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

        Hi Eckard,

        Thank you for your comments on my essay.

        No, my model is not an ether theory. I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday energies, where matter and space are separate (they may be one and the same at very high energies, a point I omitted in my essay). The setup is in line with ADD model, the reference to which is listed.

        No, IMHO, "ether" cannot be used "as preferred system of reference". This is because space is a dynamic, fluid structure, and as such is not suitable for this purpose, just as captains cannot use the real ocean as a frame of reference for navigation and must rely on stars (and now, GPS).

        Neither do I find paradoxical that space (spatio vacuo) actually exists. The paradox is that the spatio vacuo contains the same field that makes matter impenetrable to other matter. And yet we move through it with ease.

        I am glad that we are in agreement that waves require a medium. Funny times we live in. 100 years ago this was still a given and people were only starting to scratch their heads, lol, trying to understand the abstractions of Einstein's theory. Today, such an obvious notion puts many in a state of stupor and all they can reply is "but there is no ether". As if there is no other ways of modeling space.

        Again, thank you for your comments and your feedback. I very much appreciate it!

        Thank you Andrew for your feedback on my essay. I looked up bouncing droplets last night and saw some videos a while ago. This is indeed fascinating. To me it illustrates the fractal nature of reality, where the same principles operate at various scales. I am not sure how to send you an email. Mine is vasilyeva_mv@yahoo.com Yes, I'd love to read more about the bouncing droplet systems.

        Dear Gurcharn,

        thank you for your comments on my essay.

        I looked up your abstract and see that you advocate for a the absolute reference frame. I also see that you write in your thread that you "cannot accept 4D spacetime model of GR as a physical entity that can be curved or deformed... In my opinion it is absolutely essential to distinguish between the mathematical notion of coordinate space and the physical space."

        While I agree that it is essential to distinguish between the mathematical notion of coordinate space and the physical space, I believe that 4D spacetime of GR worked out so well, because it closely models the underlying 4D geometry of space. And I presume you have already seen my take on the absolute reference frame in the post above.

        Regarding your comments about the community ratings, as a complete newbie here and a bit of an aspie, I do not navigate well the seas of social interactions. I found Pentcho's hints and even threats of downvoting above funny. Even funnier is the public voting campaign organized by George Rajna. His supporters are instructed to upvote his essay (over 80 ratings already!) while simultaneously voting 1 to all others, thus most now have 4-6 with only 2-3 votes. 10+1/2=6 that's how it works out. The whole thing reminds more of a game of Survivor on TV. No, it's actually worse. You people made a farce of this contest.

        I do not care that much about the votes. I want feedback. Do you know enough topology to comment on my idea that a dynamic vibrating structure that defines space finds its lowest energy state in a 4D configuration? Do you know a theorem that I could use in support of this idea?

        • [deleted]

        • Post #34

        Ms. Vasilyeva,

        I appreciate Eckard responding about ether, he explains it better than I can. I read an article some time ago where a person stated that the arguments used for the need of a Higgs boson, and its related field, were essentially the same arguments used for the need of "aether".

        Your last comment contained: "I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday energies, where matter and space are separate (they may be one and the same at very high energies, a point I omitted in my essay)." Topic 1539 contains the term "energeum", and the essay develop the characteristics of this "stuff" to fill up the quantum vacuum.

        I find it inconceivable that contemporary physicists never bother to explain why space, essentially a vacuum, has permittivity and permeability, measurable characteristics. I am beginning to think that it is deliberately ignored. I don't believe the scientific community realizes that EM waves cannot propagate without the presence of a medium that posseses permittivity and permeability, which could be described as a "neutral field" that permeates all space and matter.

        And, Einstein, Minkowski and all the other scientists of that era were totally ignorant that electromagnetic (EM) waves, over a wide spectrum, were pervasive in space. These "ancient scientists" were aware that light reached the earth from distance stars, and it was an EM phenomenon, but they were totally unaware that other EM spectrum was reaching earth. This was not "discovered" until the 1930s, by a couple of what were called "radio engineers" at that time. Georgina Parry, topic 1316, used the term "incomplete information" as a polite term for "ignorance".

        There is a very simple explanation how EM fields can accomplish what is called gravity, but Einstein acolytes will not even consider anything that doesn't fit General Relativity, even if it is simple.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #35

        Thank you M. V. V. for responding. Being ignorant of the ADD model, I read: "Results from the Large Hadron Collider do not appear to support the model."

        Perez argues for reloading the preferred system of reference. I just doubt that this is possible when he maintains Einstein's SR. Admittedly, I only found out that the primary reason for Einstein to fabricate SR was based on the most likely wrong assumption that the MMX will yield a non-null result; see my Fig. 5.

        Can any electromagnetic wave propagate in a Faraday's cage? I am an EE; I say no. Is your space something with a frequency-dependent transfer function?

        While I agree on the assumption that there is perhaps something (call it absolute space or ether or preferred background) that em waves refer to like the sea that carries a ship, I would not infer that it "makes matter impenetrable to other matter. And yet we move through it with ease."

        Eckard

        .

        • [deleted]

        • Post #36

        Dear M.V. Vasilyeva,

        It is my essay:

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1516

        Comment?

        Marek

          Dear Marek, you seem to be unaware of Lorentz transformation that also explained the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It is great that you came up with a similar idea on your own.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations

          Hi guys

          Just to make a correction. Dear Eckard you mentioned: Perez argues for reloading the preferred system of reference. I just doubt that this is possible when he maintains Einstein's SR. Certainly, this is paradoxical. I argue in favor of the PSR and therefore against SR since this theory does not accept PSRs. To me aether, space, quantum vacuum and zero-point field are synonymous. I assume it to be a massive fluid and thus the medium for EM waves. From the assumption that space is a fluid it has been shown that Lorentz symmetry is emergent. Therefore there is no contradiction between the PSR and Lorentz symmetry. This is a theory different from SR.

          Cheers

          Israel

          Eckard Blumschein,

          Regarding the quote from wiki on ADD, it refers to limits on the minimum black hole mass, the whole question of which is in dispute (see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702142).

          Regarding your denial that there is a paradox of space, you must be unaware that you contradict yourself:

          1. you admit that there is medium for the EM radiation

          2. as an EE, you are well aware of the transverse nature of waves and of their speed.

          3. (2) implies that the medium is a solid whose rigidity surpasses the strongest known materials.

          The paradox is in this rigidity in face of the apparent emptiness. Your ether model does not fit the data, because ether cannot support transverse waves.

          I explain the paradox in 4D, with EM radiation living in the 3-brane and matter being confined to it in the 4th dimension.

          PS

          I got lots of work now and will not be able to continue our discussion. Take care.

          Dear Vasilyeva

          I really enjoyed reading your inspiring essay. I agree with most of your essay and I would like to make some comments and state some doubts.

          First you argue that you are not in support of the old aether notion and you also argue that it was wrong. I wonder why you think, it was wrong. Could you make some comments.

          You state an old paradox with the question: how can space be both empty and solid? I think you are aware that this paradox is only valid considering that space is some sort of fluid. Today physics does not assume space as such and therefore there is no paradox for contemporary physics. As I can see your program attempts to revive the problem and by reviving the problem you are trying to solve the present ones. In my essay I try to do the same by reviving the notion of aether and the notion of the preferred system of reference, I think you will be very much interested in reading it. I will be glad if you could leave me some comments. My question in this respect is: don't you think that by reviving the old problem you are also contradicting current views, in particular, the general and the special relativity?

          Something that was not clear for me is whether you think that the universe was created in the Big Bang (BB) or not. As I read, at a given point of your essay you argued that at the moment of the BB the universe had n-dimensions and after some time the universe (by unknown reasons) was left with only four. My question is: do you accept the idea that the universe had a BB, i.e., that the universe had a beginning? If so, What reasons can you provide to explain the lost of dimensions?

          According to your comments it seems to me that you are confusing the type of dimensions, because you argue that the 3D universe can be seen as a shell of the 4D and then you call it a membrane or for short brane in the sense of modern theories, such as string theory. I think you are mixing the concepts because you are talking about physical dimensions and not geometrical dimensions. You are supporting the view that the 3D space we experience everyday is some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of 4D, likewise as a sheet of metal could be embedded in a solid sphere. When one talks about branes, membranes or dimensions in the sense of relativity those dimensions are not physical dimensions but geometrical dimensions whose dimensions are devoid of substance. In a certain sense, the geometrical dimensions are an abstraction of the solid ones but they are not the same. In the late 1910s and beginning of the 1920s Kaluza and Klein worked out a geometrical 4+1 D model of the universe but their predictions were irreconcilable with experience. From the 1930s to 1970s physicists worked in geometrical spaces with 5+1 and 6+1 dimensions but the results were not satisfactory either, this is why these attempts are not widely known. The most famous and successful of these multidimensional theories is string theory that requires 10+1 dimensions to be mathematically consistent (to a certain extent) but these are all geometrical theories, which are different to your proposal with solid dimensions. So I would suggest not to mix conceptions.

          As far as I can see you have completely digested the idea of the world in 4D and so you speak quite naturally about them. I agree with your view and the consequences derived from this idea, in particular to quantum mechanics. I clearly understand this.

          You also argue that the red shift can be caused by the lost of energy of light due to the viscosity of space, I agree. And if this is true one arrives at the conclusion that there is no expansion. But at the same time you support geometrical spaces in the sense of general relativity which explain the redshift as geometrical expansion, which seems clearly paradoxical. This paragraph has some relation with the question I raised in the third paragraph above.

          Congratulations for your work and I wish you good luck in the contest

          Best regards

          Israel

            • [deleted]

            • Post #41

            Ms Vasilyeva,

            Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?

              Dear Israel,

              Thank you for your feedback on my essay. It is regrettable that you approached it with some preconceived notions and also lacking certain understanding of the 4D geometry, which is clear from your following comment:

              "You are supporting the view that the 3D space we experience everyday is some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of 4D, likewise as a sheet of metal could be embedded in a solid sphere. "

              It appears that you do not know that the surface of a 4D object, such as a hypersphere, is 3-dimensional in the same way as a surface of a sphere is a 2D plane. The 2D surface of a sphere is not "some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of" a sphere, but is an integral part of it. Similarly, the 3D surface is an integral part of a hypersphere. It seems all your confusion about my essay stems from this lack of basic geometric awareness. In line with other multidimensional models, I called this 3D surface a membrane, instead of always referring to it as a (hyper)surface.

              In addition, I am not sure what you mean by "solid dimensions" which you differentiate from "geometrical dimensions". This seems your original definitions and usage, on which I cannot comment.

              Regarding the KK model predictions that you refer to, they were based on the wrong assumption that the extra dimension was equally accessible to both matter and radiation as the observed 3. The same wrong assumption was the reason why Klein invented compactification: to ensure that the extra dimension was well hidden and thus in line with the question of why we do not see it. In my essay I show that this was both wrong and unnecessary.

              Regarding your question of why ether was a wrong model, first, the concept itself stems from air, which cannot support transverse waves, and second, the theory never considered the 4D nature of space, assuming that it had only 3 observed dimensions.

              You also say: "... that this paradox is only valid considering that space is some sort of fluid. Today physics does not assume space as such and therefore there is no paradox for contemporary physics. My question in this respect is: don't you think that by reviving the old problem you are also contradicting current views, in particular, the general and the special relativity?"

              That physics decreed 100 years ago that space was empty is in fact the topic of my essay, in which I argue that it was the wrong turn.

              In no way does my model contradicts current views. You seem to have missed the part where I say that the model is the same overall as other models with large extra dimension (which are in line with relativity).

              You also say: "Something that was not clear for me is whether you think that the universe was created in the Big Bang (BB) or not. ... What reasons can you provide to explain the lost of dimensions? "

              In the essay I say, "in line with big bang theory, we could assume that initially the structure had infinite number of dimensions, but once it cooled off, it settled into 4D." I presume you are aware of the high energies at first instances after the BB. These high energies correspond to higher-dimensionality of space. When space cools off, its structure precipitates from higher-dimensions into lower, i.e. it looses dimensions, as if energies hidden in higher dimensions trickle down all the way to 4D, increasing the bulk and hyperssurface area, which corresponds to expansion.

              Similarly, going in the direction of increasing energy, when the structure is put under too much pressure locally, because it is non-compressible, it will bulge out into an additional dimension (and by the way, in this context, the appearance of singularities is what marks the door into a higher dimension). When the local pressures let go, the energies hidden in extra-dimension trickle back into the 4D bulk, causing it to expand, which, in turn, increases its 3D surface area, causing perceived expansion of space.

              Regarding the process of "precipitation into a lower D", being only an analyst, I can't adequately speak for topology. My hunch is that the method based on Hamilton-Ricci flow, quite possibly the one perfected by Grigory Perelman in his latest work, may shed some light on the specifics.

              Again, thank you for your feedback.

              I have read your essay today and found it interesting, even though I cannot conceive of an absolute reference frame, for which you advocate. I see absolute reference frame an abstraction that cannot exist in reality. But it is the plurality of our views is that is valued in this contest. Best regards to you!

              Hi Vic Kley,

              Thank you for your question, even though I'm not sure what else to say in addition to what I already said in the essay. I offered several explanations, from simple ones, such as, why a nucleus appears so small (because it exists in 4D, outside the 3D that we perceive and is only touching it) to why voids are empty, why light gets tired, or why there is no need to invent dark matter and dark energy, because both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' gravity emerges from the same property of the hypersurface of the hypersphere, which is our world, to minimize its hypersurface area. (after e-talking to Israel above I am not sure what terms to use, since a membrane or brane confused him).

              How about the solution to the paradox of space? From the exchanges with other contributors here I see now that the problem is worse than it appeared to me initially. After 100 years people have become so used to the incongruous idea of waves propagating through emptiness, without any medium, that they do not see a paradox. But this is fundamentally wrong. Waves do require a medium. The medium in question cannot be "ether", simply because the phenomenal speed of transverse waves imply a super-rigid solid. Or a surface of incompressible fluid.

              It's late here. I will think over your question and post tomorrow. In the mean time, would you please tell me why what I already listed in my essay does not seem for you enough. Thank you.