Hello Richard,
Thank you for your consideration. As I've posted in the forum for your essay, I also find your essay interesting and need to look further into the issues you bring up. I hope others will seriously consider what is brought up there.
Cheers,
Steve
I'd like to mention that one very important item in the bibliography for this essay is out of print and possibly difficult to obtain. That is Sir J. J. Thomson's monograph "Beyond the Electron".
The copyright has expired under UK and US copyright laws. I've done a quality optical scan of the book and have created a PDF file to easily view the contents.
Please send email if you would like a copy to: overgrip@hotmail.com
The book presents Thomson's findings in a very accessible way with many analogies expressed in a way that should be easy for a layman to understand.
Steve
Thank you Stephen for a sensible approach - linking velocity to energy in interpreting Maxwell's equations may be much closer to the physical situation in nature, than the artificial and abstract postulate of c= constant in Special Relativity. I wish you success.
Vladimir
Stephen wrote:
The value c is the only obvious velocity parameter embedded in the
Maxwell equations. It is derived from the combination of the vacuum permittivity
0 and vacuum permeability constants μ0, the former being effectively a conductance
facilitating parameter while the later is a resistance to the passage of energy through.....
Slightly different considerations apply to the so-called permittivity of free space, which historically has been regarded as a separate physical constant in some systems of measurement but not in others.
Title: On the variation of vacuum permittivity in Friedmann universes
Authors: Sumner, W. Q.
Journal: The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 429, no. 2, pt. 1, p. 491-498
Thank you for the reference to that interesting sounding paper Yuri. I hope to be able to read your essay also soon. There are so many papers here to read and consider!
With best wishes,
Steve
Dear Stephen,
You present an interesting, clearly written, and, I believe, timely paper. I believe that the whole issue of group symmetry in physics ought to be revisited very carefully and without prejudice. This is not to suggest that group symmetry is not an important concept in physics; to argue this would be rather absurd given the (partial) successes of relativity and the standard model. However, you point out one of several different very important instances in which group symmetry either does not completely account for the physical phenomena to which it is applied, or accounts for them in a less than natural manner.
Like you, I doubt the Lorentz group symmetry interpretation of covariance. Although my reasons and my approach are somewhat different, I admire the courage to question such a sacred pillar of modern physics. It is popular in modern physics to view group symmetry as the best (perhaps only!) way of expressing simplifying or unifying ideas, and this is very far from being true.
Thanks for the great read! Take care,
Ben Dribus
Thanks for the consideration and comments Ben. As I indicated in the forum for your essay, I think it will be very interesting to see the results of your work unfold.
Best,
Steve
Don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay
Dear Tom Phipps,
May I ask you to check whether or not my essay derives a largely correct and possibly important suspicion from your papers?
Sincerely,
Eckard Blumschein
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.
Hello Eckard,
Your essay was more or less next on my list to read and consider. I'll very likely have comments to post in the forum for your essay soon.
With best wishes,
Steve
Hi Yuri,
I've rated the essay and commented on it in your forum. I'll no doubt return to read it again some time later.
Best of luck,
Steve
Thank you Steve.
I rated your essay maximum.
Hello Steve,
As far as I can judge, the mathematics of your essay is excellently readable without numbered equations. More importantly, it leads to conclusions that are relevant to the topic. Thomas Phipps also suggested to reinstall Hertzian convective time derivatives. Most likely he did not get aware of my posting after more than a month. I only quoted his 2012 Apeiron paper. Did you read his 1993 paper in Physics Essays?
Is the relationship (v_phase)(v_group)=c^2 really well known? I did not realize that Nimtz even mentioned it.
Anyway, I am looking forward reading your desired comments on at least one out of my five figures. Fig. 5 tries to reveal an experimental underpinning of your already fully convincing theoretical result.
Best (rate)
Eckard
Dear Eckard,
Thanks so much for your careful consideration. I believe I've read most of Tom Phipps papers. If you find his methods useful and his arguments powerfully convincing, as many do who consider his material thoroughly, then you'll certainly want to read his latest book "Old Physics For New". An earlier book "Heretical Verities" deals with many of those items from a slightly different angle, but more importantly contains a very penetrating investigation of certain aspects of Quantum Theory.
Anyone who has studied de Broglie theory should recognize the equation you mention. Also, I believe most plasma physicists recognize it as well as many who work extensively with waves. That is a general relation (not unique to only EM waves).
I'll visit you're essay very shortly.
Steve
I'd like to re-state a couple of additional observations that follow from the essay here that were made in forums for other essays. This essay focuses on developing the mathematics at the fundamental level, i.e., the microscopic level of elementary particles. But as you step up a level or two to the macroscopic realm you may determine the permittivity and permeability on the basis of the volume density of each particle species. From there you can fairly easily determine the effective propagation speed of EM waves.
The dielectric tensors used to determine values in the constitutive relations are, in a rough sense, microscopic homomorphisms of the tensors used in Minkowski's electrodynamics for macroscopic calculations. Obviously getting things right in the microscopic domain has large advantages to only getting something that sort of works in the macroscopic domain. This may explain why space-time no longer appears uniform or continuous at the microscopic or quantum level.
The other re-statement of an observation from another forum has to do with a particular difficulty of the application of space-time and especially the use of transformations. There would seem to be a loss of information when we split the universe (all known facts that apply) into separate disconnected domains, i.e., frames of reference.
To highlight that problem, if we define the concept of simultaneous events based solely per observer, then we lose the information that all observers possess together. What all observers see simultaneously has at least as much value as what only one observer sees, doesn't it? It is true that all observers cannot immediately verify that they did see an event simultaneously, but after exchanging the appropriate information they may verify that they did in fact do so.
Louis De Broglie in "Non-linear Wave Mechanics" expressed a mostly intuitive distrust of transformations. I think that distrust is due to a subconscious acknowledgement of the potential loss or lack of information entailed in their use.
Steve
Stephen
Brilliant enlightened view from a mathematician.
Matt
Dear Steve,
Do you support Peter Jackson's reaction to the file forerunner?
Curious,
Steven
Eckard has called on your expertise. I agree you should be able to assist. I copy my most recent post here;
"Eckard
I responded to your post on my blog with more links (as you felt one was inadequate) and don't have Google. (I refer to your post about my wishful thinking and lack of knowledge).
You suggest my; "reasoning starts with the wrong for waves in the far field assumption that the wave speed re medium depends on the emitter."
The exact reverse is true. You had understood that a few weeks ago but seem now to have forgotten again. I can find no cause for this except that again you didn't follow my advice for gaining better comprehension. I've suggested we all need to dig deeper to find and remove those assumptions which we otherwise revert back to as a 'default mode' the moment we loose concentration.
In fact this is as true for sound, your familiar subject, as it is for light. The signal from the ear to the brain has a 'wavelength', which varies subject to the motion of the body. I suggest a calculation will show this also differs from the wavelength in the 'outside' medium. It would take a completely fresh view of the familiar to see the important consequences of this; The frequency is inversely proportional to lambda, as speed is controlled by the local medium. It is precisely the same for em waves.
I think my full reply on my string should straighten this out. You say you defer to Steve Sycamore's expert view. I also respect Steve's view and believe he'll unequivocally confirm the above. I'll flag this conversation up for Steve to comment."
Thanks, and Best wishes
Peter
