Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Hi Eckard,

I hesitate to comment on Mark Newstead's essay, which I have read but not studied. Rather than try to translate his answer to you [Aug 23, 2012 @14:13] I would rather address the difference in an EM wave and the C-field wave that I postulate is the basis of the QM wave function.

I view a 'single' EM wave as a pure sine wave of 'infinite' extent. The scaled linear superposition of such components is of course the basis of Fourier analysis.

The key physical basis of such EM waves is their ability to propagate (through a medium or vacuum) far from the source of the radiation. In contrast, the wave that I describe is a circulating field (according to the weak field approximation to GR) induced by a 'mass current density' which has units of momentum density, mv where m is mass density and v is velocity. This wave is best viewed as a 'vortex' which has one field component, C, (versus two, E and B for EM waves) and does not propagate away from the source but travels *with* the source, soliton-like. There is no 'infinite' aspect to this wave but it does decay over a finite distance. Without the finite range of the 'trailing vortex' (analogous to aircraft wingtip vortices) the wave would not extend over the range of excited orbits and there would be no interference leading to quantized stable orbits.

You provided a link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization, to an article discussing circular polarization, that contains a nice animation showing a circularly polarized E-field wave. Note that this wave propagates far from the source, unlike the C-field wave and note also that the E-field is a radially directed field from the axis of propagation, whereas I picture the C-field wave as circular (or cylindrical) circulating about the axis of propagation, and centered on the inducing source current density. This is a quite different physical phenomenon.

As for the 'left-handed nature' of this wave, the GR equation is curl C = -p where p is the momentum density. I interpret the minus sign to indicate left-handed circulation. This is compatible with many left-handed aspects of particle physics, from neutrino to boson, and even shows up in biological molecules. The implications are too many to discuss in a comment, but I find them significant.

Finally, you say "You seem to add some temporal and spatial restriction which is entirely unknown to me". You are correct. I have combined de Broglie's wavelength-momentum relation p = h/lambda with the GR equation curl C ~ p to obtain: lambda (dot) curl C = h, where h is Planck's constant. This is interpreted as a quantized 'volume' and I show how an atomic orbit can be viewed as an integer multiple of such volumes. This is a new physical relation that has never been proposed before and probably takes some digestion from people who seem to think that everything is already known about quantum mechanics, and that we should just take their word and "shut up and calculate". In addition, I believe that there are other implications, based on a geometric algebra approach, which I hope to develop further in the future.

I hope that this comment has answered some of your question.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

Sound may not propagate as light, but I agree your Fig 5 is still relevant. To first deal with light; I'd posted the following to you on Petcho's blog.;

"All lenses consist of a medium, with a refractive plane separating the propagation medium (air) and the lens. The whole tenet of my essay is that we have never understood this, or wrongly assumed otherwise, which is why we cannot unravel observations.

The proof is not only implicit in all optical science but is in the consistent explanation it brings to observations."

The same new fundamental truth applies to sound. If there is no 'matter' then it can't be 'detected'. If there IS matter, then there is an interaction, and transfer of energy, BEFORE transmission to the brain at a given constant speed for analysis. We must consider and absorb that because it is oft forgot in application.

So sound needs an ear drum, or membrane of matter (a 'medium') to vibrate to be detected, agreed? If so, then if the medium is approaching the source, the frequency within the medium (once entered) has increased because the distance between wave peaks has decreased. The speed of propagation within the medium is CONSTANT (precisely as Fresnel's refractive index n is constant for any medium).

Ergo, though we 'measure' the 'observable' which is 'frequency' the frequency has only changed because the WAVELENGTH has changed from air to detector medium.

To REALLY now test your intellect to the limits, there is a second factor apart from relative media v which ALSO changes wavelength, which is relative media refractive index n. If the media are at rest with each other, then only n has an effect. If n is the same then only relative v has an effect.

This brings an entirely new understanding to science which, when consistently applied, resolves all the paradoxes. Unfortunately the familiarity of other assumptions still blinds most people to the true mechanism, so also to the solution.

Feist could not detect the returning signal without a detector made of matter. My figure 4 (sorry for typo, not 5) shows a close-up of the essential asymmetry of charge at the new medium surface electrons where there is lateral motion of the electrons with respect to the waves.

But ponder all the above carefully, and I'll respond fully to your other queries in a new post below.

Best wishes

Peter

Eckard

EB; "I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?"

1. M&M. Yes. I've found that probably nothing matters more in unravelling the paradoxes than the process at refractive and reflective planes, and it's effects. I have a paper just accepted for publication discussing this and explaining the Kantor and B&B interferometer anomalies. The Maxwell near/far field 'Transition Zone' (TZ) fine structure at the surface of all matter controls the process. I's equivalent to Earth's EM 'shock' (see Kingsley essay Fig of 'Cluster' findings), and Feist's detector discussed above, where light changes speed by relative v to the new local medium c/n. Which is why it's found to be c in all media.

2. Kinetic Revere Refraction (KRR). ALL experiments find the same. (Ko, Chuang 1977, Mackay, Lakhtakia 2006). When observed from an incident frame, light at near normal incidence passing into a co-moving medium appears to be 'dragged' by the medium (Grzegorczyk 2006). Snel's Law is then famously violated by the relative media motion. But when the light 'path' in the medium is observed from at rest in the MEDIUM frame, it's found that the REAL path is REVERSED.

It is this acceleration by the observer into the new frame (and thus at rest in the propagating medium) that recovers Snel's Law from his new frame.

3. Now put the two together. In the bizarre 'non linear optics' effects Snel's Law is similarly violated at the TZ, Fresnel refraction becomes what is termed 'Fraunhofer refraction', and frequncy changes. The TZ position is wavelength dependent for aerial emitters, but within 1 micron of the surface of refractive and reflective planes.

The solution explains why moving mirrors reflect light at c wrt the incident medium NOT wrt the mirror. In fact the initial reflection off the protons is at c wrt the mirror, but the electrons form a magnetohydrodynamic shock (as Kinsgsly graph) with the 'air' side of the turbulent TZ at rest in the air frame, so re-emitting at c with respect to themselves, as may be expected. All then falls into place.

The 'incident medium is the 'approach' medium, which may be a near vacuum, but none the less the 'outer layer' TZ electrons are propagated in that frame (explaining photoionization) and re-emit in that frame.

When I test that model on the dozens of astronomical anomalies in existence, they all fall into place like a giant jigsaw puzzle; re-ionization, aberration, ellipticity, IFR, Pioneers/Flyby anomalies, galaxy recycling, lensing, kSZ effect, intrinsic rotation, singularities, quasar jets, frames last scattered, CMB anisotropic flow, curved space-time, the LT, twins paradox, the list is almost endless. My essay gives the simple kinetic logic. It may at first seem complex, but the only issue is unfamiliarity.

Do ask about or query any part.

best wishes

Peter

Eckard

The near-far field transition zone is far more important I think than we realise. Yes you did direct me to a link to an aspect, which I thank you for as it did indeed caused me to explore it's more general application as a phenomena than I'd understood, and it's central importance to the process of implementing local c at ALL scales and both at emitter and receiver.

It was discussed in an accepted paper currently awaiting publication, resolving the anomalies remaining from the disproof of Kantor's emission theory experiment. but I expanded that part after more research, particularly of the Kerr and non linear optics effects. The antenna aspect is just a glimpse.

As another astronomer I'm familiar with Dutchman Willebrord Snellius and commonly use the original 'Snel' (as also referred in the Wiki article). I accept the double 'l' has now become more common, but not 'lack of care'. Should we 'dumb down' all spelling to common modern use and U.S. English? Perhaps I suppose.

I agree Marmet's 'n' based red shift via coupling; "It is found that in ordinary conditions, the energy loss per collision is about 10^-13 of the energy of the incoming photon." (1988) for the Doppler effect, but he was simply incomplete.

One other effect is from the lateral motion of the particles during interaction. The other is more complex involving scale expansion of space combined with amplitude reduction (sphere expansion) giving an apparent red-shift. I won't try to explain it in detail here but it also refutes acceleration of expansion.

These taken as a set (with other aspects) the 3D jigsaw puzzle of nature comes together quite perfectly! I appreciate you are one of the few helping the model with attempted falsification.

Note I also posted a reply in the string above (below Aug 19).

I look forward to your 'more tomorrow'

Peter

It's a great essay, but I'm left with a question: Is this projection of an overbearing God archetype in the comments section just a satirical performance art meant to prove how ridiculous prejudice can be, or does the author simply not practice what he preaches?

Eckhard,

Perhaps I'm coming off as a little too harsh, and not making myself clear in the process.

I sincerely implore you to ignore anyone who makes comments that don't pertain to the applicability of your essay's point. For instance, some people made some inconsequential comments about the way in which you used the English language to express yourself. As a reader, I'm smart enough to gloss over those kinds of syntax "errors". Surely you're smart enough to do the same when you're reading other peoples' essays and comments right?

Perhaps you're still not catching my drift at this point, and so perhaps I'll give you an example of what I could have done (but ultimately did not do) in my previous, hurtful comment. In order to calculate the drag force vector, you need to calculate the wind's velocity relative to the cyclist's velocity. This involves subtraction, not addition (as you imply in your essay). That is, F = (Wind - Cyclist)^2 * blahblahblach. I didn't mention this in my original comment because ***it doesn't detract from your essay's main point***, plus I'm not a math/physics wizard and I know well enough that I make errors all of the time. Wouldn't it have been extremely annoying and uncalled for if I had come out attacking you by shoving this wind/cyclist trivium in your face, especially given that you had stated in your essay that its calculation was "obvious", and even more especially so given the fact that it doesn't actually matter?

Everyone makes mistakes, so just relax, please! You don't need to point peoples' errors out by beating them over the head. I am begging you, humbly.

I sincerely enjoyed your essay, and I learned about a lot of new things from you and Glenn. Thank you.

Hi Eckard,

I figured that you wouldn't take what I said about him seriously. My main concern is that prejudicial classification of someone based on ethnicity is frowned upon here in Canada (and downright bordering on unlawful) -- and for good reason. Perhaps he was born in Montana, and your classification was totally prejudicial and wrong. So, do you know for sure that what you said about him was true, or are you simply being prejudicial? I won't hold my breath while waiting for a logical, reasonable answer.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = and the cyclist velocity is V = , then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = . Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = ; V = ; R = . The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = . The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

Apparently the comment system does not care for HTML-like vector notation.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = (10, 0, 0) and the cyclist velocity is V = (0, 10, 0), then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = (10, -10, 0). Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = (0, 0, 0); V = (0, 10, 0); R = (0, -10, 0). The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = (0, 0, 0). The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

OK Eckard let us discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment (and related problems) here. I wrote (on Sascha Vongehr's thread):

"If the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is correct, the only alternative to special relativity is Newton's emission theory."

You replied: "Non sequitur. Maybe, the expectation of a non-null result was wrong."

Now we need some common ground for the discussion. Do you agree that, in 1887, the emission theory was the only EXISTING theory able to explain the null result of the experiment?

I think we need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period before moving to your favorite and relatively recent exotic interpretations of the experiment (Marmet, Shtyrkov etc.).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Eckard,

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (c'=c). By advancing, ad hoc, his length contraction hypothesis, Lorentz made the experiment confirm c'=c and refute c'=c+v.

Please just confirm or reject the above statement (yes or no). We do need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Eckard,

I don't like the "shut up and calculate" principle but in this case it is relevant. The wrong expectations of Michelson and Morley were based on calculations which can be found in today's textbooks. In these calculations one should simply replace c with c+v or c-v and the null result follows, in accordance with the experiment.

The procedure is tedious but if you wish we could perform it.

Pentcho