Alternative Models of Reality

"How can the constituent properties of previous events be incorporated into the present, if those events still exist in some other state?"

Just look to the night sky, John, at millions of timelike separated events. I take it you don't think they are real.

Best,

Tom

Akinbo,

OK, I'll slow down a little. There's much new to visualise clearly and derive.

Firstly your question; "whether there are experimental observations relatively to the earth as the body of reference, THAT ARE influenced by the translational velocity of the earth?"

Yes of course there are, very many, and not only since space exploration. But none breach Einstein's SR postulates, because; "propagation is is always at the certain speed c". All evidence conclusively supports the postulates (allowing birefringence during extinction as a special case, see J.D Jackson).

But that's not where the issue lies. There's no problem within Earth's "inertial system", at rest in the a physical ECI 'rest frame' including all at rest in Earth (atmosphere, ionosphere).

Now here we invoke the concept 'discrete' to point out that all OTHER bodies have their OWN inertial systems, so local 'rest frame'. Not to difficult to visualise I hope. Stars (solar systems) in relative motion, all planetary systems in relative motion within them (creating the hierarchical 'Discrete Field Model'; DFM). OK?

So the issue only arises when we consider the transit of EM fluctuations across the 'boundaries' between these systems, which seems so hard to grasp. Yet they stare us in the face as the ubiquitous astrophysical 'shocks' (dense plasma clouds) pervading space around all bodies in motion. But lets leave those as just an axiom for now. We'll just look at the effects you asked about.

Shockingly (!) once we consider effects CROSSING the frame boundary, all are consistent with progressive re-scattering by the plasma to the new local c, to recover SR (and now as the 'Real Local' effect Einstein was after). But ALL these effects are inconsistent with the 'interpretations' of SR added after the fact, and rather disowned by Einstein in 1952.; (SR is "ENTIRELY' contained within the postulates.")! [translate according to your religion!).

I'll list a few off the top of my head, most simply considered 'poorly understood' or swept under the carpet; Earth's bow shock (Doppler) wavelength change, 'Electron heating' and Alfven waves etc., Stellar Aberration ('Refraction' has to be added

Tom,

You get essentially the same effect walking around Rome, or down into the Grand Canyon. Just because the light of some star that went supernova a billion years ago, in some distant galaxy, is just now reaching us, or that eons of sediment are built up on the earth's crust, or first century columns are built into some fourteenth century church, being passed by 21st century traffic, doesn't mean the events which gave these forms their shape continue to exist in some other dimension. The very fact their debris helps to form our reality mitigates against it. It is a process which we model as narrative, but that doesn't mean these events continue to exist outside of our minds. That star, those dinosaurs and the Roman legions are now dust. Trying to argue they exist in some fundamental physical theory is ignoring the facts in order to sustain a model.

Epicycles were mathematically accurate for the very simple reason that we are the center of our view of the universe, but that didn't mean there really were giant cosmic gearwheels powering them.

Regards,

John M

You have a strong sense of past, present and future, John. I don't.

Tom,

You have a strong sense of mathematical structure that I don't have.

Regards, John M

I would like to say something about the Spacetime Wave theory treatment of the property force.

We are told that there are four fundamental forces namely: gravitation, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. Why are there four forces and what is the underlying cause of these forces?

We need to start with the force of gravity and use the ideas of General Relativity (GR) to think through how the geometry of spacetime results in this force. The force of gravity appears to be a force acting between two bodies somehow pulling them together; a sort of action at a distance. GR tells us that it is the geometry of spacetime that results in the force of gravity.

The Spacetime Wave theory asserts that all fundamental forces arise as a result of the geometry of spacetime acting on objects in spacetime. This assertion seems surprising at first since the magnitude of the gravitational force is much less than the other forces. How can we understand how the electromagnetic and nuclear forces arise from the geometry of spacetime? The key point is to note that the presence of a force will be accompanied by a difference in energy levels between two states. If a force is present, this implies an energy difference between the current state and any physical movement in the direction of the force. So the magnitute of the force will be related to an energy difference between two states.

In the case of the strong nuclear force the energy difference is the mass deficit. When a proton and a neutron are in close proximity, the energy (mass) is less than the energy (mass) of the individual proton and neutron widely separated. The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the looped spacetime wave nature of the neutron and electron. The energy of the spacetime wave in a closed loop is affected by the close proximity of another looped spacetime wave.

Similarly the electrostatic force and the magnetic force can be seen to arise from differences in energy levels once we have grasped the Spacetime Wave theory as related to electric charge.

This approach to the property force seems much more satisfactory than the idea of a force arising from a continuous exchange of particles.

Richard

You see, I blog from sub-Saharan Africa, the darkest part. Some call it underdeveloped, some say it is the third world. We don't regard this as derogatory because it is true. We don't see snow, we eat natural foods, not processed or genetically modified. Another important feature here is that our atmosphere contains a lot of dark matter, maybe that is why someone refers to this place as the dark continent. We are not worried by this as we have been informed that dark matter constitutes more than 80% of all the matter in the universe and that our solar system is 25000 light years from the galactic centre and right in the middle of the foggiest part going by Milky Way galaxy rotation curve. Indeed, we are told this is to be expected by authors from enlightened part of the world, here and here. All this has implication for we followers of Mr Einstein here. Your environment may be more fortunate than ours and free from the polluting dark matter we have here. Nevertheless, the Michelson-Morley experiments we conducted here indeed give similar null results as those up there and so we have full confidence in his statement, which I quoted above from the free e-book Tom graciously sent. It is therefore always very heart warming to us whenever we get confirmation that optical phenomena, relatively to the earth as the body of reference, ARE NOT influenced by the translational velocity of the earth as John Cox recently indicated.

However, we have a disagreement amongst us as some insist the null Michelson-Morley result we obtained is due to the dark matter, gravitationally bound to our environment here. To resolve this, we started looking forward to reliable information from the more enlightened first world, as we do not have good telescopes, lunar laser ranging equipment and GPS satellites to conduct experiments here with optical phenomena higher up than our dark matter choked atmosphere to silence the dissenting voices among us and getting visas to come up there for experiment is very difficult. Neither will those with the equipment be willing to come here.

As they say, facts are sacred, comments are free. Mr Einstein is our friend, but our greatest friend is Truth. It is in this regard, that we are unsettled by rumours we are hearing that in analysing new optical phenomena such as Pulsar signals, Lunar laser ranging, Cosmic background radiation, the translational velocity of the earth is being subtracted and doctored from the observed recordings, very much contrary to Mr Einstein's explicit advice that the recordings should be uninfluenced by that motion. Can this rumour be true? If it is, as these new optical phenomena were not available during Mr Einstein's lifetime, are they exceptions to the rule and so can be affected by the translational velocity of the earth? Over here, we don't know the veracity of the rumours and what to believe. Please, kindly help debunk these unsettling rumours as we Mr Einstein's followers still believe strongly that optical phenomena, relatively to the earth as the body of reference, ARE NOT influenced by the translational velocity of the earth and there should be no need to factor it in data analysed from optical phenomena.

Best regards from the third world,

Akinbo

*And please we are comfortable in many ways with Mr Einstein's propagation speed, c even if Peter J mentions above that speeds of 46c have been detected. Of course, I may be wrong but Mr Einstein's told us that if the gravitational field is 46 times smaller, clocks in that environment will run 46 times faster. Am I wrong? But not to digress, let us know about the rumours we are hearing first.

Tom,

"Then what the heck is c'?" The same as c, but speed of propagation in a different place, in an inertial system. Exactly what SR says, but plus Local Reality.

Think of Doppler shift as it really is; a shift of the real scalar quality wavelength, only later computed against time to give the metaphysical 'frequency'.

As with sound waves this may then also be due to the change of speed required at the transformation, so this is the alternative we posit; Mutually exclusive real material inertial systems, then conforming with all exclusion principles. An 'inertial frame' is then simply a 'state of motion' of some particle or collection of matter. An electron, a cloud of electrons/protons, a lens, or any 'dielectric medium'.

The simple 'discrete field' Laws are; 1. 'All space is field' (again as AE said). It's just that some media (i.e. the ISM) are more diffuse, so have greater extinction distance. And; 2. All particles re-emit at c, whatever the relative 'approach' speed was.

Ergo; All observers always find light speed = c. And light speed always 'propagates at c' (SR) because, as in Copenhagen, the observer makes it so on detection (QM).

At the high ion shock densities propagated at very high speeds the Doppler wavelength change (blue shift) approaches gamma and 'Optical Breakdown' energy density (OB mode ~ 10^21 ions/cm^-3) so we get a 'hockey stick' curve, excess heat, the ions in the LHC hit the 'wall' (and astronauts loose radio contact as ambient ion density increases promoting the OB bow shock).

So there your are. No messing with the 'complete' mathematics, but a non-linear quantum version that removes all apparent paradox and logically predicts all the 'anomalous' effects found. Now I promise you I really didn't intent to be quite so 'ambitious' Tom, but it just is what it is. Once the kinetic code was broken it just all poured out, washed away the rubbish and clarified things!

It makes real the Minkowski/Einstein (1980/1952; "not one 'space' but infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion." Only really the 'semi hidden' assumption in SR interpretation that 'no absolute background' also means 'no moving background' is falsified (an 1893 error). I'd characterise it as equal slight reconfigurations of SR and QM to make them one. Quantized GR by the way is implicit.

It is an intellectual challenge, but I have every confidence you'll rise to it Tom. Perhaps think of yourself as a litmus test for mankind!

Peter

C' is ..."The same as c, but speed of propagation in a different place, in an inertial system. Exactly what SR says, but plus Local Reality."

Peter, if c and c' are the same value, they are identical. Special relativity is already a local realistic theory, which is why the value of c is the same in every inertial system.

"It makes real the Minkowski/Einstein (1980/1952; "not one 'space' but infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion."

This comes by way of Mach's principle. It's a restatment of the principle that all motion is relative.

"Only really the 'semi hidden' assumption in SR interpretation that 'no absolute background' also means 'no moving background' is falsified (an 1893 error)."

Right. All motion is relative.

"I'd characterise it as equal slight reconfigurations of SR and QM to make them one. Quantized GR by the way is implicit."

I wish you well in your quest for unity.

"Perhaps think of yourself as a litmus test for mankind!"

Peter, I didn't think it was possible to underestimate your ambition. I was wrong! :-)

All best,

Tom

Akinbo,

You and your friends are not the only ones suffering a crisis in physics.

It seems it is turning out to be more simple than anyone figured, but all the work(and jobs) is in complex solutions.

To paraphrase the old margarine commercial, "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."

Regards,

John M

Peter,

I will have to go back and study your work better, but rushing off now.

Consider for a moment though, that convection pretty well describes much of the planetary and stellar activity. So why not consider how it might model galactic activity? We have mass falling in and radiation expanding out. We know mass breaks down, releasing radiation, as more dense aspects coalesce even further. It seems evident that whatever actually falls into the center of a galaxy is ejected out the poles, not falling into some bottomless black hole. So what is the opposite side of the cycle? Are there ways which radiation contracts into cosmic rays/neutrons/etc. and these start the process over again?

I don't see how this conflicts with measuring c as dependent on the particular frame. It would be that gravitational contraction overriding other forces.

Regards,

John M

Hi Akinbo,

I'm afraid you are confusing special relativity and general relativity, when you refer to the difference in measured time intervals between those say, in the Earth's gravitational field and those in a higher gravity field, say on the sun.

Special relativity deals with uniform, straight line motion. That's how we measure the speed of light. "Straight line" however, can mean curvilinear acceleration, since that motion is also uniform. Remember how Galileo showed that bodies fall at the same rate in a gravity field regardless of whether they follow a trajectory perpendicular to the plane, or a curved path? Newton then showed that horizontal acceleration (as opposed to gravitational acceleration vertical to the plane of a gravity field), if large enough, allows a body to escape the gravity field. Einstein took one more step: Because bodies do not resist motion (inertia) in the absence of a gravity field, he realized (by the equivalence principle) that there is no way in principle to determine if gravity is a force accelerating a body "upward," or the curvature of spacetime which the body is freely following "downward" -- except that the first body's motion be referred to another body "at rest" to the first. That's the only way we know the difference between a rest state (special relativity) and accelerated motion (general relativity). All motion is relative.

As a result, there is no absolute time or absolute space in Einstein's theory -- only spacetime (Minkowski space) is absolute. So worry not. An " ...an earth-based clock ... (is not) ... the clocking standard for the whole universe ..." There is no absolute time.

" ...what the heck is c?!"

Simply a measured constant, independent of the motion of the observer in any frame of reference.

All best,

Tom

Tom

I agree; "if c and c' are the same value, they are identical. ...which is why the value of c is the same in every inertial system."

But if QM is correct, and observers (matter) influence observations (speed) your interpretation of that appears to violate all exclusion principles, of Boscovich, Descartes and Pauli. Only if inertial systems are real and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE can SR be recovered consistently with QM.

In other words c is simply 'observer dependent'. i.e. One man's c is the same as another man's c, even if they are in relative motion. This gives Einstein's SR unified with QM. It just removes the nonsensical and COMPLETELY unnecessary baggage we've all become indoctrinated with. Why do we need old assumptions when others work far better, both logically and empirically?

You also claim; "Special relativity is already a local realistic theory" But of course it isn't! Einstein knew this and pointedly spent his life trying to find the key to make it so, as Bohm and many others have discussed. It always eluded him. That is inked to the massive problem with QM, which you appear to be trying to ignore along with superluminal motion! It won't wash Tom. All the time you can't explain apparent the big list of anomalies headed by c+v your beliefs fail!

You suggest I'm 'ambitious'. Not at all. It wasn't my fault it was me who found this logic. It's more like a cross to bear! I have two 42ft race yachts sitting gathering weed only because I care about the future of humanity. And what help do I get from humanity?

It seems I was wrong believing you might prove able to overcome conditioning and the power of established doctrine to apply the scientific method and judge on evidence. It's a big disappointment. Just addressing it rationally in your mind would lead to a lovely 'eureka moment. But at least there are some capable of doing so, so all's not lost. The exercise was only one of HOW to best communicate it (unless you're the bloke in charge of theory)! I still have that slap up lunch riding on 2020 so it's a win-win.

Johns link was cool. Did you read it? Turok and the CERN theorists are right; "we've entered a very deep crisis." ... "If you ask most theorists working on particle physics, they're in a state of confusion." ... "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." ... "Maybe there is no mechanism and this has to do with the multiverse." ... "by and large, all the wrong conclusions have been drawn by LHC and Planck." ... "there may be a very simple, powerful theory that will explain all this." ... "where on earth will somebody come up with some of those new theories?" ... "We have to get people to try to find the new principles that will explain the simplicity." ...etc.

Yup. It seems the only problem may be those who think physics is all sorted!

Do you?

Peter

Thanks Tom,

Much appreciated. Yes, I am a bit confused as I myself have reservation on absolute unchanging space and time but I am driving at something to clear my thinking.

This c, 'a simply measured constant, independent of the motion of the observer in any frame having a value = 299792458m/s'

1. On which planet was it measured to serve as a constant for Special relativity?

2. If it was measured on earth, was the earth's gravitational field extracted to give a 'free space' value? I doubt so.

3. I presume, a metre is a metre everywhere on earth, on the moon, on Jupiter, the sun, etc?

4. If my doubt in 2) is confirmed by you, then the value of c was determined by calculating how long it will take light to travel one metre using an earth-based clock. In a different gravitational environment, the same one metre will be travelled in a different duration. This is based on different clock behaviour. Einstein's treatment says so. Therefore the time taken to travel one metre on earth has been used to calculate the value c using an earth-based clock?

Regards,

Akinbo

I have a question for Peter. I've been trying to understand your Discrete Field Model and it seems like you have managed to remove the need for Lorentz transformations (from your earlier essay). Is that right? If so, how do you deal with determining the speed of objects in difference reference frames relative to each other?

Anna

Briefly:

This thread from Richard Lewis's spacetime model of electromagnetic phenomenon whether as linear propagation or as loop quantization does invite a lot of wild hairs needing waxed back into the thread, but I would like clarification on that model in regards 'The Nature of Light'.

What physical shape would be described by the math of the model so that in the framework of work-a-day Euclidian space, the wave set up in spacetime would produce the electromagnetic response in any particulate matter it encountered. I think the idea provocative and well worth pursuing, but...

If we envision the wave as a linear progression of a transverse wave, and limit it to a distance either side of the line of direction, how would it be possible to rotate it around that 'center' line and it give rise to the electric and magnetic fields? Those fields in Maxwell's determination are at right angle to each other and 90 degrees out of phase. Rotation of a spacetime wave 180 degrees around it's axis would produce the opposite direction of polarity and the wave would negate itself. Does the model describe a 3D wave event along a time axis which would operate like the transverse of a longitudinal wave with the rise of amplitude plotted as the circular propagation of a transverse wave, like a pebble dropped into the center of a round birdbath? That, I'd buy. Thanks for sharing, jrc.

Akinbo,

"2. If it (c) was measured on earth, was the earth's gravitational field extracted to give a 'free space' value? I doubt so."

It doesn't have to be accounted for. Gravity is is the weakest force (or pseudo-force) in the universe, far weaker than the electromagnetic field in which light propagates. The local vacuum speed of light would be infinitesimally influenced by a gravity field.

"3. I presume, a metre is a metre everywhere on earth, on the moon, on Jupiter, the sun, etc?"

Locally, yes. Length measures are always made between mass points at rest relative to one another. At relativistic extremes of time and/or distance, even though measurements, such as a metre, remain locally the same -- a distant observer might claim that my metre stick is shortened, yet I might claim that it is her metre stick that is shorter. Each claim is valid, Einstein avers, and "all physics is local."

"4. If my doubt in 2) is confirmed by you, then the value of c was determined by calculating how long it will take light to travel one metre using an earth-based clock. In a different gravitational environment, the same one metre will be travelled in a different duration. This is based on different clock behaviour. Einstein's treatment says so. Therefore the time taken to travel one metre on earth has been used to calculate the value c using an earth-based clock?"

Remember, all motion is relative. There is no absolute time and absolute space, only absolute spacetime. Yes, the further a clock is from the center of Earth's gravity field, the faster it runs -- this has been experimentally verified, and today scientists and technicians make relativistic corrections to the GPS data that keeps our Earthbound clocks synchronized.

All best,

Tom

Tom,

I still doesn't solve the question of whether time is the basis of action, or an effect of it. If time really were a vector from past to future, you would think the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite it true. Since it is moving about quicker, it effectively ages quicker, like the twin with the faster clock, so it recedes into the past more rapidly. That is because time is an effect of action.

Regards,

John M

Hi Peter,

" ... if QM is correct, and observers (matter) influence observations (speed) your interpretation of that appears to violate all exclusion principles, of Boscovich, Descartes and Pauli."

Relativity is correct and complete. QM is correct and incomplete. Relativity is as observer dependent as QM but the theories differ on the role of the observer in physics. By quantum entanglement, observers create events that were not there before measurement; relativity and the rest of classical physics aver that there exist objective events independent of an observer.

There's no warrant to invoke "exclusion principles" as if these were all of the same class and type. The Pauli exclusion principle is relevant only to the extent that it tells us there are two types of statistics governing physical interaction -- one, Bose-Einstein statistics, allows any number of massless particles (bosons) to occupy the same point; Fermi-Dirac statistics allows that any two particles with mass (fermions) cannot occupy the same state at the same time. That's the Pauli exclusion principle.

"Only if inertial systems are real and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE can SR be recovered consistently with QM."

This makes no sense, Peter. Inertial systems (reference frames) *are* real and mutually exclusive (again with the caps you don't need, what's up with that?) -- but that doesn't say anything about quantum meachanics.

Here is your real problem: "All the time you can't explain apparent the big list of anomalies headed by c+v your beliefs fail!"

I'm not trying to explain a list of anomalies. And neither is any other researcher, or we would be discussing "the theory of anomalies." In any case, good luck with your claim that the speed of light has an added velocity.

"Yup. It seems the only problem may be those who think physics is all sorted!

Do you?"

No, but if some things weren't sorted we'd still be doing physics according to Aristotle. The trick is knowing what has been sorted and what hasn't.

Best,

Tom