Kinetics and the Conserved Photon Particle Assumption by Richard William Kingsley-Nixey

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

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

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

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

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

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Richard

Eckard suggests your Fig.1 is 'obviously wrong' (showing waves doing c/n in a medium). However I've pointed out he was forgetting to allow for the fact that, in your Fig, the medium is moving, and that he must consider himself at rest IN that frame before he can validly measure propagation speed (in this case the 'outside'/background medium would be considered as in motion).

I characterise your explanation as consistent with that explanation, but if not do please advise. You may see Eckard's comment of today in a 7th Oct string on my essay blog. here. I'm not sure Eckard understood your more important Fig.2, so perhaps discuss this if you converse?

I thank you again for your kind comments on my own essay and commiserate that yours did not make the cut. Another who has comprehended and commented is a non author 'Judy N', who I think may share your last name, are you related?

Best wishes

Peter

Peter

I liked your clarification of Richards fig 1. I'd read Eckards post and smiled, There do seem to be few yet comprehending Peters model, supported by Richard, but I promise you don't have to be related to do so! Just intelligence and receptiveness to new conceps seem to suffice.

No, Eckard the N does not stand for Nixey, and we are not related in any way. I wish to be discrete due to my position, but the site admin has my Email address with my name, and I agree to Brendan confiming for you that the N is not for 'Nixey'.

Richard; I hope you're still about and interested. You must be disappointed at the results but so are many. I think the Cluster probes shock crossing analysis agreeing with Peter's hypothesis is quite brilliant. Thpough again few seem to comprehend the kinetics I encourage you to persist. I hope you also saw the close link with 'continuous spontaneous localisation' discussed, which seems to describe the coupling process in your shock.

Judy

Peter,

When I declared Fig. 1 of Richard Nixey's essay obviously wrong I referred to acoustic waves e.g. in air. I maintain, these waves propagate within air relatively to the medium air. I concluded from c+v on the left side that the medium is moving with v relative to the paper that shows Fig. 1. My point is, this motion of the medium air should be the same on the right side too. My own perspective and variants of measurement do not matter.

Judy,

My apology for my guess that N stands for Nixey. I wonder why your position is a reason for you to hide your identity. If you did reveal to which university you are belonging, this would certainly make your opinion more respected.

When I was a student fifty years ago in Dresden, N. J. Lehmann, our professor of mathematics did not reveal what N stood for. We called him therefore Nabla J. His name Nikolaus is unusual in Germany because to children the Nikolaus means Santa Claus. Nikolaus Joachim Lehmann was a pioneer of small computers in the early 1960 until the government of GDR stopped his work.

Eckard

Rich,

You wrote: "The waves know nothing of the approaching medium so their speed in the background is relative c plus v in the medium frame."

Let me try to understand this in terms of acoustic waves in air. Their speed re air is c. If their speed re a different medium/body is c plus v then I conclude that this medium/body is moving re air with velocity v. Correct? Given this is possible to the left of the medium/body. Why shouldn't then the velocity of the wave in the air to the right of the body also be c re air and c+v re medium/body?

A wave is not a bullet.

Eckard