Dear Peter,

thank you very much for your comment.

As I've a very specific understanding of inertial frames, I do not know whether my view is useful for you or not.

To give an example: I think inertial frames do not have any real foundation. To state them as a universal principle like the Special Principle of Relativity is to my opinion the result of a somehow tragic extrapolation.

As in the realm of low velocities the state of rest and the states of motion were indistinguishable from an observational (!) point of view it was erroneously concluded that they are also indistinguishable from a principal (!)point of view.

By this transition an observation, that was made in a very restricted corner of the universe (concerning only very low velocities of our everyday world), was extended in a quite "unhealthy" way. It was henceforth considered of being realized with respect to all velocities including very high velocities.

This huge extrapolation was mainly supported by the MM-Experiment and the KT-Experiment. But if these two experiments are interpreted in the way, I've proposed (i.e. as experimental evidence of the two faces of c), then this experimental support can no longer be used in order to justify this extrapolation, i.e. the principle of relativity.

Although the MM-Experiment did not contribute to the genesis of special relativity it has essentially contributed to its rapid acceptance afterwards. This was even recognized by Einstein himself. In 1915 de declared that the successes of the Lorentz theory were so significant that physicists would have unhesitatingly dropped the principle of relativity, if an important experimental result like the MM experiment had not existed. And I think, he was right with that.

In brief, the notion of an inertial frame as well as the principle of relativity are - as conceived by me - highly misleading concepts. They prevent us from perceiving reality without distortion!

However, I wish you good luck for your paper.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Helmut

The dual nature of c can certainly be viewed in slightly different ways, but I always look for commonality on nature, and do find some here, and where those not looking just cite 'apples and oranges'.

We certainly also agree that conceptions assumptions and interpretations of 'inertial frames' are all quite wrong. I feel that nothing in the universe can exist if not in some state of motion wrt it's immediate surroundings, so there can be no such thing as true 'rest'.

There is than only degree of motion, and only to things that 'exist' i.e. are non zero spatially. But then I have moved on to study the effects of interactions. This then allows observations assigned as relativistic to emerge direct from the simple quantum mechanism of charging a moving body. Thus my essay.

'Uselful' is an interesting word in the context you use it. I don't think your theory is great use in changing or improving mine, but I find all different aspects useful in creating the fullest picture possible, even if I don't fully agree and much is discarded.

I hope you'll read and comment on my essay anyway as it is well falsified so little dependant on faith, as you may also find a new aspect to give your own model more substance, and as I'd be interested in your view of the ontology.

Best wishes

Peter

    Dear Peter,

    let me add a comment concerning the term of "true rest".

    This term resp. the term of "absolute rest" is certainly the most dubious term in physics. Most physicists follow Einstein's view given in his Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. According to this view the observable phenomena do not possess properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. I agree with that.

    But this statement implies something more, it implies that this term has no physical meaning, but just the opposite is the case. Absolute rest is to my opinion a rigorously defined limiting case as the speed of light is. We can come always closer to it, but we can never reach it.

    Take the equation a = v/T and let v go to zero and let T (i.e. time) go to infinity, then the acceleration a is going to zero, but it can never become strictly zero, i.e. a = 0, because time will never come to an end.

    To describe the term "absolute rest" in a more meaningful way we have to apply this equation or a similar one.

    All that means, that there is something wrong in the foundations of physics especially with respect to the law of inertia. According to this law - which is implicitly the dynamical core of the Principle of Relativity - an object at rest will stay at rest, FOREVER, as long as nothing pushes or pulls on it resp. an object in motion will stay in motion, traveling in a straight line, FOREVER, until something pushes or pulls on it.

    The key word here is: FOREVER, but this word - i.e. the word ETERNITY (i.e. T = oo) - has not yet found an adequate place in modern physics. If the term of absolute rest is defined in the above-mentioned manner linked with the term of eternity, then the state of absolute rest and the state of motion are almost indistinguishable in the realm of low velocities.

    The deeper background of this view is, of course, the (quantum) vacuum: it is the only thing in the universe which lasts FOREVER. There are at least two physical consequences coupled with it:

    (1) An observable object can never reach the state of absolute rest, because this term is exclusively (!) related to the VACUUM being the all-embracing foundation of the universe.

    (2) An observable object in motion will be continuously decelerated.

    That's the background of my radical view that the Principle of Relativity does not have any real foundation. Hope, it clarifies my specific understanding of inertial frames.

    Kind Regards

    Helmut

    Dear Helmut,

    Why should Einstein's 1905 light postulate be related to the wave model of light? If the light source starts moving towards the observer with speed v, the frequency with which the wavecrests hit the observer shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. This implies that the relative speed of the wavecrests and the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v. As you can see, insofar as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's emission theory of light is perfectly compatible with the wave model of light.

    Best regards, Pentcho

    Dear Pentcho,

    I don't understand your WHY?

    The Light Postulate of special relativity is related to the wave model of light.That is simply a fact. I've seen in WWW you have frequently mentioned the book "Relativity and Its Roots" (by Banesh Hoffmann). Let me make a quote, which refers explicitly to this point: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second principle something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." (p. 92)

    You can thus only ask: Why did Einstein choose such a "wave-like" postulate? That is a meaningful question, but it makes no sense, to contradict a given fact - in the same way as it does not make any sense to contradict the statement: The car is green, if the car is green.

    Kind Regards

    Helmut

    Hello Mr Hansen,

    You know the universe is rational and deterministic at all scales.

    The metaphysics are not the physics. In fact the physicality is rational, we can have the universal faith and in the same time, we accept our foundamental laws. Why do you want to insert metaphsyics causalities? it is not the road of a deterministic thinker. The philosophy can converge when the determinism is an essential parameter of the analyze.

    c is c you know, a constant necessary for our 3d perceptions !!! In fact this constant is an essential of our universal sphere.

    Regards

    Indeed , the spirituality is essential. I beleive strongly that the mind body probelm is solved when we understand the walls separating this infinite light and this finite physicality in evolution. It is paradoxal indeed considering the evolution, but all this puzzle rests rational and dterministic.

    The transcendance is more subtle thaa we can imagine in fact considering the main central spheres, so these singularities and its codes of evolution.The real fascination is this project of spherization in fact. If this infinite light above our walls has created this universal sphere, so thetre are reasons.After all, we build the ternal physical sphere,the paradise in fact.We are young at this universal scale, 13.7 to 15 billions years , it is young still. The metaphysics are more subtle in their pure dterminism that we can imagine. It is wonderfull all that.We are spheres of light in fact Mr Hansen, evolving towards this ultim sphere.Wonderful is even a weak word.

    Best Regards

    Dear Helmut Hansen,

    In your Author Bio you write, " .. a philosopher who is primarily interested in metaphysics". The title of my essay is "The Metaphysics of Physics". In it I argue that we cannot know 'what is' the Universe. And all human attempts to answer this question are metaphysical in essence. Thus, physical models of 'what is' the Universe are metaphysical. Whether mathematical or not. And all metaphysical attempts to know 'what is' the Universe ultimately fail under the weight of their own unreality.

    But in my essay I go further to suggest there is a way of grounding Physics to a non-metaphysical foundation. And that is by using 'measurements' (what we do know since we make them) and mathematical truisms (tautologies) applied to measurements (what we know to be logically certain - such as the Pythagorean Theorem) . I have further proposed a formulation of physics based on the 'quantity eta' - Planck's constant is such a quantity - and shown Basic Law of physics can be mathematically derived as truisms. I think you will find my essay an interesting and enjoyable read. Please do and comment!

    Best wishes,

    Constantinos

      Dear Constantinos,

      I strongly believe in metaphysics. Consequently, I don't believe that metaphysics fail under the weight of their own unreality. Just the opposite is the case. I am convinced that metaphysics can be as successful as any other physical discipline like atomic physics.

      The most difficult thing is to get your foot in the door. But it is possible, if we turn around our usual perspective. Instead of looking at the transcendent foundation itself (!) which is indeed a physically useless path to metaphysics we have to turn around and to look at the UNIVERSE and to ask: How must the UNIVERSE look like if it shall base on a foundation that can never be detected in any way?

      This question may sound strange, but TRANSCENDENCE (or - in terms of ontology - the metaphysical property of INVISIBILITY) is a highly restrictive condiction with respect to the universe. It includes f.e. very specific boundary conditions - boundary conditions which seem empirically to be realized in our (!) universe.

      Such findings make me believe that metaphysics as a science is not only possible it is probably the key science to a final theory of the universe.

      However, I wish you good luck and all the best.

      Kind Regards

      Helmut

      Dear Helmut,

      You write, "I strongly believe in metaphysics.". I am intrigued! Tell me more ...

      You write, " ... metaphysics as a science is not only possible it is probably the key science to a final theory of the universe". What do you see as the objective basis for such a science?

      You write, "...we have to turn around and to look at the UNIVERSE and to ask: How must the UNIVERSE look like if it shall base on a foundation that can never be detected in any way?"

      If something "can never be detected in any way", how do we know it or communicate it with others? I use the term 'metaphysics' in the original limited meaning in Greek as 'what lies beyond the physical universe'. This includes our theories of 'what is' the universe. I believe we cannot know 'what is'. Only our observations and measurements of 'what is'. Knowing 'what is' to me is the same kind of question as knowing God. History teaches us that we cannot know God. And all metaphysics of the past that claimed such knowledge have failed!

      Best wishes,

      Constantinos

      Dear Constantinos,

      it is true, all historical attempts to do metaphysics failed. But all these attempts made the same mistake: They tried to prove something that is empirically out of reach.

      Hence, the first step of a modern metaphysics - as I understand it - to accept just this impossibility, i.e. the transcendent nature of the ONE. Or to say in your words: To accept that the ONE lies beyond the physical universe.

      If this fundamental INVISIBILITY of the ONE is once accepted we can start to think about how the VISIBLE UNIVERSE must look like in order to be compatible with such a foundation. Invisibility is indeed an ultrarestrictive condition with respect to the physical universe. To secure the invisibility of the One the Universe has to be organized in a radical non-dual way: It must have turned a specific set of fundamental differences into "coincidences"; otherwise the ONE wouldn't be invisible.

      This demand I am calling the "Principle of Radical Non-Duality". It works in a similar way like the "Principle of Relativity". If the Principle of Relativity is intended to describe the universe correctly, then the idea of an ether (i.e. an invisible background) may not be part of a physical equation. It must rigorously be excluded - a demand, which is technically called COVARIANCE. The Principle of Radical Non-Duality works in a similar way - but with an intention that is opposite to special relativity. It is asking consciously for excluding conditions, that point to the existence of an invisible ground.

      Already in 2009 I've participated on the FQXi-Contest "What's Ultimately Possible in Physics", in which I've presented this Principle in greater detail. The title of the essay: "Taming of the One".

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/502

      Kind Regards

      Helmut

        Dear Helmut,

        "The Light Postulate of special relativity is related to the wave model of light."

        I would accept (with minor reservations) that statement of yours but I would never agree that the postulate is "half-true". Of the two statements:

        A. The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source

        B. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source

        one is absolutely true, the other is absolutely false. Nature does know where the truth is, mankind has been deceived for more than a century.

        Best regards, Pentcho

        Dear Pentcho,

        I agree, mankind has been deceived for more than a century. But it concerns our BIVALENT way of thinking, this EITHER-OR thinking.

        We apply this thinking rigorously to the Universe, without knowing precisely how (classical) Logic is realized within the Universe. Our view of light is essentially determined by this Logic: We say light is a wave OR a particle. But nature has taught us it is, somehow, BOTH - a wave AND a particle. (But not in this simple way, the terms 'Wave' and 'Particle' are only describing the endpoints of a greater multivalent spectrum of possibilities.)

        Einstein didn't believe that. He attacked the Wave-Particle Duality again and again, but in vain. And he failed - as conceived by me - because he followed also this sort of "bivalent" thinking, as the second principle of his theory is clearly showing. He decided for the wave-like face of c and against its particle-like face.

        This does not automatically exclude speeds greater than c. If the wave-particle duality is true, then the particle-aspect of light is true as well. That means, to refer to your work, the speed of light is NOT the ultimate limiting speed of the Universe. This limiting speed has to be replaced by the velocity of v = oo. This is the "true" limiting speed of the Universe. Nothing can ever reach this velocity, because this velocity cannot be related to a "process" or a "propagating signal" but only to a "state" - to something, that cann't be changed in any way.

        This new extended limiting speed involves, of course, the existence of superluminal velocities, but - to my opinion - only in a specific space-time-area, that is, beyond the speed of 0.707 c (exactly: 1/ SQR 2). But I am not quite sure about this...

        It is possible, that there is a realm in which the classical addition rule of velocities is still physically meaningful, too. If the universe has some unexpected KINKS, then it can be possible, that our perception of this "addition-process" is intrinsically limited to the speed of light c, whereas the rest (i.e. the +v) cannot directly be seen by us, but is, nonetheless, an important part of the whole picture.

        So, I am by no means against your work. I think it is still important, to explore the particle-like picture of light, because we still do not know, how the two great puzzles of light - the wave-pattern and the particle-pattern - can be combined consistently.

        So, I think your work is really important.

        Kind Regards

        Helmut

          Dear Helmut,

          Thank you for your response. I am beginning to make more sense of your thinking on metaphysics. As always, to understand anything we need to relate it to our own thinking and experience. And we need a 'dialectic' and an 'interaction' with the 'other' to reach an 'equilibrium' (an understanding) whereby our ideas 'resonate' in mutual self-recognition of each others thinking.

          That is what what I am seeking. This is what I am understanding. The metaphysics you are proposing is akin to Hegel's. Yet you make no mention in your essays of Hegel. So I must be wrong! Yet, Hegel also writes about Metaphysics as Science. Hegel also talks about the ONE. Which we strive for through a Dialectic where differences are synthesized yet remain distinct moments. Until ultimately we arrive at Reason. As a student I was greatly influenced by Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" and consider this work among the most important in all of Philosophy.

          But more to the Physics. If I understand you right, you claim the Invisible One is ether. And as invisible, ether cannot be experimentally known. Yet can provide sensible explanations of what can be known empirically. I agree with you. That is also how I think about this. And in my formulation of physics (as limited as that is - I am not a physicist) I begin with the quantity 'eta' as undefined and undefinable. Planck's constant h is such a quantity. In terms of eta, we can define all other physical quantities like energy, momentum, force, temperature, and entropy. And mathematically derive Basic Law as mathematical truisms (tautologies).

          I think of this quantity 'eta' as 'ether'. And I think of ''ether' as 'being'. That the Greek letter eta is close-sounding to the Greek word for 'being' makes this connection for me even more 'sensible'. That 'eta' can be thought as an abbreviation for "energy-time-action" makes this connection to physics more real. Since 'eta' can be expressed as the 'time-integral of energy' or 'space-integral of momentum' in units of joule-sec. That η is closest Greek letter in looks to h (a constant 'eta') is the 'icing on the cake'.

          Perhaps this background may make my essay more interesting to you now. I'd be very interested in knowing your good thoughts to the arguments I make in it. And your good rating!

          Best wishes,

          Constantinos

          4 days later

          Dear Helmut,

          I enjoyed the novel and original perspective on the speed of light you introduced. I believe there may be an objection that can be made to your argument:

          The particle-like manifestation of light does not appear to be on the same footing as its wave-like manifestation, because the former appears exclusively the instant light is absorbed. This seems in contrast to the wave-particle duality of, say, electrons, which continue to exist even after they have been localized. If we could observe the particle-like manifestation of light without causing it to go out of existence, then your argument would fully apply, but if not, then there does not seem to be a need to consider the wave-particle duality to apply to the speed of light itself.

          Actually, as I am writing this, an idea occurred to me for how your dual parameterization might already have been implemented in special relativity in an as yet unrecognized way. I will outline the idea below and would appreciate your comments.

          The relevant equation from special relativity to consider is:

          [math]\frac{1}{\gamma^2}+\beta^2=1[/math]

          Now, multiplying both sides by the speed of light squared gives

          [math]\frac{c^2}{\gamma^2}+v^2=c^2[/math]

          The first term is a paremeterization with units of speeds of how fast an object is observed to progress in time since:

          [math]\frac{c}{\gamma}=c\frac{d\tau}{dt}[/math]

          where dtau is the proper time. This can also be thought of as a speed term independent of the dimensional units since

          [math]c\frac{d\tau}{dt}=\frac{ds}{dt} \equiv{v_{\tau}}[/math]

          where ds is the spacetime interval and the last term is defined as motion in proper time. Inserting this into the second equation finally gives

          [math]v_{\tau}^2+v^2=c^2[/math]

          The relevance to your dual parameterization would seem to be this: We know that electromagnetic radiation is energy propagating at v=c in space. In this form, it has the wave-like aspect. But if it is absorbed, that energy becomes now part of a massive object which, unlike the radiation, is associated with a rest frame. In a rest frame, v_tau=c. So, in a particle manifestation, this energy in its rest frame is also associated with a speed of light but now in time, not in space.

          Incidentally, I used this conceptualization of "motion in proper time" in my essay submission to the first FQXi contest four years ago. It was about the speed of light postulate, so you might find it interesting . It is topic 329 (I also have an essay this year, topic 1431, but it is less directly related to yours).

          I hope you found this comments useful and interesting,

          All the best,

          Armin

            Dear Armin,

            tank you very much for your comment, but I was not particularly surprised about this comment.

            Actually, I've already read that paper (i.e. topic 329). It caught my attention because you have explicitly made a reference to Epstein's book: Relativity Visualized, Insight Press, 1997.

            As you know Epstein described the Postulate of the Constancy of Light in a specific geometrical way - as a (quarter) circle being parametrized by c = 1.

            If you interprete this (quarter) circle concsciously as the geometrical blueprint of the wave-like face of c, as I called it, then the question naturally arises: How does the geometrical blueprint of the particle-like face of c look like?

            My answer: It looks like a SQUARE, which is also parametrized by c = 1.

            That's the formal or principal content of the Dual Parametrization of c.

            When Epstein discussed the Galilean Principle of Relativity in terms of his visual approach he should already touch this blueprint of the square, but he did not recognize it as physically meaningful blueprint. (see: pp. 64, 65 ) Instead of that, he excluded it, because it contradicted special relativity, especially the Lorentz-Transformation.

            But there is no contradiction: If we assume, that both blueprints the (quarter ) circle and the square are closely entangled, then their relationship to each other can be read in a lorentzinvariant way.

            Interestingly the lorentzinvariant design of this entangled geometrical structure is sligthly different from the relativistic type of Lorentzinvariance. Just this subtle difference allows to test this hypothesis experimentally.

            This structure is - as conceiced by me - the geometrical core of a more extended space-time-picture. Hence, the Dual Parametrization of c is not implemented in special relativity in an as yet unrecognized way as you have supposed in your comment. It is just the other way around: the relativistic space-time is somehow implemented in t-h-i-s structure. It is more complex and more extended than the relativistic space-time-picture.

            My 5-pages NPA-paper "The Hidden Face of c or: The True Meaning of the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment" gives you an impression of all the stuff which I have sketched here in a few lines.

            You can easily google this by: hidden face of c

            Kind Regards

            Helmut

            P.S. I will, of course, look at your present paper.

            Dear Helmut,

            I read your other paper and now have a much better idea of what you refer to with the dual parameterization of light. You have noticed an interesting feature of Epstein's representation of time dilation and connected it to quantum theory using a novel interpretation of the KT experiments.

            The comments in the last section were particularly intriguing. I take it that you are looking for a way to remove the UV divergences in QED that is an alternative to renormalization. If you succeed, and especially if your method can be generalized, then I think your model has a good chance of being widely accepted.

            All the best,

            Armin

            Dear Helmut,

            You write, "The wave-particle duality of light is a well-established concept of

            modern physics. It postulates that light exhibits both a wave-like face and a

            particle-like face. But this Janus-faced concept was never consciously applied

            to the speed of light itself. If light has two faces, it would be naturally to

            assume, that the speed of light has two faces as well. This assumption

            which I am calling the »Dual Parametrization of c« shall be outlined."

            I agree with this idea, the duality in Universe is a principle. Now how to do to make emerging this idea. I think you are in the way by principle, your questions are fair.

            You can take a look to my essay, and i am sure you will find some encouragements.

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552

            Good luck

            Dear Mr. Hannou,

            I have indeed a very specific understanding how the Dual Parametrization of c is physically realized. It concerns exclusively the notions of space and time - and not matter, as your work does.

            However, I have posted a comment on your FQXi-Site.

            Thanks for visiting and commenting by essay.

            I wish you good luck.

            Regards

            Helmut