Dear Sergey,

my idea of a Dual Parametrization of c is closely related to a new space-time-concept, which is geometrically composed of a square and a circle. This space-time-concepts in which square and circle are intimately entangled implies a Lorentz Symmetry, that is slightly different from the relativistic version.

As the dual parametrization of the speed of light follows resp. reflects just this space-time-concept it is not a convention. It is a direct expression of this underlying space-time-continuum.

Helmut

7 days later

Dear Helmut,

It is a well written essay on something is often overlooked by physicists. Wave-particle duality may really challenge the constancy of speed of light. This duality is strictly linked with the commutation relations and currently you can understand it purely from the mathematical aspect where the canonical commutation relations are non-vanishing. And this is also leads to the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle may prevent you from knowing the source speed and position with certainty, and then you cannot know with certainty the speed of light relative to the source. Therefore you would see variations on the speed of light. I wouldn't say it would be always greater than c, but that it varies and possibly that only its mean value equals c.

This is might not be exactly what you say, but is the same basic idea. Quantum mechanics my challenge not only general relativity and gravitation but also special relativity. But I think most people do not worry about it. I'm not sure about the consequences of wave-particle duality, and uncertainty principle for special relativity, but for sure it might have some consequences. Keep trying to clarify it!

Good luck for your paper!

Frederico

Dear Frederico,

the Dual Parametrization of c implies two exactly defined notions of c = 1. There is nothing like a sort of statistical resp. mean value that equals c, because the background of this dual parametrization is a well-defined spacetime that is composed of a SQUARE and a CIRCLE.

Just these well-defined geometrical structures allow to formulate spacetime in an obserser-independent way - in a relativistic as well as in a quantummechanical direction.

Thank you for your comment.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Dear Yuri,

thanks for clarifying your position.

I have a quite different view of reality. I am deeply convinced that our universe bases on a transcendent foundation (i.e. the ONE), which means, that all equations have to fail with respect to the ONE. Otherwise it could not be described of being transcendent. Transcendence is actually an ultrarestrictive condition with respect to the observable universe. It limits the way it can look like significantly.

To give an example that is directly referring to your position: The minimal and the maximal speed limit of a Universe with a transcendent foundation (!) have to be: v = 0 and v = oo. This demand is indeed logically unavoidable.

A modern metaphysics (of which I am thinking) explains how these speed limitations are physically realized. As far as the speed limitations are concerned there is a specific space-time-structure, which looks very much like a MANDALA. In this archetypal structure there are two space-time-sections; one that is limited by v = c and the other one, that is limited by v = oo. At the speed point of .707 c (or exactly: 1/SQR 2 c), which I am calling GOEDELs POINT both sections are touching each other...

In this way I am thinking about speed limits.

Good Luck for your Paper.

Helmut

    Dear Mr. Hoang Cao Hai,

    thank you very much for visiting this website. I am not sufficiently informed to say something meaningful about the HIGGS-Boson and its relationship to the standard model.

    I hope you will find somebody who can share your vision.

    All the Best for You.

    Helmut

    Hi Helmut,

    Though the speed of light c certainly is a velocity limit to massive objects, that does not mean that we can attribute light itself a (finite) velocity: in my essay I argue that it refers to a property of spacetime which is something else entirely, one result being that the findings of the double-slit experiment become self-evident.

    The essay is but a part of a more extended study (see www.quantumgravity.nl) in which I try to find out how a universe might create itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention, what kind of particles, particle properties, phenomena and laws of physics such universe might produce. As this philosophical approach is diametrically opposite to regular physics which stars from observations, it might be of interest to you.

    Regards,

    Anton

    Dear Ben,

    thank you very much for your comment.

    I am not so far away from your position as far as the parameter c is concerned.

    Actually, the underlying foundation of my concept of a Dual Nature of c is indeed a specific space-time, that is geometrically composed of a CIRCLE and a SQUARE. As these two geometrical blueprints are internally parametrized in the same way, that is, c = 1, I am speaking of a Dual Parametrization of c.

    But with respect to the origin resp. foundation of the universe there might be a difference. To me transcendence (the existence of something outside the universe) is vital part of the cosmological picture: Transcendence is indeed a highly restrictive condition, that determines essentially the structure of the universe. To give an example: to secure the invisibility resp. transcendence of the One a sort of a radical non-dual conception of the Universe is required. This specific conception implies f.e. a specific set of boundary conditions at the universe etc. That's the way I am thinking. I looks quite different than yours.

    However, I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work as well.

    Regards

    Helmut

    Dear Helmut,

    You wrote: "He [Einstein] decided for the wave-like face of c and against its particle-like face."

    Actually he decided against both. Both the wave model and the particle model of light (represented by Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory) predict that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer. Special relativity says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer.

    Pentcho Valev

    Dear Helmut,

    I like your essay for it points out very clearly one of the erroneous concepts in physics the dual nature of light. Sometimes it looks like a particle and sometimes it looks like a wave depending upon the experiment we perform. Congratulations for one of the few who point out that the emperor has on no clothes.

    I am interested in this subject also and consider light to be a phenomena that is non continuous. If you are curious check out: www.digitalwavetheory.com, the section on the mechanics of digital waves.

    Best of Luck,

    Don Limuti

    Dear Don,

    thank you very much for your comment.

    I have visited your website with your highly interesting approach. From a philosophical point I do not agree, because I am convinced that the most fundamental level of reality (i.e. the existence of a transcendent sphere) is essentially determined by physical parameter of ZERO and INFINITY, otherwise this sphere (metaphysically called the ONE) could not be transcendent.

    That is the fundamental way I am looking at the universe: How must the Universe be organized if its ultimate foundation shall not be visible resp. observable from any point inside the Universe?

    To formulate TRANSCENDENCE in a physical meaningful sense we have thus to take into account extremal values like ZERO and INFINITY. The existence of the ONE implies f.e. specific spatial boundary conditions, like R = 0, R = oo.

    But from a physical point concerning the immanent part of reality (i.e. the observable UNIVERSE) your approach makes sense. Therefore I have made a top rating for your essay.

    Furthermore, to make a little contribution to your approach, I like to recommend deBroglie's --thermodynamics of the isolated particle-- that he had developed after 1960. It offers the possibility to conncect physics and information theory/entropy which might be an interesting piece of theory for your digitalwave-approach.

    In the book QUANTA / [by] J. Andrade e Silva and G. Lochak; translated from the French by Patrick Moore, preface by Louis de Broglie a non-technical overview of this THERMODYNAMICS OF AN ISOLATED PARTICLE is given.

    I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work.

    Kind Regards

    Helmut

    Helmut,

    Let us return to Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

    "...velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

    This presupposes an observer/receiver who measures the same speed of light no matter how the emitting body moves. There is only one alternative: the observer does not measure the same speed of light when the emitting body changes its state of motion.

    So either the postulate is true, or its negation is. The postulate cannot be "half-true" as you claim - the law of excluded middle forbids this.

    Pentcho Valev

      Dear Helmut Hanson,

      On another thread you wrote:"I think, we still tend to solve this riddle by make a decision in favour of one of these two possibilities and against the other one... But perhaps every one-sided view (including in its most subtle and sophisticated version) is a fundamentally limited view, that does not cover REALITY in its totality."

      That caught my attention as it is very relevant to the ideas I have been trying to communicate about reality in physics, and it inspired me to read your essay.

      I found it very interesting , readable and relevant to the contest. Well done. I think you may be "seeing further" than many of the other contest entrants. I am sure the "light" does have at least a duel nature. It is what it is unobserved, it carries potential data, and it becomes what we make if it. That might make more sense in the context of the explanatory framework I am using, summarised in diagram 1.in my essay .There is a high resolution version in my essay thread.

      Good luck to you in the contest. Kind regards Georgina.

        Dear Helmut,

        You make a good point that the speed of "classical particles" such as projectiles through a material medium depends on the speed of the source, whereas the speed of "classical waves" such as sound does not. Thus, in proposing "wave-particle duality," it does seem as if one is immediately faced with the question of which type of behavior, source-dependence or independence, should be expected.

        I suppose the converse question could be asked about de Broglie's matter waves, since they correspond to particles with source-dependent speed.

        It seems that in the vacuum, this does not create a problem for light in special relativity, because the sum of the speeds of a source and a classical particle emitted from a source cannot exceed c anyway, as you point out in equation 4. However, this does seem to create a potential problem for the motion of light in a material medium, such as water, where we know the speed is less than c. Here, source-independence fails for classical particles.

        I am glad you pointed this out. I had not thought about it this way before.

        By the way, in the beginning of your essay, you describe covariance (i.e. Lorentz invariance) in terms of group symmetry. Of course, this is the standard understanding, but my belief is that ultimately the symmetry interpretation of covariance will have to be replaced by a more general idea about order (this arises in the relativity of simultaneity, for instance, where the order of two events depends on the frame of reference). If you are interested, you might look at my essay here.

        Thanks for the enjoyable read, and good luck in the contest! Take care,

        Ben Dribus

          Dear P.,

          you are completely right. Just to uncover this contradiction was one of the main purposes of my essay. I wanted to show, that the principal core of special relativity is semantically inconsistent if all deducable consequences are really deduced.

          The invariance of the speed of light is certainly the most counterintuitive aspect of SR. No one really understood why the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the OBSERVER.

          Mathematically this aspect is expressed by the relativistic composition law of velocity, in particular by the composition of the speed of light c with a subluminal (!) speed, that is, c = c v/(1 cv/c^2).

          The same particular law can consistently be applied to a particle model of light. Accordingly, the speed of light is always the same regardless of the motion of the SOURCE. This conclusion may be equally counterintuitive like the Invariance of the Speed of Light but it is nonetheless in full agreement with special relativity.

          This result allows for a relativistic emission theory theory of light. Taken together with classical kinematics, an emission theory makes the velocity of light usually different in different inertial frames of reference; but Einsteins result shows that relativistic kinematics eliminates this problem. Since emission theories of light were traditionally associated with particle models, this meant that a particle model of light is compatible with special-relativistic kinematics.

          see also: Stachel, John; Einsteins Light-Quantum Hypothesis, or Why Didn_t Einstein Propose a Quantum Gas a Decade-and-a-Half Earlier? In: Einstein_The formative Years, 1879_1909, Einstein Studies 2000, p. 240

          But this possibility has far-reaching consequences with respect to the internal consistency of Special Relativity: It means that f.e. the deSitter-Experiment can relativistically (!) be interpreted in two different way: the speed of light c depends on the motion of the source resp. the speed of light c does not depend on the motion of the source. Both relativistic interpretations are in principle possible.

          In other words, Special Relativitiy has obviously a blind spot if its principal core is completely unfolded.

          Kind Regards

          Helmut

            Dear Ben,

            I like your approach, because it is based on principle. The most important question is indeed: What is really fundamental?

            The answer of this question decides how physics will develop in future times. You have identified six crucial principles, f.e. background-independence.

            Actually this is - as conceived by me - the most important one. Looking for a preferred frame of reference is still an active field of search, especially in connection with the Microwave-Background-Radiation.

            I have a specific idea about this background. This background is by its very nature of metaphysical origin. It is just that transcendent sphere for which we are looking for more than two thousand years in vain. This background, that Platon called the ONE, determines essentially the space-time-structure; a structure, which looks very much like a MANDALA. This structure possesses in fact a sort of general Lorentz Invariance for which you are looking, too. This Lorentz Invariance is slightly different from the relativistic one - just these subtle differences makes this general invariance highly interesting.

            May be you will have a look...

            http://www.worldsci.org/people/Helmut_Hansen

            I wish you good luck for your paper as well as for your work.

            Kind Regards

            Helmut

            Dear Georgina,

            thank you very much for your kind words. I agree, our way of thinking is the key to everything. It is thus highly important, to fix the traps in which we can be captured. I like to recommend you to go on with your work. An explanatory framework as you have developed it in diagram no. 1 is of a great support in our journey to truth.

            I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work.

            Kind Regards

            Helmut