Is Kinematics Compatible With Field Symmetries? by Stephen M Sycamore

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

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.

Stephen

Brilliant enlightened view from a mathematician.

Matt

Dear Steve,

Do you support Peter Jackson's reaction to the file forerunner?

Curious,

EckardAttachment #1: 2_forerunner.doc

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

Steve

Re our exchange in Ben's blog.

While I would never understand some of the maths, I do not want to comment too much on the underlying logic (spacetime, c, etc) because I might just be pre-empting conclusions which I have in my head but want to confirm by finishing that paper (the first half of which was a response on Ben's blog).

Though the history is irrelevant, my simple understanding is that Voigt and Doppler were using the concept of local time. Understandably though, because they were trying to represent effects which occurred over time. Lorentz uses local time later, with Poincaré in the background with his misconception of time and timing. In very crude terms: it was rather like 'pin the tail on the donkey'. Through all the deliberations over ether, ether movement, light, light speed and direction, earth movement, etc, there was deemed to be variance, and time finally provided a suitable candidate. The problem is that this is just associated with observation. Hence the appearance of c in so many equations. Which raises the rather obvious question as to what has the speed of an effect in photons got to do with it?? It could be that a differential in gravitational force applied, ie a force, because only differences have the effect, could cause dimensional alteration, as well as momentum change. This was their original position, it was never rescinded, and could be correct.

SR is a red herring

γ is really a generic expression for the relationship between a rate of change as is with that rate as is when referred to another reference which is altering. Forget c. It could be any v. Again, c is just a reflection of the fact that the entire model of physical reality has been built with c as the determinant. Light just enables sight!!

Neither is physical reality only three dimensional spatially, this just represents the minimum number conceptually possible. From any given spatial position, the smallest elementary particle could move (ie alter spatial position) by next occupying any other adjacent spatial point, of which there will be a definite number determined by the size (spatial footprint) of that elementary particle. So, the number of possible physical dimensions is half that number of those possible directions, as the concept of dimension relates to a direction, either way.

Physical existence (as it can only be known to us) is an n spatially dimensional state of the substance which comprises it, which exists in one definitive physically existent state at a time. The rate of change, obviously, being determined by the fastest form of change in physical existence. That does not imply that everything has changed in that duration, but if something has, then there is a different physically existent state. This is the tick rate of physical existence.

The big question here is, what can we assume to be the relationship between a unit of spatial relationship and a unit of change.

Paul

Steve

I could never build a model, I will leave that to others. In fact, as I have just said (again) in Ben's blog, I doubt if we could ever get down to the existential level, ie what is actually happening. But we can establish some rules that must not be contravened in modelling (and I have posted these before), even if it has to be at a 'simplified' level.

Believe me, I am frustrated at not getting to at least some more 'conclusions'. I am currently motivated, having been bored with it all. But last night I managed to faint in the theatre, which is highly embarrassing, and my knee really hurts. The current paper, of which I posted half, to respond to Ben's point about time, is a rewrite of two others. So I have an idea as to 'where it is going'. Suffice it to say for now, that I think the current view of what constitutes our physical reality is a sub-set where c (as in speed and light) is the design determinant. Apart from getting the very basic wrong, ie it is spatially existent state altering over time. One state at a time. A state is only in one form. It's a What the Butler Saw machine, at an incredibly high speed!!

Paul

Ben (Steve)

In responding to your comment about the relativity of simultaneity invoked by Einstein seemed to be a feature of the real world, and preclude a 'naïve' notion of an external time parameter, I posted a detailed response which replied to that, but was the front end of a re-write. I did rather assume that, although one would get to the same basic conclusion, that the rest of the argument, as currently expounded, was at least internally valid. But the impact of failing to understand the expression t =x/v, and the conflation of existence with observation of existence is more far reaching than I thought. So watch this space.

Paul

Dear Stephen Sycamore,

Kinematics of Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe differs from that in Standard model of cosmology as the kinematics of point like structures are not expressional in this paradigm. This implies that the Lorentz force applied with Maxwell's equations needs modified definition for charge force, as it is variable rather than invariable point charge force when expressional with eigen-rotations of string-segments, in that partial differential equation is applicable.

Variability of charge force by an eigen-rotational string-segment depends on its angular velocity and string-length, in that the proper time is cyclic as observational with the moving clock at the peripheral end of that eigen-rotational string-segment.

Geometry of motion of eigen-rotational string-segments described in this paradigm, expresses three dimensional tetrahedral-brane structures from two dimensional membrane fields and thus the field symmetry is preserved only on completion of an eigen-rotational cycle of the string-segment and not within a cycle of rotation of that string-segment.

Thus the energy transfer by the wave dynamics in this paradigm is described as the disjunction of a string-segment or its sub-segment from the source string and conjunction of it with the target string.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Stephen

I notice on Ben's blog you are still active. I finished that response, the germ of which was in an initial response to Ben, which you found of interest and incredibly detailed. Its on my essay blog, in total (12 pages) as I did not understand links! If you would prefer a copy send e-mail to paulwhatsit@msn.com.

Paul