Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

No 3 things

Yuri Danoyan

Abstract

Assumptions of physics need reconsider:1)4D spacetime. 2) Gravity as a fundamental force 3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h). Alternatives have been proposed. 1.Splitting 3D discrete space from 1D continues time.2.Gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe. 3. Only Planck constant as a fundamental dimensional constant.Attachment #1: My_crazy_theory.pdf

It easy.You can read my essay.

You are right.My russian English not so good,but text is quite clear.

Hi Eckard,

Yes, I believe that physical reality does not depend upon the perspective of an observer, but 'physics', the map of reality, generally does to a large extent.

And in quantum theory this includes "counterfactuals" and perhaps other concepts that may affect theory.

Although logical structures in the brain are quite flexible, I do not believe that the structures that we use to map the world are 100 percent integrated or otherwise seamlessly overlapping. Certainly these maps differ from brain to brain, and I believe they are similarly dis-integrated in one brain. And I am not sure whether or not there are logical issues having to do with the way our brains process self-referential logic.

The point is that physics (per d'Espagnat) is based on realism, logic, and locality, and most Bell theorists have decided to forego realism and locality in favor of retaining logic. But to me, logic is the most mysterious and least understood aspect of the three, while both my theoretical model and my mind tell me that local realism is valid. I cannot prove that the problem lies with logic, but I do not consider that anyone has proved that local realism is false. If I'm forced to choose, based on incomplete knowledge, I choose local realism and fuzzy logic (not "the" fuzzy logic).

As for Kyle's topic, I had missed it until I saw Georgina's comments. The topic is not an easy one to discuss. I have written in past contests about the effects on perception which I interpret as 'suppressing' metric awareness of distance and difference in favor of topological awareness of connectedness and unity. It is, in general, not a topic that goes anywhere as most who have not experienced it have no idea what is being discussed, while most who have experience of it have not the physical or metaphysical concepts to make sense of the experience.

I hope this response addresses your comment.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

You again assume without thought that the detector itself, (ignoring the reflector) is not involved in the process. ("...the wave propagates in only one medium...")

This is the wrong assumption I'm discussing. In fact the Hutchinson essay also explains the relationship if not the massive implications quite well in another way, showing the detector cannot detect anything without the light negotiating a a refractive plane (i.e. frame change);

"...In every free space solution for a detector, either the detector has detected the quantum or it has not. After diffraction, the solution almost certainly converges to just one such set of overlapping free space solution because any other solution would be unstable."

This is indeed the precise situation for the KRR experiments. The detector (lens) is in lateral motion wrt the incident medium. So the KRR effect does apply, and all anomalies are resolved, and Snel's law is recovered.

It seems you perhaps tried to read the essay too fast and lost track of the complex logical consistency.

Peter

Peter,

The experiment described in my Fig. 5 is an acoustical one without any lens and with definitely only one medium (air) in which the sound pulse propagates between two rigid boundaries. There is no possibility for a refraction to be seen.

I guess, the astonishing directivity of the 220 kHz ultrasonic transducer used by Feist is not very well known.

You mentioned Hutchinson's essay, I looked in vain for his reply to what you wrote to him and quoted here. You did not even tell me what you meant with your Fig. 5.

Sorry, 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?

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

"If physics does depend to a large extent upon the perspective of an observer then it might be wrong to a large extent."

I think that the essays here (more than one hundred of them) show that physics does to a large extent depend upon the perspective of the observer. And they probably come as close as possible to proving that physics is also wrong to a large extent. It's rather amazing how many 'fundamental assumptions' are being challenged.

And while I agree that our neural nets are plastic and hence can learn, I do believe that -- regardless of how distributed over the net -- logical concepts and other concepts are discretely organized and overlap only to a degree, if at all. It seems possible for many people to hold contradictory ideas in their head, and this shows (to me) that minimal overlap exists between such ideas.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

This link just for you

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6044

All the best

Yuri

Thank you Yuri,

Having read such good textbooks as for instance Oskar Becker's, I will read Manin's paper like a weak attempt to defend some presently mandatory views, a paper that reveals intuitions behind mathematics but neglects due logic clarifications.

I would appreciate if someone did try and took issue concerning what I tried to make evident to everybody in my Figures.

You now, we are partially supporting each other. I cannot at all judge whether or not your intriguing claim concerning the fundamental constants is correct. What you wrote on 3+1 looks a bit speculative to me. It reminds me of Stiefel, a friend of Martin Luther.

By the way, the expression three plus one was currently used for a meeting between the foreign ministers of the three Baltic republics and Westerwelle. I would avoid such mistakable expression.

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Big difference between 3+1 and 3:1

Das war also des Pudels Kern ... "

Dear Eckard,

I agree that simply being challenged does not indicate that an assumption is wrong, and that most of the challenges are more likely to be wrong. Yet even if only a handful of fundamental assumptions are wrong, that seems very significant to me. On another thread some anonymous commenter claimed that FQXi was a waste of time -- that it was like looking for diamonds in a coal bin. But someone else pointed out that if the diamond is found, it make make the search worthwhile.

As for "fields of potentially infinite extension", that is an engineering approximation, but infinity is often chosen as the limit to force the value to zero at that limit. In my essay I deal with the 'extent' of the wave function and try to show that realistic orbital lengths may be hundreds of wavelengths long. In this sense the moon raises tides on earth at a distance approximately 30 times the diameter of the earth. So it seems both reasonable and far from "potentially infinite".

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eckard,

I very much like Ernst Fischer's essay, and his conclusions, but I don't feel competent to judge his work. The problem is indicated by the second figure on page 4 of my previous essay, where I show Doug Sweetser's view of metric and potential maps. It seems to me that he has combined these maps to include both potential and metric, and that is unorthodox in my view. He also refers to "local mass density" which I understand to be ill-defined in general relativity. So I very much like his essay and would like to believe he is correct, but cannot justify certain of his assumptions. I'm glad to see his high ranking. Hopefully that means that more qualified reviewers also like it.

As for the wave function in my essay, the physical wave in not time symmetrical, although the analogous solutions of the Schrodinger equation can probably be considered to be so. The wave is left-handed only (not right-handed) which I think is associated with time asymmetry, and it has finite extent.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

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

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

Eckard,

Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."

Then the authors makes the wrong conclusion ("The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame") but I hope you will not be misled. One can use the same calculation but assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).

The correct conclusion is: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com