Essay Abstract

ABSTRACT History has shown that at any moment in time the majority of assumptions used in theoretical physics are probably incorrect. Why should this have suddenly changed now? Inconsistencies and anomalies abound across and between all parts of physics, from cosmology and astro-physics to quantum mechanics (QM) and the standard model. We have identified a long held assumption with wide implications, perhaps equivalent to the single key log holding up a great river with a complex log-jam, representing confused physical theory. The assumption is the conserved ballistic light particle. We postulate plucking this log from the jam to see if it collapses and allows the natural kinetic flow of theory. But we find this task may take a new way of thinking, and other assumptions, often well hidden, to be abandoned. We also give a warning to those downriver. Academia may not be ready or willing to deal with the release of this log-jam and some destruction and mayhem may result. Those prepared for the change may do the best. We logically consider Cluster probe shock findings, radio signal behaviour, and implications for application of mathematics. We show a non conserved translating 4D twin vortex, produced 'en 'masse' at boundary interactions. We've also reading many excellent FQXi 2012 essays, find and identify much consistency with an underlying kinetic cosmos. Apologies to the many we've been unable to get to.

Author Bio

Graduated Brunel University, UK. Inc. Bachelors degree in bio-chemistry, Medical Research Council (MRC, Neuropsychiatric research unit). Research in physical chemistry and electro-magnetism. Biochemistry and related Research, Pfizer UK (developing growth promotants), Now specialising mainly in em, radio telemetry, and telecommunications with continued wider research interests in physics history, light, astrophysics, relativity and cosmology.

Download Essay PDF File

Richard

I'm humbled by the citations from you and others, and by your generosity in attributions when it's clear your own understanding is commendable. Thank you, if only for gleaning the meaning from my own essay, and it's central relevance. Seeing your visual interpretation of my translating toroidal em field/ mini black hole was a weird but wonderful experience and I agree with your views. Precisely how this would relate to a recycling and jetting (AGN) model I'm not sure. Any ideas?

The analysis of the effect on em energy crossing an em shock was simple and clear as a change in speed between media to conserve local c/n. My own essay makes the point, missed by all of physics up to now, that this change is twofold. Logical interpretation of Fresnel's index of refraction allows no other resolution, one is Kinetic (relative media v) the other related to the medium rest frame (relative n). This is implicit but not discussed at length in your essay, but you cover many aspects well. You've linked aspects of many other essays but resist a temptation to make yours a 'review'

Congratulations on dealing well with a seminally important aspect of nature. And thanks again for the mentions. Pleased o give me your views on the, quite new, findings of asymmetry of charge found by using non point particles.

Very best of luck in the competition.

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #5

    Did the blue diamond pills come from your work on growth promotants?

    Super sensible and easy to read essay, and some very important new ways of looking at things, consistent, as you identify, with a number of other good essays.

    The Cluster probe data interpretation is a revelation.

    Congratulations.

    Good luck

    Jude

    Peter

    Thanks. I agree with your Torus, and no big bang but the big 'bounce' or recycling theory. The particle model representation is indeed such a toroid twin vortex if considered at rest. I read your helical recycling paper and agree the ejection on the torus axis is implicit.

    I was very impressed by the mechanisms described in your essay. It's crucial we get such a conceptual basis resolved before rushing off to abstract maths and get back something that has little resemblence or relevance to reality.

    I hope you do well.

    Rick

    Eric

    Thanks. Thresholded absorption as Regazas essay etc and Planck loading theory is agreed, as the build up is gradual, but I suggest this has to be considered quantized re-emission at the threshold.

    I think your and Peter Jackson's essays are very consistent and excellent, though Peters needs much thought on reading to extract all the value.

    The Cluster data in mine is solid evidence for his heirarchical frame kinetics which follow a strict logical structure. I hope you and others can co-operate. Are we on the edge of a new paradigm? The main problem is that we're all just individuals at present.

    Rich

    Hi Jude.

    My growth promotant research was prior to the blue pills, but they did emerge after a little time, and get quite big. It was very hard gaining experimental evidence, but the team grew substantially and with a better balance of female researchers. I did have some input to research on viXra more recently. It was very rewarding, but all things fade away after some time.

    I'm now far more focussed on EM energy again, but I bring clarity of analysis and logical interpretation from other sciences. Perhaps also a fresh viewpoint too. I agree with the common view here that most physicist resort to mathematical abstraction far too quickly, before proper conceptual and logical analysis. They are then fooled by the meaningless numbers.

    As somebody said of computers, rubbish in, rubbish out. If the universe rerally is a computer the picture we're currently getting from it can only be then rubbish.

    Present information overload is just making it worse. I agree more logical structure and rigour of application to interpretations is essential. We just distort findings to match assumtions at present.

    I'm convinced the answers are here, in kinetics, and particularly perhaps in the Jackson and Wharton essays, but also many others. They are however beyond the intellect of all those who can't drop chrished assumptions.

    Thanks for your kind words, but how do we change things?

    Rich

    Richard

    I liked your 'rubbish in rubbish out' reminder and used it elsewhere. I also agree that too many use far too limited information inputs to the decision making process. 'Information overload' is right, as no one person can read and absorb more that 1% of the data coming back from nature and across all the sciences. Like you I read voraciously and across many key subjects, but 'speed reading' has limited value in rationalising complex relationships.

    Do you think we should develop new 'systems' of co-operation, to use more than one brain in assimilating, analysing and interpreting information? I can't see that computers are going to help on the business side of a unification theory. Actually I'm quite convinced we already have the sound basis of one between the essays you identify and a few others. Thanks again, and I agree about Ken Wharton's though even Ken also can't seem to see beyond a shortish horizon. I'm pleased at least that you found the commonality.

    How do we change things? It's beyond me I'm afraid, I just keep plugging away as I'd feel guilty if I didn't. I have asked, is it really a good thing if we DO get science up to date? Is mankind really ready for it?

    Peter

    5 days later

    Peter

    "Is mankind really ready for it?"

    That's a question to make us think! Probably not. But I do like the idea of multiple brains to deal with the overlosd. But we'd have to wire them up somehow. ESP?

    I still think the content of your essay is the most important here, Best of luck.

    Rich

    Dear Richard,

    As far as I know photons are seldom interact with cosmic substance which has small density. The model of photon as rotating fluid particle is described in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13. If such photon interacts with the electron in atom it can pass the rotational momentum to electron and in such way changes the energy of electron. If we suppose that in fluxes of gravitons there are charged gravitons then they can interact with the charges in substance of electrons. So in the fluid of photons we can suppose charged gravitons. The model of charged gravitons easily explains the electric force between two charges also.

    Sergey Fedosin

      Sergey

      low ion density, but space is very big, so equivalent interactions over a few light years to a solid lens a few cm thick. Some also may not consider 10^14/cm^-3 particle density that 'low'!

      What we do know is that each one interacts. Peter Jacksons essay stunningly identifies the mechanism to produce the effect seen in my figure 2.

      I don't subsrcibe to graviton particles, and have not yet seen how they 'easily explain' the electic force beween two charges, as least not in the real way Jacksons mechanism unites epistemological findings into an ontological construction. I none the less appreciated the majority of consistent elements in your essay.

      You didn't comment on my translating toroid giving a helical structure, which may not be incompatible with your theory.

      Best wishes

      Rich

      Dear G.S.

      Thanks, much appreciated. Few seem to have read my essay. I did read and appreciated yours, which has good consistencies with mine and other good essays, many of which I cite. Indeed I think it was yours I was discussing aspects of with another author recently and you'll be pleased we both may be likely to score yours well.

      I agree the system isn't ideal, and an important new mechanism for implementation of SR's CSL common to the Jackson essay and mine does not appear to have been noticed by many. i.e. the 'shock crossing' is what happens at all inertial frame boundaries, at all scales. If we look we find. Let me know if you'd include these two in your top few to give 10 to, as I think the converse is true. and I'd also like to see yours in the finals.

      Best of luck.

      Rich

      7 days later

      Dear Rich

      I enjoyed reading your essay and thank you for reading mine and referring to it when discussing some points. In fact I found it refreshing that you have tried to read so many fqxi essays and found some common themes among us unwashed rebels storming the Bastille of physics. Some thing is gotta give!

      Your discussion of photons, constant speed of light (CSL) and phenomena relating to c/n, the absorption and emission of light and phenomena studied by Jackson all require more time to study and assimilate. However I find that discussions of relativity can be easier if one discards once and for all the CSL as a postulate. Because of the Lorentz transformations, the measured speed of light in inertial frames will turn out to be constant anyway. The payoff for discarding CSL as a postulate is when one considers gravitational fields as media of various optical density in which the speed of light slows down less than c, as happens when a car decelerates to take a curve. General Relativity would then becomes infinitely simpler as explained briefly in my essay, and in more detail in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory on which it is based.

      I have suggested new starting points, and am gratified that they fit right in with some of the other exciting new ideas and findings, particularly Reiter's wonderful experimental findings disproving the photon-as-particle. You have described the dilemmas facing physics well, but things moving, Recognizing that there are foundational problems, as this fqxi contest theme shows, is an important step. Jackson's idea of combining our ideas is good and may be possible as a sort of internet wiki project. One day the great frozen logjam you describe in people's minds will thaw and a rush of new ideas will enlighten the world with new truths.

      I wish you the best of luck now, and then.

      Vladimir

      Dear Richard,

      I've been studying your essay for the past few days and can see the connection to Peter Jackson's essay and my own. I think your essay makes some very interesting points and ought to attract some serious attention. The information on Cluster probe shock findings is entirely new to me so I'll need to study it further and consider how it relates to other findings. And likewise with the wonderful visualization of the 4D twin vortex. I may need to ask some detailed questions a bit later as I've had more time to ponder.

      Cheers,

      Steve

      5 days later

      Richard

      An analogy; You shrink, and sit at rest in the NEW medium frame (K' at n=1), which is doing v through the background frame (K at n=1). You are at the refractive plane with a tape measure and a stopwatch. Your bird at rest (K) in the approach medium has told you the approaching waves are doing c and are 10 metres apart in her frame.

      As a wave hits the refractive plane (at relative c+v until the collision) you hook the end of your tape measure to it and start your stopwatch as it continues at c in the new medium frame (K'). Now when the next wave hits the refractive plane you look at the tape measure. Because you are approaching the oncoming waves you find a SHORTER distance than 10 metres! Only THEN can you check your watch and calculate the frequency (actually your mate 'Brains' who does that is well behind you up the optic nerve). The trouble with Brains is that he can calculate 'f 'ok, but he can't see the big picture, so he complacently assumes his simple maths are good enough to describe nature.

      Back at the BIG scale, what we've all been missing is the important detail, and we've just been making that dumb simplistic assumption. That wrong assumption is what has maintained the current paradigm and paradoxes. There can be no detection without a lens medium, all lenses are made of dense matter, and all matter re-scatters absorbed energy at c. Local c. NOT some 'absolute' c.

      There are three elements to your formula; f, c, and L. If f and L change inversely c is conserved. All precisely as always found. There never was a need for the assumption of "no background frames" implicit in the STR, background frames are always LOCAL or 'discrete', not absolute, so fully equivalent to the almost infinite 'compound proposition' structure of logic. The POSTULATES of SR are then identified as not the problem, and are logically produced by the quantum mechanism of Raman scattering, Unifying physics at last.

      Note, there are a number of 'cases', which are the cause of confusion, of both observer frame and signal transitions at frame boundaries. The Cartesian system must be completely abandoned. It uses geometric 'vector' space and motion is not a valid concept in geometry. Inertial frames are simply 'states of motion', so apply to ALL matter in relative motion, and are separated simply by an acceleration. Length contraction is then simply what happens in a car crash! Nature is far simpler than old physics, just unfamiliar at first, as Feynman predicted. And that is the ontological construction of the 'discrete field model' (DFM).

      Do re-read the essay with that new light pouring in, ask any questions, then mark your own papers and pass me the scores.

      (I just posted the above in reply to Pentcho on my string but wanted to ensure you saw it.) There is of course a stack of physics behind it, but I think the above is enough to handle in one go. Please confirm you agree, or comment, and advise if you can see any better way to present it to overcome it's big issue of initial unfamiliarity.

      Many thanks

      Peter

      Rich,

      A terrific essay. Not only bursting with intersting observations but drawing together synergistic ideas from a wide array of other essays showing the trend in emerging ideas, and fostering the collaborative work so much needed in the boundary areas of science. A nice combination with Peter Jackson's and GS Sandhu's especially. I'm sure you will do well in the finals!

      Best wishes,

      David

        After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

        Cood luck.

        Sergey Fedosin

        Rich,

        I have given you a very high rating reflecting your well-presented ideas. Hope you will rate our essay too. Thanks for the comments on our thread. Good luck in the finals - sure you will do well!

        Best wishes,

        David

        Dear Richard,

        I have read your essay a few times. I'm still not quite sure what to make of it I'm afraid. Your early point about photons not necessarily being conserved is, I think, important to consider. Very nice, helpful illustrations. There does also seem to be a growing acknowledgement of problems within science, which your turn your attention to at the end. I really just wanted to know that I have not ignored your entry and wish you well in getting constructive feedback, which we all would like. Kind regards Georgina