Alternative Models of Reality

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

" ... doesn't solve the question of whether time is the basis of action, or an effect of it."

John, you're the only one asking that question, and your answer only fits what you assume time is in the first place.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Considering that predictions and corrections between the old and new theory are very tiny, me thinks your reply that "Gravity is is the weakest force and doesn't have to be accounted for" should be re-examined considering that the same weak gravity causes infinitessimal predictions that have been verified by gravitational redshifts on earth and radar delays by the sun.

And so if a metre is a metre locally and the earth-based clock is used to determine the value of the universal constant, c there should as you said be some infinitessimal influence on the local vacuum speed of light due to the earth's gravity field.

If you don't mind I slightly disagree. In Einstein's view, don't you think it should rather be the clocks that are differing infinitesimally from one location in the universe to another while the c itself is maintaining its earth-determined value?

To make things less complicated and easier to discuss let us leave relativistic observer motion and speeds on earth and on other planets.

We therefore return to my initial pondering why the earth-based is clock is given primacy over other clocks in setting a universal constant. That is, the time taken to travel one metre has been used to calculate the value c using an earth-based clock is basically true and correct and MUST have measurable consequences for universal conclusions, even if infinitesimal.

The choices seem to be No absolute space, No absolute time but absolute light velocity OR Absolute space, No absolute time, Absolute light velocity, OR No Absolute space, Absolute time, Absolute light velocity OR Absolute space, Absolute time and No absolute light velocity. To look at the various options you can code them binarily, e.g 001, 101, 011, etc. I think for Einstein it is 001, while Newton is 110. There may be a better choice?

Regards,

Akinbo

*If yu dont have much time you may just address the issue raised in bold characters. Thanks

Akinbo,

"In Einstein's view, don't you think it should rather be the clocks that are differing infinitesimally from one location in the universe to another while the c itself is maintaining its earth-determined value?"

The vaccum value of the speed of light is everywhere the same, assuming the principle of uniformity (i.e., physical laws do not vary throughout the universe).

Understand that what is meant by "no absolute time" is that clocks *do* differ from location to location in the universe, but the standard of measuring time and space does not. Again, "all physics is local." You have to study and understand the mathematics of relativity to make this precise.

Best,

Tom

Akinbo,

Perhaps Einstein's brilliant 1921 speech to the Prussian Academy will help explain in a less mathematical manner, how relativity reconciles local measure with global properties of spacetime:

" ... We imagine two practically-rigid bodies, each with a tract marked out on it. These two tracts are said to be 'equal to one another' if the marks of the one tract can be brought to coincide permanently with the marks of the other.

"We now assume that:

"If two tracts are found to be equal once and anywhere, they are equal always and everywhere.

"Not only the practical geometry of Euclid, but also its nearest generalization, the practical geometry of Riemann, and therewith the general theory of relativity, rest upon this assumption. Of the experimental reasons that warrant this assumption I will mention only one. The phenomenon of the propagation of light in empty space assigns a tract, namely, the appropriate path of light, to each interval of local time, and conversely. Thence it follows that the above assumption for tracts must also hold good for intervals of clock-time in the theory of relativity. Consequently it may be formulated as follows: if two ideal clocks are going at the same rate at any time and at any place (being then in immediate proximity to each other), they will always go at the same rate, no matter where and when they are again compared with each other at one place. If this law were not valid for natural clocks, the proper frequencies for the separate atoms of the same chemical element would not be in such exact agreement as experience demonstrates. The existence of sharp spectral lines is a convincing experimental proof of the above-mentioned principle of practical geometry. This, in the last analysis, is the reason that enables us to speak meaningfully of a Riemannian metric of the four-dimensional space-time continuum."

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Thanks for sharing your literature on relativity...

I am not sure I have put forward my dilemma clearly, so let me reframe and put it in logical sequence.

1. It is decided to find the value of light velocity by two civilizations, one on earth and the other on a planet X having a slightly stronger gravitational field.

2. Given that, from the Einstein quote above, "If two tracts are found to be equal once and anywhere, they are equal always and everywhere". Therefore a metre on earth is a metre on planet X.

3. From your advice that, "Understand that what is meant by "no absolute time" is that clocks *do* differ from location to location in the universe, but the standard of measuring time and space does not".

Question: Whose clock then should be used to determine the *universal* value of light velocity?

Without pre-judging your answer, perhaps not only clocks but also rods may have to differ from location to location is another consideration that maintains the universal value of c? So that the value on earth is same as that on planet X where the clocks differ to give us a universally constant value for c?

I hope I have made the issue for determination clearer. I am not a mathematician but if you have to use it to make choices clearer, please do. Indeed, it seems mathematically that rods will differ, just as clocks.

.

Hi Tom,

That was me.

Akinbo

Tom,

I realize I'm the only one asking it. Everyone else is only concerned with how to measure time, not what it is. It's like everyone is concerned with how best to fit the gears of the clockwork cosmos together, not whether gears are the best solution to the sun and all the planets and stars spinning around us, in the first place.

Is there some underlaying property called time, or is it only a measure of changing form? Until that can be settled, simply measuring change tells you nothing more than what is faster and what is slower.

Regards,

John M

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

What is the cause of the property charge? We can measure electrostatic charge in the laboratory by measuring the associated electrostatic force. In our consideration of the cause of fundamental forces we were looking for an explanation as to why the energy level for two electrons in close proximity is higher than if they were moved apart.

The Spacetime Wave theory describes an electron as a looped wave in the medium of spacetime. We can think of a looped wave in space where the progression of the space curvature in the loop leads to local compression and expansion of the medium. Then superimpose on this a variation in the geometry of the time dimension with the same frequency and in phase with the space geometry wave. The effect will be that the compression phase and expansion phase of the space wave will not be symmetrical (because of the difference in time due to the variation in the rate of passage of time) so that the effect will be a general expansion of space in the vicinity of the electron. So two electrons will repel each other because the expanded space associated with each electron will mean a lower total energy level when the electrons are further apart.

The charge is spread throughout the looped wave. In the Spacetime Wave theory we have moved away from the idea of the electron as a point particle and all the associated problems in calculations leading to infinite results.

This approach to the property charge seems much more satisfactory than the idea of charge as just a fundamental property of particles without any further explanation or cause.

Richard

Akinbo,

"Whose clock then should be used to determine the *universal* value of light velocity?"

Everyone's. There is no absolute time.

"Indeed, it seems mathematically that rods will differ, just as clocks."

Now you've got it! Length contraction and time dilation are both observer-dependent features of special relativity. The uniformity of physical laws is preserved by a mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation. That is, when each observer calculates the length of the metre stick or the time of the clock in relation to the other, the local differences in their measurements are reconciled to the universality of physical laws.

Best,

Tom

" ... simply measuring change tells you nothing more than what is faster and what is slower."

Since that's what "change" means, John, I am not bothered by learning any more than that. It's enough.

Best,

Tom

"... Length contraction and time dilation are both observer-dependent features of special relativity. The uniformity of physical laws is preserved by a mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation. That is, when each observer calculates the length of the metre stick or the time of the clock in relation to the other, the local differences in their measurements are reconciled to the universality of physical laws. ..."

Neither math nor artifacts have preservation properties. The physical effects of length contraction and clock rate dilation, that is what the Lorentz transformation equations contain, result from a physical cause. No one knows what cause is. We only observe effects and those effects are always about patterns in changes of velocities of objects.

Theorists invent ideas about what cause may be. They inject those ideas, without empirical support, forcibly into the equations of physics. These theoretical flights of fancy are of both a direct corruption and an indirect corruption of the physical integrity of the equations. The direct corruption is immediately obvious because it involves the introduction of non-empirical indefinable units. The two examples of direct theoretical corruption of fundamental physics equations are the introduction of kilograms and degrees.

In relativity theory the corruption occurs indirectly. There have never been experiments performed on either space or time. Neither have ever been observed to experience patterns in changes of velocities. The theorist only imagines that space and time experience effects. There is no empirical support for their imaginings. There is empirical support that the patterns in changes of velocities of objects include relativistic types of variations.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

Keep in mind that the mind cannot properly comprehend absolute, since it is a state bereft of contrast and knowledge is a function of such distinctions. So the question is what is the contrast between space, time and the speed of light.

Now consider the primary premise here; the speed of light in a vacuum. Why is that the starting point? Because once all energy is converted to velocity, there is none left to make it go faster. So the speed of light in a vacuum isn't an absolute, but an ultimate.

This concept requires only two of the mentioned factors, space/vacuum and light. Time only emerges when you measure this effect of velocity, by comparing it to some other process, originally some fraction of the rotation of the planet, now cycles/vibrations of a particular type of very stable atom(cesium). Now if you accelerate that cesium atom to some significant fraction of the speed of light, its cycling/vibrating will slow down proportionally, otherwise the internal activity added to the external velocity would exceed c. Since your clock slows down, as you accelerate, the units you are using to measure against c slow, so you still measure the light at c. Think of it this way, light is a train going by a stationary observer at c. Now if the observer were to move alongside the train, it would normally appear to slow down, but if the clock the observer uses, slows as it moves faster, then the train will always seem to go as fast. Eventually when the clock is moving as fast as light, all internal action is stopped, since there is no more energy, so for light, there is no clock time. So all you really have is energy in space.

Now consider how relativity formulates it; There is this four dimensional spacetime, three of space and one of time. Where these concepts originate is that the three dimensions of space are the xyz coordinate system. It's a handy way to model space, but is it really foundational to space? Are longitude, latitude and altitude foundational to the surface of the planet, or simply a way to model it?

The dimension of time is the narrative sequence; Event A, event B, event C, etc. As I keep trying to point out, temporal sequence isn't even causal! Yesterday doesn't cause today, nor does one wave cause the next. Energy exchange is causal. The sun shining on a rotating planet causes the sequence of events called days. Just as wind across the water causes waves. But in order for energy to be exchanged, there can be no physical vector of time/blocktime, since the prior configuration has to give way in order for the sequential configuration to exist.

Now as I pointed out above, if you accelerate the frame, the clock slows down, because the energy within that frame is being lost, so the actions within it slow and as they slow, the energy holding that frame stable is also being lost, so it shrinks, thus "the rod" is shorter.

Of course, if your frame is the energy itself, since it is not disappearing, but simply radiating out into the larger space, its frame expands as the temperature level drops, but that gets into thermodynamics and relativists think thermodynamics is just for the engineers and other lower breeds than theorists.

Regards, john M

James,

I'm curious to know that since you think Joy Christian has disproved Bell's theorem, how that disproof survives without relativity. How do you think the experimental framework works if it is not performed " ... on either space or time"?

Best,

Tom

re: Tom to Akinbo

...uniformity of physical laws is preserved by a mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation.

That is the ticket. It probably isn't reiterated often enough. The concise criteria is the limiter of technical definition of terms which makes it workable. It's a survey marker, not a trick question. Nor is it the end of the story.

Once again, Tom, I can't thank you enough for the challenge to my own degree of ignorance with the link to Wald's paper. "Elapsed time on a curve" is the dynamic, in high performance racing that's where torque catches up with horsepower and the revs that sustain torque. It's like a roulette wheel with the ball speeding opposite the direction of the wheel, as long as the ball's momentum lags behind the wheel's it will follow the rim. But once the ball slows to relative stop with wheel rotation and picks up enough of the wheel momentum to start to roll in the same direction, symmetry is broken and the ball falls down off the rim. Far Out! jrc

Thanks for the vote of confidence, John C. Wald is a favorite. Maybe someday you'd like to tackle his collection (as editor) of University of Chicago lectures, *Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics." It's in the literature where real physics is done -- if one is not aware of it, one falls into the trap of imagining things, like John M's out of thin air claim that relativity theorists don't deal with thermodynamics. (!)

Very nice illustration with the roulette wheel!

All best,

Tom

Anna,

The Lorentz Transformation gets a real mechanism to drive it. So no need to rely just on metaphysical mathematical gymnastics. Maths can't make physical things happen, like change (Doppler shift) wavelengths. I didn't get to describe the mechanism in any of the essays as the DFM fundamentals must come first. I have done elsewhere, but lets answer your question;

Firstly we must define 'Reference Frame' or Rest Frame', a term which describes an 'inertial system' of massive particles taking up a defined space and all at rest wrt each other (or with a stochastic average state). Then may be dense like a lens, or diffuse like a cloud, but they are essentially mutually exclusive (the space within a train can have only one state of motion, and when different to the outside is a 'discrete space', or particle field, kinetically).

The speed of objects relative to each other (so by definition in different states of motion/frames) can always be found geometrically, as we do now, with respect to any co-moving observer. Light moving in another frame can't of course be seen. As soon as it is detected by your lens it's then changed speed to c in your frame (so Doppler shifts due to continuous spontaneous localisation - CSL, = CSL). But if that invisible light charges a line of particles at rest in the other frame, we get signals at c giving the optical illusion of c+v propagation.

But I suspect you're referring to the frame 'transition' of matter. It's a process we call 'acceleration'. If you dangle from a bridge and crash through a train windscreen you will be accelerated into the trains frame (I promise you will, but don't try it!). If you're compressible you will compress, like light waves, absorbing the energy.

If you're doing 0.6c hanging from a train and meet a train coming the other way at 0.6c, you won't be able to propagate at 1.2c through the other train. You will have (see J.D. Jackson Electro..etc) an 'extinction distance' (depending on the density of the train) before your speed reduces to zero in the new train. You'll briefly experience 'optical breakdown' mode and some of you may even turn to light! (certainly heat).

Light does the same on entry as it's compressible, but only down to gamma. At each particle interaction it's absorbed and re-emitted at the new local c, blue shifted. The physical DFM mechanism has a plasma (dark energy) density limit which has the effect that EM fluctuations can't blue shift beyond gamma, so can't propagate at over c. The LT curve is then a non-linear (quantum effect) 'power curve', the same one as on the LHC's electricity bill approaching c, as I think I referred in my '2020 vision' paper.

Did that make any sense. Once 'up to speed' (lol) conceptually I'll link you to the LT paper.

Best wishes

Peter