John,

"What are "entities," other than a deeper level of interaction?" Good question, but I'd say 'the distinguishable 'result' of interaction'. then that only leaves the unknowable as unknown, what is the universe ultimately made of? Certainly not 'matter' as we know it. My point was only to distinguish the 'physical' from the rest, to allow a quite new 'line' to be drawn.

You may recall my paper on AGN dynamics ('Black Holes'), where the 'centre' is where the helical 'windings' around the toroid of matter from the accretion disc (old galactic matter) are focussed into the quasar jets, which precess around each other, finally ripping apart ('re-ionizing') the last coherent atoms. Most of that, after a few years pushing, is now becoming accepted astrophysics. I also agree the Lagrangian point at ALL centres of mass, as my 2011 essay.

Your note on gravity is interesting. Photoionization is indeed 'pair production' of condensed fermion vorteces in the QV, which is matter from light. Again now becoming better known. It's called 'Impulsive stimulated Raman scattering' (ISRS); "expressed as a linear response to the instantaneous Stokes parameters (ISPs) of the laser pulse. These IPSs expressed in rotational coordinates are then shown to be responsible for the angular momentum transfer from light to matter." Higuchi et al. Jan 2013

This the IS what's described as dark matter, which is what is now actually physically found by the Alpha Spectrometer and other probes, i.e. diffuse plasma. I agree it's certainly a wholistic process, the plasma is condensed at local compression points to modulate EM fluctuation re-propagation speed to c. Beautiful simplicity!

Phil,

Just untangled you from John.

Thanks. On the Monte Hall problem there's actually a more important point missed by the mathematicians, and nothing to do with host strategy. i.e. Even if a blindfold 3rd party 'opens the door', in those cases where the prize is NOT revealed, the odds remain exactly the same.

This is what the computer programme which proved the case did. The unknown 'host strategy' (which the game show competitors were all worried about) was removed as a factor. Only then could the real hidden reason be tracked down, the invisible 'probability density' hidden in 'sample space', which the maths could not parametrise.

Yet that REAL lesson is STILL not learned by mathematicians! in the same way many of them genuinely believe there is no need for any underlying mechanism to GR or SR! The solution to the EPR paradox proposed comes straight from this hidden 'subset' of data.

Did you follow that?

    Peter,

    Another point would be the effort to eradicate space as a primary aspect of reality, We have the Higgs field to explain inertia and multiverses as blowback from avoiding infinities, the entire universe emerging from a point because space is treated as a measure of points, etc. I think this, the banishing of space, that will prove to be the ultimate hubris.

    Can't have a monolithic, object oriented theology in an infinite context.

    Also you seem to be more informed than I, as all I seem to hear are the howls of the old(susy, strings) crumbling, yet pushing out to ever more cosmic extremes(multiverses).

    John,

    I agree, physics is a dark labyrinth with a lot of howling and utter confusion. You have identified the magic button. The only problem with 'ether' was that it was assumed to have to be 'absolute' (i.e. one single 'frame' for the whole universe. But if 'regions' of space move with respect to other there is no problem at all. he WMAP data found just that, as Smoot's 2004 Nobel analysis (Smoot's website refers to 'ether'). But craven religious physicists were scared to death, not ready to accept ether back

    I tried to bring back 'space' with last year's essay. And what happened? Good support, finishing 7th, but completely ignored by the 'professionals'. It's also implicit this year (or 'allowed' but well hidden) but should emerge from the proof of EPR resolution. Unfortunately that appears to be beyond most to understand, certainly by the score so far!

    Cest' la vie.

    Peter,

    Keep in mind absolute and infinite are not interchangeable. Yes, absolute means an state lacking all distinction and thus not having any boundaries, so would be unlimited, but what it really refers to is the lack of distinguishing features means there cannot be motion, which requires reference. Both ether and moving frames allow motion. I'm simply talking blank, empty space. No frames or contents to move. No boundaries. Nothing.

    The alternative is to assume everything began, space included, at a singularity, which being something, needs explanation. What I'm saying is that with empty space, not ether, there is no need for explanation. It doesn't have to be balanced by an opposite effect, as it is nothing/zero. Not zero as a point, but the absence of any reference. Yet this does give it two characteristics, in that it is both absolute and infinite, which are the parameters of all.

    Even God can't beat that.

    John,

    I'm afraid God beat that hands down! His solution is far simpler. So simple, beautiful and perfect that man can hardly grasp it and make it stick to the messy neural networks in our heads. You did so once, but , as with most it slipped away. Are you willing to try again? Let's give it a go.

    1. Space is not 'nothing'. Call it what you will, but only the dense ion particle fields condensed between it's co. Moving regions are important (i.e. bow shocks).

    2. In Einstein's terms 'absolute' referred to a 'one only' background ether frame. He was right. this cannot work. However, he only had to ban the 'one only' ('absolute') characteristic not the concept of 'background' itself. (Stokes/Fresnel got close, but Lorentz/Lodge's poor understanding caused them to dismiss it.)

    3. So we DO have Einstein's (1952) "Smaller space 's' in motion wrt larger space 'S'." Earth's LOCAL ECI 'frame', including the ionosphere, is then a REAL PHYSICAL ENTITY moving wrt the barycentric frame (solar system,)

    4. EM waves 'PROPAGATE', which is a LOCAL phenomena, at c IN each frame. light the CHANGES SPEED to the LOCAL c everywhere. (scattered to c by the shock particles) there is then ALWAYS a datum for speed, as there must be. The particles are essential to implement the change. The Doppler shift of wavelength is the result, obviously limited to (so 'by') the minimum wavelength 'gamma'.

    5. Inertial systems are then real, local and mutually exclusive. They are formed by states of motion. They include all detectors 'lenses' which may be in their own rest frame. Once assimilated its simple beauty emerges.

    Now this 'discrete field' based (DFM) system works perfectly, in application it matches observation perfectly, is entirely free of paradox and resolves all known anomalies, and all it's many predictions are born out by findings. I have well over 200 papers which, between the lines, show the completed jigsaw puzzle.

    So why is it not adopted? Because it is unfamiliar. To those schooled in different physics it is 'different', so is obviously wrong. I've now asked hundreds to falsify it. They try, and all fail, so revert to, "yes but it MUST BE wrong because it's 'different' to our (paradox and anomaly ridden) beliefs!"

    What somewhat confuses me is why so many NOT indoctrinated by other nonsense can't visualise the dynamics. You're far better placed than me to help by explaining what it is that prevents it appearing obvious. Can you help? I'm at a bit of a loss to be honest.

    Peter,

    I'm not saying there are not smaller frames, I'm just saying there are always larger frames. Any bounded entity/frame will have a larger context.

    For an example of both this and the unwillingness of others to consider it, here is a discussion I've been having with Cormac O'Raifeartaigh over how saying space is expanding and retaining a constant speed of light is contradictory. Suffice to say, neither you nor I have much luck peeling anyone away from the herd(headed for the cliff) and if we did, they would lose any influence on the herd, thus canceling any benefit. May as well let the wave pass and try picking up the pieces after they finally do run off the edge.

    John,

    Agreed, always a local background, an infinite hierarchy, and of something, with a 'state of motion', NOT 'nothing'.

    I suspect because everything IS observer dependent, then your argument with Cormac is rendered entirely semantic and 'trivial' (in the scientific sense) as using different datums you are both correct.

    i.e. When you measure the LOCAL propagation speed of light, i.e. wrt the local medium, you WILL still find it as c, no matter what the expansion rate. The ket to the solution is the APPARENT speed of light (c+v) when not measured in your rest frame.

    Sit on your hot air balloon watching Concord fly past. The light pulse in the plane will APPEAR to be doing c. Yet both the pulse in the plane and the light signals scattered laterally to your lens are both doing c. i.e. THERE NEVER WAS A PROBLEM!!! All observers DETECTING the light that reaches them find c. Can you see any problem? Humanity has simply been stupid!

    Put a large steak on for me.

    PS; Where on Earth do all those beans come from that the cowboys always eat?

    Peter,

    It's not really about the speed of light, but lightyears as a galactic measure. We can only measure the speed of light here on earth, but use this unit as an intergalactic yardstick. A lightyear is about 6 trillion miles. So consider we just say two galaxies x6 trillion miles apart, grow to be 2x6 trillion miles apart. That is increased distance, not "stretched" space.

    As I pointed out to Cormac, if space is what you measure with a ruler, then stretching it means stretching the ruler.

    It may be trivial, but I like my logic not to contradict, if possible.

    Peter

    The problem you have with this particular aspect of your theory is, essentially, twofold:

    -everything is observer independent, not dependent, indeed physical existence occurs independently of any form of sensing

    -it is irrelevant whether light travels at a constant speed, or apparently so, depending on what reference is chosen to calibrate its speed, in the sense that there is no issue to be resolved between rate of change (aka time) and speed of light. Einstein had no observational light. His second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. His light was just a constant, used to calibrate distance and duration, it was not observational.

    Paul

    John,

    I agree you're essentially correct, but that doesn't actually quite work (even in mainstream interpretation) because there's a major factor you're not considering; that c is a 'propagation' speed. i.e. a speed through a medium, which is always c LOCALLY wherever and whenever it's detected and speed measured.

    That's all about speed being only a 'relative' concept. In this case it is relative to the local frame. Emission theory is wrong, and always inconsistent with observation, so the emitter frame cannot be used as a long distance propagation speed datum. Obviously any receiver may not exist until met, so only the medium itself can be relevant (this was Einstein's problem).

    So then you have a decision. It it the medium 'stretching', or it it the emitter and receiver moving further apart 'through' the medium while the light is travelling!? Both are less problematic than 'no medium', but not devoid!

    This is what the DFM resolves. The diffuse plasma (as found) consistently scatters all light to the local plasma's c (eventually). Near matter in motion the fermion conjugate pairs are condensed (ionized) locally BY the motion to implement the task (again EXACTLY as found!). What this means is that as space expands the propagation is continuously re-scattered to the new local c, so from our local rest frame here it will have gently 'changed speed', explaining the spectroscopic results obtained (and all the 'surfaces last scattered' of the CMB.

    I know this may sound a little complex at first but it's actually dead simple, and is the ONLY mechanism that meets all observations and resolves all the paradoxes. The only rule is; "All local electrons emit photons at c." It's never been falsified. It just seems it's too 'different' to swallow for those steeped in ancient beliefs. (or too hard to understand).

    Can you see the evolving dynamics?

    Paul,

    Neither of those points are problems. All physical existence does indeed occur independent of observers, but observers also have no access to any wavefunction state information prior to interaction (detection). i.e. They have no more data PRE-interaction than they'd have if they'd 'moved away' just before any signal arrived. Which of course is entirely intuitive.

    It appears you may not fully grasp the underlying simplicity and dynamics of the theory. Hopefully the above explanation to John may also help explain.

    Peter

    Peter,

    "It it the medium 'stretching', or it it the emitter and receiver moving further apart 'through' the medium while the light is travelling!"

    The problem is the theory argues the first and assumes the later.

    We are really only seeing this at one point in time, but the theory argues these distant galaxies will eventually disappear, as they become too far away for the light to travel. So they are therefore moving away relative to a constant speed of light, while it is argued "space itself" is expanding. If light "changes speed" ie , speeds up as the space is stretched, wouldn't they always be visible, since the speed of light would increase to match the expansion?

    Not that this makes much sense, but it's not my theory. As I see it, space is flat, in both theory and observation, because intergalactic expansion is matched by galactic/gravitational contraction. It is just that the light from these distant sources can only reach us through the intergalactic "expanded" space.

    What seems to be overlooked is that those intervening galaxies are not just inert points of reference, like raisins in the loaf, but "space sinks." We just can't compare what happens to all the light radiating from a source, to that little bit of stretched light that managed to travel all the way across the universe, as much of it is "compressed/absorbed" by those intervening entities. I think we overlook the wave side of the equation and think of the light as just point particles traveling for billions of years, but it is all entangled and what happens to what falls into the gravity wells is still a factor/balance to what travels much further.

    Otherwise we have to explain inflation, dark energy, multiverses and all the other patches required to keep this model on life support.

    John,

    I entirely agree current theory is almost complete nonsense, including conserved photon particles. But within astronomy the situation is rather different and it's only 94% nonsense.

    The problem is, as you say, that NONE of the accepted options can resolve the nonsense and explain the spectroscopy. Unfortunately your suggestion also doesn't! If you really want to understand it check this out, then follow the link to the papers and look at the relevant ones. Plank findings. But there are some horrific errors and disagreement in the ranks! You'll find that for redshift they considered NO other fundamntally different assumptions, so no wonder the paradoxes remained.

    I'n not sure you understood the DFM model, which works consistently. m the light does NOT speed up. but is consistently scattered to c locally on meeting all matter, including the galaxy haloes it passes through. Its like finally getting a jigsaw puzzle right. There is no argument. It's the only way it could be! Tell me if there are any parts you don't understand.

    The logical explanations for (much reduced inflation and dark energy emerge. it's only those two that are NOT patches! The others are 10 thick. I'll explain how both emerge consistently, intuitively and with real proof if you wish.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Peter,

    I do have some sense of the DFM model and how it contextually deals with C. You did add the comment "change speed," in reference to different fields and I sort of ran with it. I realize the thumbnail sketch I gave there had more to do with using various analogies used to describe geometric spacetime, rather than underlaying physics. I have to say though, that the whole discipline seems so lost in detail, there is a seemingly garbled general understanding of how it all came to be.

    As I first read it, decades ago, Einstein surmised that the curvature of space known as gravity causes space to collapse and to keep a stable universe, added the cosmological constant. Yet he dropped the idea when learning Hubble discovered redshift! It seemed to me that would be evidence of the cosmological constant! Galaxies draw the measure of space, ie. mass points in. The space in between them expands. This balances. The overall universe appears flat. It's not like I'm trying to add anything, it just seems the most basic reading of the evidence doesn't need the entire universe expanding from a point and needing inflation and dark energy to fill in the enormous gaps. Rather it is just a basic cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass. Nothing more than cosmic fluctuations on an infinite scale.

    So then what is causing redshift and how does it relate to the cosmological expansion. As I see it, it would be a property of light expanding to fill ever greater volume with distance and that would seem a consequence of wave properties. No one has actually tested what happens to light over quatrillions of miles and none have been seemingly willing to risk their careers thinking about it.

    So now we have multiverses and outsiders are starting to have their suspicions things are not quite right.

    Peter

    Your explanation to John only helps to highlight where the problems are.

    Einstein does not have any observational light, so there is no issue about rate of change and light speed consistency to be resolved in the first place. In other words, how light works is obviously important, per se, but has no relevance to the fault in relativity.

    On your specific point, obviously an observer has no access to any information before they have observed! That was not my point, which was that observing can only involve the identification of something which has already occurred, and in doing so had a definitive state. That is, observation cannot affect the physical circumstance, neither is that circumstance indefinite.

    Paul

    Hi Peter,

    Very thought provoking essay. Many comments have already been made to which you have ably answered. I wont repeat those.

    RE: In many ways the theme still boils down to the same old question asked in many ways, viz. One or Many, Discrete or Continuous, Yes or No, 0 or 1? Part of what I got from your essay is that we should make room for DUALITY, MAYBE, BOTH, ALL IN BETWEEN in our answers, i.e. (0,1), the 'Excluded Middle'.

    While perfectly agreeing with that proposal, for completeness how this is implemented must be put forward AT THE SAME TIME you give your included/reducing middle answer. E.g. can Schrodinger's cat actually be BOTH dead and alive and be in THE MIDDLE at the final state?

    If you recall in my essay I proposed how the duality of discrete and continuous space is implemented. Space is continuous, since the discrete units of its expression cannot again have a 'space' or 'separation' between them. At the same time, it is discrete because it is not infinitely divisible and moreover the discrete units can undergo emergence and annihilation. Thus the 'separation' is "time" not "space".

    RE: "no two physical entities are identical. Even cases of numerous similar entities where set quantifiers such as heap, or field are essential no two may be identical".

    Even if identical in ALL qualities no two things can occupy the SAME position.

    RE: Difficult to visualize, sample space needs explanations and examples to reveal it's full power.

    How are points, lines, surfaces and bodies defined in this sample space? That is, does a line have length and its breadth is zero, or does a surface have breadth and width but of zero thickness? Compare with Euclid's definitions.

    RE: Light speed...

    I have commented on light speed on your blog for last year's essay. I can comment more here if you wish since I may not be going over to last year's blog soon.

    RE: The Einstein Podolski Rosen (EPR) Paradox

    EPR paradox is an ailment afflicting only the particle view of light where there is no medium. It is absent in the transverse wave picture of light. There is no quantum jumping or superluminal signalling. When you measure the plane of polarization of one wave, you can infer that of the other. As to what the medium is, like Newton would say "I have calculated it but leave the joy of discovery to others". Neither will I show you the calculations because I cant find them!!

    Cheerio,

    Akinbo

    Paul,

    I and the model have no issue with any of your comments. I'm not then certain what you mean by "where the problems are". Perhaps if you think there are problems in the model itself you might be specific about where. But if you refer to the current paradigm I have only one quibble.

    You suggest "how light works is obviously important, per se, but has no relevance to the fault in relativity." I have described the proposition that the assumption that the characteristic 'absolute' (one only) is tied to the concept of 'background frames' which Einstein assumed in deriving the Relativity of Simultaneity underpinning SR, is false. This is clearly the case as we have confirmed for instance that light on Mars does c wrt Mars not c wrt Earth! It has not however been assimilated so is 'swept under the carpet' with all the other inconsistent facts!

    Now as this is at least indirectly about how, or 'THAT' light 'propagates' at c. so at c in the LOCAL background, than we could say it IS relevant to that particular fault in relativity. When corrected we find that the quantum mechanism of propagation (atomic scattering at c) actually PRODUCES the relativistic' effects directly!! I clearly couldn't then be classed as 'irrelevant'.

    Now I can agree it has less DIRECT relevance, and that there are other faults, but to say it is irrelevant is to potentially miss the critically important matter of the assumption used for the Rel of Simultaneity. It is important to highlight that point as almost all have missed it, as if some intellectual block is implanted in their brains, so the confusion remains. I know you'd grasped it previously, but with so many it 'slips away' easily amid the ('garbled' as John says) confusion of current beliefs.

    To see grasp and retain the simplicity hiding in the pile of confusion is not easy.

    I've now first read your essay, improved from last year, and will comment soon.

    best wishes

    Peter

    Akinbo,

    Thanks for your positive comments. We have much common understanding.

    The cat was certainly alive but is now long dead. However the expanding Schrodinger 'spheres' show that there IS also a valid analogy for 'potential' at any point in space and time. Like the members of a sports team, only having 'potential' at home, but when they all meet they become an 'entity' with power.

    I refer to the NLS equation spread function as a coherent particle evolving into just waves (as the team drift away from the bar?). So I agree, time is key.

    The Excluded Middle is the additional parametrisation of the smaller 'subset' between 0,1. Believing only 0 or 1 can exist hides that information. considered as red or green, the 'redness' and 'greenness' (or energy) can vary. So if we only ask 'red' or 'green'? we can never find the subtleties of nature.

    I also agree mutual exclusion of 'position', as Boscovitch, Descartes and Einstein! Lines and points do not 'exist' in ANY subset of 'sample space', which merely parametrised 'how red? etc. In fact I've shown that the Cartesian co-ordinate system cannot model motion! (but not here due to space ..etc!)

    I agree the plane of polarization solution but show it can also be applied to Schrodinger's coherent distinguishable wave packet; 'particles' more subtly, due to the 'transverse COMPONENT' existing, because that allows the orbital angular momentum we know they hold.

    I'll check over on last years bog when I get a moment.

    Best wishes

    Peter