• [deleted]

  • Post #11

I am not topologist, just layman...

Dear Armin, thank you for your comments on my essay. Regarding the mathematics, I actually started doing it in the section on time, but then realized that I ran out of space, so I just left it out, expecting the logic of the model to speak for itself. Besides, the model is in line with ADD, the reference to which, with all its mathematics, is included for an interested reader.

Regarding predictions, perhaps you did not check the reference to a dwarf galaxy in a nearby void that shows a deformation in its structure (2011)? Or what about the prediction that the same object can be seen twice from different directions in our sky? Finally, you don't seem to be impressed by my resolution of the old paradox of space, but how would you personally explain that a material object can freely move through what is otherwise impermeable?

Perhaps I should have greater emphasized that what we perceive is actually projections from 4D on either side of the membrane onto its 3D. This explains the quantum uncertainties: some info is lost when you project from a higher space, and then the result varies depending on the angle of the projection. The model explains why a nucleus appears so small from our 3D POV and the half-integer spin of fermions: a full rotation in 4D looks from a 3D POV as 720° or 2 turns necessary to return to the original state.

True, I only listed all this, without going into the details, expecting the reader to have a decent grasp of the basics of the 4D geometry, which perhaps was not right.

The model explains the source of all movement as originating from the structure ejecting the deformations introduced into it locally, thus showing why a naked nucleus gets kicked around much... Why... I thought the premise on which the model stood was sound and that its implications were logically derived.

But I very much appreciate your feedback. Thank you!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #13

M.V.:

Your essay touched on the core of a physics problem.. "space". In space one can observe the motion of mass and keep track of all energies involved, but rarely consider the concomitant "growth" that can occur to affect energy balances..

My model, To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

developed in detail in "End Notes", suggests 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D "spaces" achieve 6/16, 9/16, and 1/16 " respective probabilities for growth as motion proceeds.

Comment?

    Frank, I don't think Einstein's curved space-time theory is weird, lol. I rather think it's brilliant. What's more, I believe that he got really lucky with Minkowski spacetime (the idea of which he did not like at first): it worked out so well, because our world _is_ 4D.

    As for the specifics of the EM field housed in 3-brane, again I respectfully disagree with your assessment. There is plenty of work explaining it workings and many proposed models, starting with the original Maxwell model. That's why I did not think that I should go into these details. Besides, it is the overall concept derived from the top down approached that I wanted to show.

    But thank you for your reply!

    Why thank you George! Do tell your friends and relatives :)

    Ms. Vasilyeva,

    Maxwell's ether theory says 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. What do YOU say?

    http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

    JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

    http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml

    Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

    http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

    Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      • [deleted]

      • Post #19

      This is my community rating on your essay.

      Pentcho, I believe the speed of waves is the property of the medium in which they propagate (ex. the speed of sound in air is about constant, modified by some local conditions such as density, temperature, humidity, etc). I do not see why space should be different. So, speed of light is a constant, modified by some local conditions.

      Since speed of light is the property of space itself then your question boils down to: what is the observer and how observation can interfere with the wave-medium properties of space.

      The result of Michelson-Morley experiment is well known, even though its interpretation varied in time. At first it meant that there was no stationary ether; then it meant that the laws of nature were the same for all observers. What you are saying in your essay is that observer interferes with the local conditions in space, therefore affecting the speed of light. It's hard to argue with that. However, Lorentz transformation shows hows this type of interference cancels out in the end. Perhaps there are different ways of observing -? Would they each come with its own transformation, still giving the same null result?

      Let us assume, in accordance with the classical ether theory, that:

      Assumption 1. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the light source.

      Assumption 2. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer.

      The null result of the Michelson-Morley is incompatible with the combination of the two assumptions so we have to change them. The simplest change that restores the compatibility with the null result is as follows:

      Assumption 1 is replaced by Assumption 1': The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source.

      http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

      Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. 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 postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      Yes, thank you, George. Ratings are a part of a contest, but I'm mostly interested in the feedback to my ideas. For example, I would like to know how sound is my idea that a 4D configuration corresponds to the lowest energy state for a dynamic, vibrating structure that defines space. That is the crucial part of my essay. Intuitively I feel that this is right. I looked for a suitable theorem to this effect, but was short on time.

      What do you think?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #23

      but i have my own view

      see my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413#addPost

      Pentcho, if you read my essay, I do not support the the classical ether theory. IMHO that was a wrong model, based on wrong assumptions. Why bring it back in?

      Your abstract states, "A hypothesis is advanced according to which any shift in frequency implies shift in the speed of light." IMHO, frequency being inversely proportional to wavelength, implies --to me at least-- the shift in wavelength. Which was confirmed by the observation.

      Your solution, i.e. that "The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source" contradicts my view, on which I cannot compromise, and that is: the speed of light is the property of space. As such, it is a constant.

      What do you think about the reality of a 4th spatial dimension?

      Ms. Vasilyeva, you wrote: "Your solution, i.e. that "The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source" contradicts my view, on which I cannot compromise, and that is: the speed of light is the property of space. As such, it is a constant."

      Is the speed of light "the property of space" in the same way in which the speed of sound is the property of air? If yes, the speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer, and your community rating may plummet.

      Best regards, Pentcho

        LOL let it plummet. Hey, Giordano Bruno went to the stake for his convictions. What's rating in an essay contest for a newbie? I want to hear the feedback to my ideas. Do you have any?

        To answer your question of my innermost believes, yes, the speed of light is the property of space in the same way as the speed of sound is the property of air. The speed of waves is always the property of the medium in which they propagate and is dictated by the medium.

        What you don't seem to understand is that the observer of the speed of sound in the air is on the same footing as the air, while the observer of the speed of light IS NOT ON THE SAME FOOTING AS LIGHT.

        I understand where you confusion lies. Many lay people share it. Physics is partially to blame for it, when it declared space empty and substituted the paradox of space with the wave-particle duality (just the topic of my essay, by the way). Ever since, many lay people (and even some physicists) put particles of light (which are just convenient abstractions of momentum of light waves in space) on par with material objects, of which a grandfather clock is the all time favorite, lol.

        But I am certain that if you give this just a bit of thought --I highly recommend reading my essay!-- you can overcome these difficulties. I found that just adding 1 spatial dimension, the 4th, suddenly explains all paradoxes, starting with the central paradox of science, which is the paradox of space. Once you solve it, everything just falls into its right place, confusion vanishes and life becomes worth living again :)

        Is the formula v'=v+v0 given by Sidney Redner correct? For sound waves? For light waves?

        http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

        Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO."

        Pentcho Valev

        Pentcho, you do not understand the difference between space and things in space. I am afraid I have exhausted my resources trying to help you and have nothing else to add.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #29

        Hi M.V. Your essay was a fun read, and I think the picture you have of how things work is better than many. I agree that forces and particles should both be described in terms of spacetime geometry (topological solitons of some type), and also that large extra dimensions may be involved. I think you would enjoy reading about the bouncing droplet system -- it is a lot like your flatland. If you have no journal access send me an email, otherwise some references are given in my essay.

        Andrew

          • [deleted]

          • Post #30

          Hi M. V. V.,

          You wrote "fear of resurrecting old ether theories". Why fear? Is your suggestion a new ether theory? Was Einstein correct when he resurrected the ether in 1920 except for admitting it as preferred system of reference? I

          n the discussion you repeatedly used "lol". I doubt that this is a persuading style. Don't some arguments e.g. by Pentcho Valev and Frank Makinson rather deserve a factual reply?

          You called space a paradox. Galileo's pupil Torricelli and Guericke demonstrated that a spatio vacuo (without air) actually exists. Two kinds of experiments by the latter led to the industrial revolution and the study of electricity. Guericke tried to understand forces between distant bodies. I see justified curiosity but no paradox in this case.

          Cantor's transfinite cardinalities and Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) led into many paradoxes even if their supporter tend to deny them and your ideas are nonetheless based on SR if spacetime is based on SR.

          Einstein in 1905 tacitly referred to Lorentz. Lorentz adopted Potier's correction to Michelson's first experiment.

          Meanwhile, some experts questioned that the null-result of MMX disproves the existence of an absolute space alias ether alias preferred frame of reference. I quoted some of them in my essay. My own humble contribution is my Fig. 5. Feel challenged to either provide a different explanation or resurrect absolute space.

          Using the expression "in time" you seem to fatalistically believe that there are future worldlines in reality.

          At least I appreciate that you understand light propagating within the medium space.

          Eckard