Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Eckard

You asked of; "a single (thus 'local') frame"? I responded on the long string on my blog as follows;

"I agree it does need more explanation. I'm now so familiar with the new simple logic I forget how relatively confusing the previous understanding was.

Perhaps a simple interpretation of Tejunders 'continuous spontaneous localization' will help. That is confusingly 'CSL', so I'll use 'instantaneous', for 'CIL'.

Envisage a space, say a 10 metre cube, with say five 0.5 metre 'particles' in it, all made up of gluons, protons, electron shells etc. and all moving with respect to (wrt) each other. We'll slow down some light waves passing through the space, to a constant 5kph wrt the cube, which we'll call 'c', so we can see what's going on.

As a part of each plane wavefront interacts with each particle the speed of propagation is instantly changed, or 'localised', to c', which is c wrt the particle NOT the cube. Most of the wave carries on at c, and another 0.5m bit may interact with a different particle, and then be localised to c", which is yet another c, wrt THAT particle. After a very short delay (PMD) each particle re-emits the charge (wave) at c wrt itself, that is; c' or c". So each of those speeds is different when viewed from the cube (background) frame, but is always c from the frame of each particle. That is 'local c' in the 'local frame' of each particle.

Now if all the particles are at rest wrt the cube, but the PMD delay gives refractive index n = in excess of 1, then all the re-emissions will have the same speed and axis c'. The process is equivalent to 'extinction' of the old wavefront and speed c. The effect of two axis during extinction is a form of birefringence, precisely as first found by Raman Chandraseckara pre his 1930 Nobel. (He also confirmed the new emission speed c' is wrt the particle not any bound electron orbital speed). In this case the word 'local' then refers to the cube, which may of course be in motion wrt it's own background.

Maxwell's 'domains' are only valid for each of those local frames. As soon as a 'transformation' (LT or GT) between frame is required they are invalid.

The big difference here is that we can now assign a frame' the mutually exclusive 'space' envisioned conceptually by Einstein (1952) to finally complete his quest for a 'Local Reality' derived from a quantum mechanism. That mechanism is simply Raman scattering, co-incidentally found the year of his Leiden speech 1921.

Does that help clarify the meaning assigned to 'local frame? The word 'single' may be almost irrelevant, but importantly reminds us that there are others, indeed "infinitely many spaces in motion relatively"; (AE 1952)"

Do let me know if the mists of confusion are yet lifting.

Peter

Eckard

Don't feel guilty (your post above). My responses are somewhat long because I try my best to explain myself. Anyway, here is a new approach. An exchange with Ben Dribus prompted me to rewrite two previous papers, and I have just posted the first half, which summarises what I had been saying to him, on his blog (my post 28/10 16.11). And ovelaps with the substance of our exchange here, which stopped at 17 posts. Have a look at that. Sorry I don't know how to do links

Paul

Eckard,

I'm not real sure what your point is here, but I'll reply to your comment over on my essay:

Your comment:

What about the property of an infinite quantity to be not larger than an also infinite part of it, you will perhaps agree on oo + 1 = oo. Incidentally, Georg Cantor was not the first one who used the self-contradictory expression "infinite number". Even Weierstrass used it.

My reply:

I agree that infinity +1 = infinity, but I'd also say that infinity > 1 and that infinity is greater than subsets derived from that same infinity. What I'm getting at in my essay is that when you start out with a single infinite set, and try to compare the size of a part of it to the whole set, you have to consider the relationship of that part to the whole within the context of the single set (the experimental system being considered in this thought experiment). Taking the context and relationships between elements into account, it seems clear that the size of the subset is smaller than the size of the single whole set. And, yes, the point of my essay is that I'm questioning the assumption that they're the same size. This is the whole point of this contest.

Eckard,

Did you see the Wesley take on Feist? (below). Also Harald van Lintel presented one at the 2003 NPA Conference in Storrs, CT, as noted by Tom Miles in a recent 'Dissidents' post. He apparently found the results of a repeat experiment 'inconclusive'.??

Wesley makes a distiction beween energy velocity and phase velocity.

Wesley_PhysEssays_v17n2(2004)159-165.pdf

Neither perceive the 'missing' point that it is not possible to have a real 'frequency' f without a corresponding wavelength once the detector and wave have interacted (and no interaction = no detection, so only 'apparent' not real f). So deriving local CSL.

I see Wesley as at least partly misguided, and haven't read van lintel.

Your views on all 3 subjects ??

Hope you're well. Best wishes.

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for the hint. I was not aware of Wesley. Here is the abstract of his paper you referred to (http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3025664):

"Classical waves in a medium, valid for light and for sound, involve two velocities, the phase velocity c′ and the energy velocity c, which in general are different both in direction as well as in magnitude. Doppler effects for a moving source and observer and for a wind are derived. The out‐and‐back phase velocity of a wave in a wind is proved to be isotropic according to classical wave theory, which explains the Michelson‐Morley null result as simply a classical Doppler effect. Feist has recently experimentally demonstrated the isotropy of the out‐and‐back phase velocity of sound in a wind, thereby confirming classical wave theory and duplicating for sound the Michelson‐Morley null result for light." This seems to be correct. The link you gave was perhaps faulty.

Miles is suspect to me. I will nonetheless search for Harald van Lintel NPA 2003.

Eckard

Attached is part 1 of the Mistake by Michelson and Morley.Attachment #1: MichelsonMorleys_Mistake.doc

Eckard

Sorry forgot to check back for a response.

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is 'refreshed' at the mirror (ie it is not a reflection/collision) is irrelevant. Light in this respect is not some mysterious commodity which is above normal physical rules. But one would never detect that with the set up of Michelson.

No I don't know whether an alteration in dimension occurs as a result of accelerated/decelerated motion, somebody ought to find out. What I was saying was that they believed it did. The argument was: the expected differential was not proven, but we still think it exists, so therefore the equipment shrank to counteract that. The value derived was gamma, which is just transversal (hypotenteuse)/vertical. Which is something of a clue that they have not got the value correct, even if it does occur, and that they are conflating light reality with existent reality.

Although dimension alteration keeps getting a mention, it does not have an effect in their theory. It becomes the equivalent of the supposed shift in time (eg everyone is in 'their own time'). And that was the donkey that they pinned the tail on. In the first instant, it caused them to worry about referencing wrt things that were moving (in the sense of more than others), because if the reference is altering dimension then that is a problematic reference. But the perversion of local time (Poincare "most ingenious idea") 'solved' all that. It is all about time difference, allegedly. Of course, it one conflates light reality with existent reality, then it is, because there is always a delay whilst light travels.

Paul

PS: thanks for advice on attachments, I just could not understand what URL(?) to give it, so I just dumped it as a post and wrote an e-mail to the administrators.

Eckard

I will have to be careful here, as it may not be what you are saying. But there is no duration in physical existence. Hence even the application of x = vt can be flawed (and indeed is). So by definition, there is nothing to be symmetrical about.

Either one stays within any given time and compares different physically existent states at that time, or one compares sequences of these as they progress over time. The point about x = vt is that distance, which is a difference, can only occur between two physically existent states which are existent at the same time. So any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.

The exception to this is that distance could be conceived as a single example of change, ie a difference. So it can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Failure to understand the absence of elapsed time in a physical reality results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt. Making this mistake reifies change, and hence duration.

Now look at Einstein1905, it falls over from the start. Even worse, distance is seen as being quantifiable in terms of subsequent timings, not just it is a duration.

Light is 'constant' in that it is an existent phenomenon. It is not dependent of being received (ie observation). It results from an atomic interaction, so it always starts at the same speed, ie the speed of what it reacted with is irrelevant, because it is not a collision. There is no dichotomy between 'constant' light speed and a variable timing. It is just that the latter is in the receipt timing of light, not physical existence. All other things being equal, then the time of receipt of light which carries a representation of any given existence will be a direct function of distance between observers and existence.

Light as in waves, etc, ie over time, is another issue. Here we need to understand how light works. How many photons are involved in a 'decipherable' light, does exactly the same effect in photons disperse in all directions after an interaction, what is the differential between one light and the next, how does the effect actually travel, ie does the effect itself move, or is it a chain reaction, etc etc.

Be careful with SR, it is not 1905. SR is a theoretical circumstance without gravity. So it involves fixed shape bodies (ie no dimension alteration), only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary movement, and light that travels at a constant speed in straight lines. It was his way of demonstrating that there was no inherent contradiction in the two postulates. Note the phrase "only apparently irreconcilable" when stating them in 1905. Now that is weird, a new theory, only requires two postulates, and yet the author is aware that those who have brains might spot there is an inherent contradiction somewhere. But the author does not explain why it isn't at that time. Just 'resolves' it later with a purely theoretical circumstance, then moves on to the actual theory, ie GR.

The point about 'frames' is this: it is a reference. The reference for both time and space are concepts. They have to be operationalised. So any given timing device or spatial measuring device is just 'telling' the quantity. It is, in practical terms, the best approximation we have to the concept, which enables us to compare differences. Those watches of Einstein's were in synch already, otherwise they are useless. There was no "common time" to find.

Having been stimulated by an exchange with Ben, I have written the core argument down. I am now wading through all the other stuff. I do not have the capability to be specific, but my view is becoming that this search for a stationary reference and consideration of ether/light/etc was a red herring. There is no problem. Obviously light arriving at earth is affected by a number of factors, but light here on earth? The immediate reaction, ie dimension alteration, just sort of gets left on the cutting room floor. Timing is the new kid on the block, thanks to the flawed concept of simultaneity. One gets 'echoes' of dimension alteration in the idea that it is OK for clocks to differ when they move, because movement is making them contract/elongate so they tick more slowly/faster.

Paul

Eckard

Absolutely. Though as I wade through all the quotes etc and organise them, it strikes me that Lorentz does a pretty good job of debunking the experiment anyway. Then Einstein really just ignores it under the guise of relativity, as he asserts that the whole question of ether/light, which is at rest, etc, etc, is effectively rendered irrelevant (ie neutralised) by the concept that 'everything is relative anyway'. But he then falls into the trap of equating light reality with existential reality. In other words, whether there were mistakes or not in those experiments, or their interpretation, is irrelevant, because that is ultimately not used in relativity. It just proked a train of thought. Remember the film Day of the Jackal, the policeman was always after the wrong man, but by being caused to look, he eventually found one that did exist.

The difference I refer to is the notion that measuring a distance in different ways will result in a different answer.

The difference you refer to in c, is something else, that is, c is a velocity wrt to some reference. The earth spins one way, it also is moving one way. So by definition, c depends on you reference.

Paul

Eckard,

Your short Michelson-Morley document refers to diagrams which are missing. Can you send me a file with the appropriate diagrams at bdribus@hotmail.com? Thanks, and take care,

Ben