian mechanics and SRT.Attachment #1: 2_LT_in_electric_phenomena.doc

(Same story as before. The post on George Ellis' threadd has disappeared. So I am posting it here for the record)

Dear Eckard and George,

1. There is a connection between MMX and Maxwell as Eckard has pointed out. In 1878, one year before Maxwell died he suggested an experiment to detect that effects of the second order. It is this idea that Michelson took up and used for the experiment of 1882 onwards.

2. George wrote: "The way a moving charge generates a magnetic field follows directly from the standard Lorentz transformation matrix L^a_b applied to the electromagnetic field tensor Fab, see page 349-353 of Flat and Curved Spacetimes for an explicit derivation of this relation. This is a valid derivation of the theory underlying all use of electromagnets in electric motors and relays. My statement is correct".

a) Are you not confusing between

Lorentz transformation x' = gamma(x -ut) and

Lorentz Force FE = (q2v2) (Mu)0 /2(pi)r ?

b) Aren't electric motors and relays governed by Biot-Savart's law and not Lorentz force?

Best regards,

Viraj

Eckard,

You believe that "the speed of a wave (no matter whether sound or light) is independent of the speed of its source, and there is no contraction of the real length..."

I tried to call your attention to the fact that the two statements are incompatible. Length contraction (initially introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz) can easily be derived from the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. I referred you to David Morin's text (pp. 12-16) because his derivation is good and easy to understand.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Eckard,

Thanks. I am not really upset, but it shows what kind of a set up FQXi is.

I think, the elimination of my posts happen automatically at FQXi on Ellis' instructions. Anyway, even if it is othrwise, when someone 'reports a post as inappropriate' it is flagged for the administrator to check whether it really has inappropriate subject matter. If the administrator does not use his proper judgement or acts in a biased manner, then FQXi is running this competition for the benefit of a pre-selected few with a definite set of ideas.

Best regards,

Viraj

I meant light, Eckard, not sound. "Sound" just happened to be in the phrase I quoted from you - I would have deleted it if I had known your reaction.

What's my problem? Well... lots of problems... let's discuss them some other time.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Eckard,

I think we can all lament the lack of real substantive discussions of the arguments in our essays. But some of us can claim more such discussion than others. I think you are among those with more! While I still wait for targeted replies to specifics I've made. Still, I am grateful for all comments. And in earnest seek to respond to all comments. To the extend of my understanding of these.

You write, "nobody is interested in your calculations because they are not surprising." Could you please elaborate on that? Specifically, please argue why the following are not "surprising":

1)My Planck's Formula derivation using simple continuous processes and not needing 'energy quanta', as all other derivations of this Formula had to.

2)My mathematical derivation of The Law of Inertia, showing this not a postulated 'universal physical law', but a mathematical truism in my formulation; using the prime physis 'eta' (the time integral of energy)

3)My mathematical derivation of the de Broglie equations illuminating the real nature of 'matter waves', frequency and wavelength. Allowing these to be any real positive or negative number (not 'mathematical artifacts')

4) My argument to Pentcho that all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space which defines existence in our Universe. Thus explaining CSL.

5)My mathematical proof (and importance) of the proposition: "if the speed of light is constant, than light propagates as a wave". This, note, is a different statement from what Maxwell has shown, "if light is a wave, than the speed of light is constant". My statement clearly shows CSL contradicts the Photon Hypothesis. Thus falsifying the corpuscular nature of light.

Eckard, these are only a small part of my many 'striking' results. And only what I included in my Endnotes and under my essay discussion - new for the 'public record'. That others don't find these 'striking' speaks more on their expectations of what constitutes 'striking' than the striking truth contained in these.

We are all programed to 'meet our expectations'. And if we are looking for 'multiverses' and exotic Spacetime 4-manifolds and non-linear operators acting on Hilbert spaces, we could miss some simple truths Nature has placed in front of our eyes! Which truths our 'metaphysical dislocation' will not allow us to 'see'. What my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics", argues is happening with modern physics!

Best regards,

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

re. your response to Eckard, Number 4. is really interesting. Where is that empty space (that the observer can perceive filled with objects)? Is it external to the observer or an internal fabrication (from received sensory data input), produced together with the "information"/ "knowledge" that this exists externally? Which then begs the question if that which is seen is not the external reality, what is there instead? and how does the unobserved space and objects relate to the observed?

It seems to me that though the observer is also a part of the foundational external reality, the fabrication he makes from received data is both a part of it and separate. As the electrical and chemical activity of the brain is a part of the foundational reality but the perceived output is not. (for analogy :The paper and ink of a book are a part of the external reality but the fantasy realm fabricated from the words (or symbols) is not.) I mentioned Roger Penrose's (Twistor space) description of the light cone and Joy Christian's recent work in my essay as I think they might helpfully describe, or lead to helpful mathematical description of, the data transmission through the pre-space-time environment from source to detection, which is the link between the two facets of reality.

So if you mean space-time when you refer to "this physical space which defines existence in our Universe", then maybe the observer really is not contained within it (but contains it ). It is a very strange set structure. I don't know what you will make of that. I think it is interesting and thought perhaps you might too.

I regret not having yet responded with worthwhile, helpful feedback on your essay. If it was easy I'd have done it long ago.I still have good intentions.