Alternative Models of Reality

JC.

I agree 'sound bite' explanations work well. Observer dependency (acceleration) is one option, also linking SR and Copenhagen. But it then needs the prohibited 'dependency of +v' explained, which then needs the process at the lens explained.

The problem with a 'ontological construction' is that like the Eiffel tower, no one bit will stand up alone. There is also a problem with how you expressed it, in that we need to identify and separate the two very distinct effects ; the shift due to 'delta n', and the shift due to 'delta v,' so the word 'equivalent' can be easily misinterpreted, or the explanation gets more cumbersome. It did take even me a few minutes to unravel what your sentence meant!

I have worked on a number of 'headline' explanations, and eventually arrived at a 'sequence' of them which I've expressed as postulates of the DFM, but to be 'complete' they need proper specification. That's the problem with soundbites. Let me know if these make sense to you;

1). EM wave propagation speed locally within all media is c modified by refractive index n.

2). Particles absorb EM signals over non zero time, re-emitting them at LOCAL c requantized.

3). A massive body in motion in the quantum vacuum is surrounded by an extended region bounded by a plasma shock of n = ~1. EM fluctuations within that region propagate at c with respect to the body

4). Detected D f requires a real Dl (< g) of at least two wave peaks, giving fl = Local c.

5). Speed is only 'Proper' when using 'Proper Time', which is emitted by clocks at rest in the detectors frame. All other speed is apparent or 'co-ordinate' (relative), using co-ordinate time, so 'apparent c+vg'.'

6). EM signal source positions are perceived on an optical axis of re-emission, which may be rotated away from a causal wavefront normal by lateral particle motion during absorption.

7). Emitted light can't be detected/measured until interacting with and scattered by matter.

8). Inertial frames are states of motion. An inertial system may be assigned a state of system translational motion K at any moment in time. Uncountable smaller frames may exist within all larger systems, forming a kinetic hierarchy.

9). EM waves change speed to c in any new local frame via a kinetic magneto-hydrodynamic boundary coupling, including at an interacting observer (detector), and not before.

10). The universe consists of everything and everything is unique. So 'a' does not = a, a ~ a.

11). Helically anisotropic causal but random virial particle systems give observed inequalities.

Peter

Pete,

Firstly; I see what you mean about 'equivalent'. Later.

I'll go back and read your post fully, but I wanted to point out that the view of Eiffel's tower on approach impresses it's form from which then the axiomatic structure is given place and proportion. That region to a distance away from the electrostatic boundary of either emitter surface or receiver surface that is experimentally well established extends outward to equal of two wavelengths. It is in that near region where matter and energy transmute. Permit me...

What passes for www.journalism@someblog.etc is lacking two w's. (And to my mind, no little ethic.) The task in editorializing is the allocation of space and managing the layout on content, which is limited to the "Who,What,Where,When, and Why" rule. So introduce your axioms onto a form that answers "What". It is about ...? Where do I find a point of departure?

It would be more succinct to say that your DFM is an alternative 'in' the standard model 'to' the treatment of relative translational speeds of light in media of different refractive index, but this has ramifications that greatly reduce apparent complexity, and predictivity that is randomly anomalous to observation, that arise in conventional treatment of a change in translational speed as an instantaneous event. That refinement to the standard model extends to applications in all manner of matter and energy interaction providing a substantiated predictability.

Give the reader an peg on which to hang his hat. We're literally talking about the transmutation of energy and matter at light velocity. Just don't scare 'em with that right off. Lay it out for them. cheers jrc

Pete,

Apart from my earlier post, and in regard to 'delta n' and 'delta v' it occurred to me that while the wavelength in the far field can be predicated on the time interval in the emitter frame, that does not mean that the two wavelength dimension of distance in the near field is equal to two wavelength time intervals. It would naturally be one wavelength time interval relative to the emmiter frame and two wavelength direction intervals relative to the far field wavelength time interval. Thereby the two lambda distance is of

2(1r) and each 1r is one side of an r^2, or 'tau', as proper time in the emitter frame. It is only the electrostatic field intensity that decays by inverse square of distance in the near field, as it does in the far field. The magnetostatic field intensity decays as the inverse cube of distance in the near field, while 'evanescent' or internally reflected waves that do not emerge from the emitter, decay at an inverse exponential rate with distance. jrc

JC,

"Light changes speed between moving media to do c locally". How's that for a headline?

Of course it's incomplete, we should use; "to conserve c locally", and "dielectric" media, and it's always c/n in the 'bulk flow' frame, but at n=1 that IS c. and we MUST make the distinction between delta n and delta v, and also that it's speed BETWEEN all particles is c wrt the emitting particle, and that all detectors are made of such particles, ...etc.

But if headlines are to catch the attention not to explain things. How does it sound to you?

Or there is also the possible angle "New Speed Discovered!" There is both 'propagation' speed (real) and 'relative' speed (apparent) for photons as well as objects, but it must be stressed the SR Postulates re-emerge more consistent and compatible with QM, as most think like Tom, that if we replace the familiar restaurant, viewing platform and paint that 'is' the Eiffel Tower to most, the underlying structure will simply collapse!

Despite last years essay, challenging foundations is really unacceptable to most and the scientific method is overcome by established beliefs.

On the 'time' thing. The easiest way to consider it for sure is that the rate of 'TIME' itself does not change anywhere, it is a universal NOW. What changes all the time is the physical EM emissions from things we call 'clocks'. If one wavelength takes one 'second', then moving from the near to far field, (or reaching ANY observer doing some speed other than that of the emitter), an observer at rest in that field will see the apparent rate of time changed. Only the wavelength, or 'length' of the signal when at c, has really changed. Getting used to that is like learning to drive; only hard at first.

The red herring is 'frequency' as it's the 'observable'. To compute new wavelength in the far field the relative field speeds and propagation speeds in each must be known.

For a race used only to horses how do we explain how a 'car' works, or what use it is?

Peter

Peter,

Your position is that time dilation is a visual effect? In other words, the observer sees something changed that has not changed. I know that you say the wavelength changes. This is common in variable speed of light theories. My question pertains to the clock. It only looks like it has changed its rate? Does this mean to you that the Lorentz transform for time dilation describes an illusion? I am asking about the clock and not the wavelength of the received light. Thank you.

"On the 'time' thing. The easiest way to consider it for sure is that the rate of 'TIME' itself does not change anywhere, it is a universal NOW. What changes all the time is the physical EM emissions from things we call 'clocks'. If one wavelength takes one 'second', then moving from the near to far field, (or reaching ANY observer doing some speed other than that of the emitter), an observer at rest in that field will see the apparent rate of time changed. Only the wavelength, or 'length' of the signal when at c, has really changed. Getting used to that is like learning to drive; only hard at first."

James Putnam

James,

No. The LT is a real physical non-linear effect at domain boundary crossings. All clocks keep on ticking at the same rate, the only change is to the emissions after emission. Does the simple logic emerge?

To understand the (Lorentz Transformation) LT we need to look closely at how these new 'car' things work. Let's take a DFM automatic, and the 'torque converter'. Essentially it's a box filled with fluid made of particles. Changing viscosity changes the relationship of the motions each side of the box. So at each end of the box the particles are in a different state of motion (rest frame), or 'doing different speeds.'

A DFM 'two-fluid plasma' shock has the same dynamic { two-fluid plasma.}. The details are a bit technical but each particle absorbs light and re-emits it at c in the particle frame. This in NOT the same as VSL theories, and all observers at rest in all frames will find light propagating at c, but even when NOT at rest, the LT at their lens surface fine structure means they can only measure the CHANGED lambda, and again find propagation at c (read c/n). (That 'insight' is unique to the DFM).

The complex mechanism is linear (but with non-linearity) and involves instant propagation and 'charge cancellation' over the Debye length (standard plasma physics). The non linearity (Lorentz Factor) relates to gamma (max energy density) and related 'optical breakdown mode'. For those interested it's 'anomalous' to present theoretical assumptions but is standard quantum optics and all explained, published and web-archived on Academia, or Phil's archive here; Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation.

I hope that answer is complete enough (but I've omitted any Q-Gravity).

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

"No. The LT is a real physical non-linear effect at domain boundary crossings."

Ok. You apply the transform only to the received wavelength. The normal use of the transform is to apply it to the clock. Your position is that the Lorentz transform for time dilation has nothing to do with the clock.

When a clock moves horizontally to the earth either with its rotation or opposite to it as on an airplane, does the clock change its rate and if so why?

If a clock is raised up in a gravitational field, does its rate change and if so why?

James Putnam

Pete,

Paint it, and you can sell anything. So whether I accept your definition of the speed of time or anything else, I think your presentation would still be most easily grasped if you introduced it simply by talking about the model itself and give a brief overview of the difference between near and far field. What the model does is examine the transition of the translational speed of light from one medium into another as an event in time. Then point out that in many applications theoretically the transition is treated as instantaneous which can lead to results that are anomalous with regard to both prediction and experiment. Loose as much jargon as you can in the intro, it will get thick enough in the nuancing of axiomatics. Avoid headlines, let it speak for itself. jrc

p.s. If I go back to my workbench of Euclidean dimensions in the safety of my perfectly background independent void and turn on the light, what happens if light does not move as fast as time allows? On the one hand if light is slower than time then I will be forever left in the dark fumbling for the switch. On second hand if light is faster than time the switch will already be illuminated by the light I switch on.

James,

Your post to Peter on 9/28 says, "your position is that the Lorentz Transform for time dilation has nothing to do with the clock."

As I understand so far, "yes". The clock(s) relate to distance through medium of differing refractive index. In his modeling of theoretical constructs which do require using operational definitions where general definition simply does not exist, the LT is a mathematical function (and in math a function is a relationship) which portrays the physical relationship of clock and distance as a real progressively slowing of translational speed. His wording of "the LT is a real non-linear effect..." is an encapsulation of the physical relationship.

It is inherent to his model, however that he refers to a clock in a super-dominant inertial reference, within which inertial domains of discrete fields are embedded, and in the specific case of electric and magnetic field properties those too are discrete fields within inertial fields. Hope this helps clear the air, and of course I wish to be corrected if this is at anyway at variance with what Pete himself sees his modeling as being. cheers jrc

John Cox,

Thank you for your message. Peter and I have talked, here at FQXi.org, about his theory many times over a period of years now. To cut this short, the last time we talked I tried to pursue testing his mechanism with the conservation laws. He declined to pursue it. His opinion was that his mechanism was a logical solution to a preponderance of evidence. That is not good enough. The mechanism must be tested. This time I am asking again for what effects his mechanism is directly credited with causing. Then I would again pursue zeroing in on the mechanism itself. It is a variable speed of light theory. Maxwell long ago established that the speed of light varies with differing mediums. I am not questioning the variation of the speed of light. I do think that he has not accounted for the Lorentz transforms. I have not yet seen him test his mechanism. He knows a great deal. He is well prepared to present explanations of many events, but the mechanism is the key to the theory.

Any input from Peter on this would be appreciated.

James Putnam

James, JC.

Slight refinements of your description and understanding; The LT is not a maths function but a real physical mechanism, (that can of course also be approximated by cardinalised symbols). Maximum plasma density is 10^14/cm-3, which relates directly to the energy limit at the minimum possible wavelength at 'gamma'. Here we have the real optical phemonmena 'optical breakdown' (OB) mode, where EM waves can no longer penetrate the plasma 'shock'. As this density is approached the resistance increases exponentially. The Lorentz Factor curve simply plots this relation. (The DFM then directly derives the speed of light from OB density).

EM fields, as they are particle based, are also NOT 'within inertial fields,' they ARE the inertial systems, They form, embody and implement the effects, by the simple mechanism of emitting at c (due to their spin rate) whatever the 'relative arrival speed'. Just touch that cup to your lips.

There's not so much some 'super dominant' frame with others embedded as an infinite hierarchy of absolutely equivalent ones with 'speeds' only wrt thier own local background. Each emitting particle creates it's own, but each galaxy cluster of even universe can be assigned a 'system' frame. Think of a galaxy. It has a 'speed' wrt it's local group rest frame yet that may also be thought of as a 'average' or 'C of M' motion as it has infinitely many other hierarchies within it. No one is special. They're just all different scales.

MOVING CLOCKS. When in similar media all tick at the same rate. Hafele agreed.

Only when being accelerated are physical mechanisms affected. But neither clocks made by man or oscillating crystals make 'time'!

GRAVITY. Less acceleration has less effect on mechanisms. Density does the same. The model suggests that running an alarm clock in treacle or a grandfather clock underwater will slow them down. We know ambient particle density is also directly related to G potential.

As gamma is an oscillation limit, envisage a toroid with 'counter wound' helical accelerations (like nuclear tokamaks and AGN's) then imagine the effect in it's own frame from acceleration. The DFM suggests simply that the Lorentz Factor gamma would apply as the 'advance' motions are limited. This may then slow net spin rate. (I did do a paper on GPS a while ago if you'd like a link, but it seems you haven't yet read the LT paper James?). Does any of that not seem to make sense?

I don't recall declining to pursue conservation, or indeed anything!. The model seems to have no unresolved issues there and resolves the 'virtual electron' problem (they are 'real'!) Do please ask any question on that you wish.

Peter

Pete,

Thank-you, I stand corrected as much as I'm capable, much of this is new to me. As to the EM fields being 'particle based' I quite agree that they are the 'stuff' of matter, field intensity is analogous to energy density. The peculiarities of their behavior in the near field suggests that they are responsive to both inertial frames of electron and quantum energy volumes. In the near field it is very much like time and space adjust to an optimum volumetric parameter prescribed by each energy quantity. Fascinating. jrc

Peter,

I am asking for answers to easy questions at this time. Please let me know if your opinion is that the Lorentz transform for time dilation can model what occurs in the following example:

A clock exists at rest in medium A. Some distance away there is medium B. Medium A has no velocity with respect to medium B. Light leaves the clock and arrives at a particle in medium B. The light is absorbed and re-emitted at local C. The speed of light is different for medium A than for medium B. The speed of light measures locally as c in either medium; however, it is not c for either medium for a remote observer located in medium C.

Focusing on the light arriving from medium A. It is absorbed by the particle in medium B and the emitted by that particle in medium B. The Lorentz transform for time dilation does not apply to this change in light speed.

The clock is than given a velocity directed toward the particle in medium B. Light leaves the clock and is later absorbed by the particle in medium B. It is re-emitted in medium B. The Lorentz transform for time dilation does not apply to the absorption and emission of the light by the particle in medium B.

The clock in medium A is given a velocity directed away from the particle in medium B. Light leaves the clock and is later absorbed by the particle in medium B. It is then re-emitted by the particle in medium B. The Lorentz transform for time dilation does not apply to the absorption and re-emission of the light by the particle in medium B.

James Putnam

Peter,

Thank you for your response.

"MOVING CLOCKS. When in similar media all tick at the same rate. Hafele agreed. ..."

Are you saying that the clocks moving at different velocities in the same medium all tick at the same rate?

"Only when being accelerated are physical mechanisms affected. But neither clocks made by man or oscillating crystals make 'time'! ..."

The clocks are not being accelerated. The questions pertain only to the rate of the clocks. Your answer is not clear to me yet. Perhaps I needed to point out that when I asked if the clocks moving horizontal to the Earth change their rates, that I was looking for a comparison with a clock that was at rest on the Earth. There is no acceleration, so are you saying that all three clocks tick at the same rate?

"GRAVITY. Less acceleration has less effect on mechanisms. Density does the same. The model suggests that running an alarm clock in treacle or a grandfather clock underwater will slow them down. We know ambient particle density is also directly related to G potential."

The question with regard to a clock being raised up in the gravitational field: The clock is not accelerated. It may have been helpful for me to state that the clock is at rest at any point where its rate is observed at various positions as it is raised up. I wanted to know about the effect of the gravitational field. Let say that it is not the Earth but a planet with no atmosphere. This original question can be modified to ask: Does the strength of the gravitational field, disregarding any other effects, cause the clock that is being raised up to change its rate?

James Putnam

James,

The physical LT mechanism identified at domain boundaries can model your 'case' but first must be understood and the different cases separated. The DFM transform is principally at the surface fine structure (look up 'plasmons' etc) of the refractive plane. This is Maxwell near/far field Transition Zone, where the particle photoionize to create the MHD 'torque converter' speed change.

Now your scenario, and it's flaw! In the case you give we must say that medium B has a different refractive index. That means a number of things, but essentially lets say a higher density, both at the surface and inside. Now 'zero in'. The speed between any two particles is c. However the 'charge delay' (PMD) means the overall speed is lower. but, contrary to your statement, it's progress is slower with respect to to an observer at rest IN the medium. But of course the observer can't SEE that actual light, he can only SEE the sample that interacts with his lens so 'changes speed' again BEFORE he can compute the wavelength against time (which we call 'measurement'). He may naively think he's measuring wavelength in the medium. We mostly do make that error (c/n lens n~1.38).

I agree; "it is not c for either medium for a remote observer located in medium C.", except that it's not really his 'medium' that matters, it's his 'state of motion'. A dozen remote observers flying in different directions and speeds would each see APPARENT speeds in media B as DIFFERENT (and the same for 'A') because they are not 'measuring' the same thing as the guy at rest in the medium. If they see anything from another medium it's only new individual emissions scattered by the medium particles. It is then an 'optical illusion', not a 'propagation speed'. There are the TWO CASES of 'speed'. Real and Apparent. This corrects an assumption appended to the SR postulates and removes the paradox. No 3rd frames is 'privileged' they're all common, and can all move relatively.

You did not specify observer motion, but the LT does anyway apply to increasing rest medium density. It's negligible for most media, but approaching ion density 10^20/cm^-3, (Optical Breakdown mode; OB) for any light energy not reflected or radiated as heat the propagation speed curve still steepens (gamma). So your para 3 is wrong. Envisage the plasma shock at the nose of the shuttle on re-entry. Once at OB density even radio waves won't penetrate!

When the clock moves (either way) it's EM emissions simply repeat the same near/far field transition locally before propagating at the same speed as before in medium A (but now with Doppler shifted wavelength). The LT applies to BOTH. i.e. if the clock approaches at relativistic speeds, the LT will apply to the transform into the rest frame of medium A. The case at medium B is the same as before, but the wavelength will be different (All transforms obey the same simple rule). The Doppler shift conserves the energy. 'Time' itself never changes, just clock emission artifacts 'after the fact'.

This then matches all observation without paradoxical 'partial time derivatives' or 'virtual electrons'. As I explained, learning to apply DFM dynamics is like learning to drive a car. A nightmare at first if you've only every seen horses but wholly intuitive once understood.

Progress?

Peter

James,

Re; Clocks 'moving at different speeds in a medium'. Once we accept the independent 'mechanistic' changes I mentioned; YES; All clocks 'tick at the same rate' when in a rest frame.

As 'speed' is only a relative concept this is equivalent to saying that 'TIME' is not affected by background media moving past mechanical contraptions made by man, or crystal oscillators. We're simply confusing the physical with metaphysical concepts.

"so are you saying that all three clocks tick at the same rate?" Yes. But I also specify not to translate that to mean that physical mechanisms all go at the same speed. Man cannot CREATE 'time' by creating clocks!! So 'rate of passage of time' is neither changed by inertial (relative) motion or medium density. To check my logic I simply asked my 9 year old grandson's view. He can't believe grown ups would think changing clock tick rates or 'messages' changed 'time' itself! He actually doesn't believe anyone sane could think that! Oh for the innocence of youth!

Clocks at rest in G fields. Yes, that is what I assumed. Again there's more than one effect, but we assume only one so get confused. I pointed out that the density gradient matches the G gradient, so on the surface of earth is high gas density and pressure, decreasing with height. That has varying mechanical effect on mechanisms (clocks NOT 'time'). I also identified the 'acceleration' gradient due to the G gradient! You say; "The clock is not accelerated" but you forget it is, by gravity, and at different rates subject to (approximately) the inverse square law. It actually works both ways too; test a grandfather clock in space. If it won't work does it mean we've stopped time!!?? The DFM and my grandson say of course not. The effect on an oscillating particle is the same. It's a physical entity which does not 'create' time.

It appears the reason you didn't understand what I wrote was the normal one, not going back to deep enough fundamental assumptions. Once we look at it from a fresh fundamental angle; 'NO CLOCK 'CREATES' TIME' it all falls into place. Clocks can be changed. 'Time' can't! Dilation and contraction are simple Doppler shifts, and physics is united and free of anomaly and paradox.

Last key point; when Higgs, Unruh or whoever condenses a pair of particles, the 'dark energy' density around it seems to be reduced. If annihilated, we find the (non-zero) local density gradient has levelled back out again. Is that really so shocking or unacceptable? or just unfamiliar? Can you spot any flaw?

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

Singling out just one point that appears to cause confusion in each of my messages: I speak only about the rate at which clocks operate. Yet when I refer to the Lorentz transform for time dilation it apparently looks like I am speaking about time. I am not speaking about time in any of the cases. I am only calling the Lorentz transform by its name. Its name contains the word time. That misuse of the word time is relativity theory's error. To make it clear: When I use the name 'time dilation' I am only using it as a name. I do not believe that time dilates.

James Putnam

Peter,

Tomorrow is the first of October. It occurred to me today that October matters to you and others who ranked well in the essay contest. I will leave my questions dormant until after the winners are announced. I prefer not to risk causing harm during this important time. Good luck.

James Putnam

Admittedly, I have problems to understand Peter Jackson and also James Putnam who cryptically wrote: "That misuse of the word time is relativity theory's error. To make it clear: When I use the name 'time dilation' I am only using it as a name. I do not believe that time dilates."

In German, i.e. in Einstein's native language, there is no distinction between Geschwindigkeit in the sense of the scalar "speed" and the vector "velocity". While the latter obviously refers to a point of reference, the speed seems to be something absolute. Well, there is no negative speed as there is no negative distance too. Nonetheless, don't speed of light in vacuum as well as distance in space necessarily refer to the difference between two tacitly chosen points of reference: starting point and endpoint? There is certainly no otherwise preferred reference on condition other influences or observers are not involved. I do not support the idea that reality can be judged by what an observer sees. Peter is perhaps right in that the universe is strictly speaking not an empty space. However, does this fully explain the observable behavior of electromagnetic waves? Isn't the reemission theory an emitter theory?

Eckard