Alternative Models of Reality

pjackson

James,

I've no concerns about causal links between time and date, or of any possible prejudice. What will be will be. But I agree even more firmly about the lack of causal link between clocks and 'time' signals, or 'time' and rates of clock mechanisms. A simple test confirms this, which, as is my method, needs a return to re-examine foundations afresh.

In inventing the concept and word 'time' we simply divided up the period between cyclic events into certain equal amounts. Let's take the basics of a day and a year; One rotation of Earth, and one orbit of the sun (note that both change slightly!). We invented mechanical contraptions to give us smaller divisions, and counted crystal oscillations to give still smaller ones.

Now a test of the intelligence of any creatures by some roaming aliens may well be; Are we yet adequately intellectually developed to not confuse actual 'periods' with ; 1) the signals emitted from or contraptions, and then; 2) With any change in rate with which those contraptions emit the signals.

A basic check is easy, taking 'seconds' we just have to correlate ticks against days to see if we get 86,400, and 356 of those a year. If the number changes, then it's the artifact that's been altered, not 'time'. If we think that Doppler shifting the emitted artifact signals from clocks 'dilates' time itself! Then we're certainly not ready! The same if we think making clocks go faster or slower changes 'time'. And the same if we think heading back round our orbit on a rocket to effectively reduce the number of orbits also has any effect on rate of 'time'. (If a rate of orbits vary we simply change it (as we do now) or pick another datum).

So do orbit rates slow or speed up when we move a clock up or down in Mars or Earth's gravitational field? Or put it in a rocket, or in treacle? I'd like to help by somehow convincing mankind that the answer is 'no', but it's proving rather trickier than I'd thought. (A 'discrete field' dynamic is then implicit). Yet does anyone reading this really think my above analysis is wrong?

So we may still have a long way to go intellectually. Just a few understanding that means nothing. All the time 'accepted doctrine' says different.. then we need more development. Was my estimate of 2020 too optimistic?

To be clear, nothing in the above contradicts the Postulates of SR, (which Einstein stated contained the 'entire theory' - 1952). It only falsifies some less sophisticated attached assumptions which we now seem too wedded to.

Onwards and upwards.

Peter

Thomas Ray

"So do orbit rates slow or speed up when we move a clock up or down in Mars or Earth's gravitational field? Or put it in a rocket, or in treacle? I'd like to help by somehow convincing mankind that the answer is 'no', but it's proving rather trickier than I'd thought."

Peter, you're confusing the period of orbit with local time. That clocks do speed up or slow down relative to the strength of a gravitational field or state of motion was experimentally proven in 1972.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

Ok good. The examples I try to set up are intended to focus on individual effects, but it hasn't worked out well yet. I will try to do better. Here is one example that looks for an uncomplicated response about the speed of light. If it needs refinement then I will try again. There is no observer. There is only an event taking place "...in the forest with no one around." :-)

There are two mediums of hydrogen gas that have a common vertical boundary where they are beginning to mix. Both of these gases have pressures sufficiently low that they can be reliably treated as ideal gases. The first medium is less dense than the second medium. A photon, you may substitute a wave, is released by a hydrogen electron inside medium one. It travels inside medium one horizontally toward medium two. The atom that released it was at rest in medium one at the time of release. While the photon remains in medium one it encounters no collisions with other hydrogen atoms. The atoms are far too far apart. While it is inside medium one: Is its speed the same as C in a vacuum or is its speed different from that C?

The photon continues passing through the still narrow mixing zone into medium two where it travels for a significant distance well into medium two without encountering any collisions with the hydrogen atoms in medium two. Is the speed of the photon the C of a vacuum or is it something different? If it is different from that C, is it different from its speed in medium one?

In other words, what is its speed and how does it change or not change during its travel? If this works out easily, then I will add the hydrogen atom velocity in a follow-up example. Thank you.

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom,

I agree that mechanical clocks made by man, and even natural oscillators, can speed or slow subject to the conditions they are under, including acceleration.

What I point out is that it's quite naive to believe that such local physical effects on them and emissions have anything to do with or can 'change' the actual rate of 'TIME' itself!

I'm suggesting that only our incomplete intellectual development allows us the arrogance of thinking so locally. This is because there are TWO things we confuse, and treat as one. There is REAL time, which is only 'DIVISIONS', of the REAL (not 'apparent') orbital rate of the Earth. Then there are other only 'apparent' effects,; on the simple mechanisms we build, and on their propagating emissions.

So of course machines will run faster or slower, but even my grandson laughs when I try to tell him some humans really believe the mechanisms MAKE time itself! or can change REAL time, - so if THEY change then somehow 'time' is being changed! Stand back slow down, and think for a while on that. After all these changes the Earth still rotates and orbits the sun at the same rate, ignorant of our stupidity.

And even then your citation was already proved nonsense long ago, though many indoctrinated fools still cite it. Hafele himself, before trying to publish, said;

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything" and "the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing." (1971 NY Presentation)

He also pointed out that for a useful test the drift rate of any clock should be constant over the whole period of the test. That bit was left out, as the reviewer (or, rumoured; his professor) wouldn't pass it. Basudeba presented the actual data and fuller story here; See Blog Post 2. But all that does is confirm how misguided some have been. It makes no difference if the clocks changed or not, and wouldn't falsify or verify Einstein's final 1952 SR which; "is entirely contained within the postulates".

Time the head came out of the sand Tom. The truth is a beautiful unified reality.

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter, because only spacetime -- not time independently -- is absolute and physically real, there is no such thing as "time itself." Nor conversely, "space itself."

The differences in experimentally recorded clock speeds verify this fact of relativity, for when the clocks are brought back to relative rest, they tick at the same rate of proper time.

You write "It makes no difference if the clocks changed or not, and wouldn't falsify or verify Einstein's final 1952 SR which; 'is entirely contained within the postulates'."

It certainly *does* make a difference, since the theory's mathematics *predicts* this result. When are you going to understand that 'entirely contained within the postulates' means that special relativity is mathematically complete?

"Time the head came out of the sand Tom."

Not if that's where the facts are.

Tom

pjackson

James,

Nature only works in real scenario's. 'Speed' is only ever a relative concept between two entities. If you specify speed you MUST specify a 'datum' or a 'rest frame'. To help I'll assume that in this case the gas molecules are ALL in the same rest frame, so provide the datum. No observer needs be present, but I assume we have scalar distances between the particles each side of the 'refractive plane' or more properly 'transition zone' (TZ).

You've also been a bit sloppy mixing molecular gas and plasma (ions/free electrons), ok in this case but would lead to confusion in most other cases if not specified.

Speed is then always C.

How? The emitter dictates the speed, (which is 'micro' emission theory, but certainly NOT equivalent to normal emission theory as the distances in your scenario must be very small for it to describe nature). For most emitters the 'near field' distance to the TZ is a well known function of wavelength, normally no more than ~1 micron for optical lambdas. BUT! ask any antenna engineer and they'll all tell you precisely, but all different answers, as it's wavelength dependent!

To pre-warn you about 'velocity', a 'vector' is as unreal as a 'point' or a 'line', so you should consider only 'optical axis' or 'focus of re-emission' of coherent forward scattering (CFS), which gives apparent source position but has been proved does NOT have to be normal to the causal wavefront - see my last years essay - and last few figs.

You may then be able to deduct an answer to your question? If not just ask away and I'll continue to do my best.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Eckard,

James's comment wasn't cryptic. It properly distinguished between 'TIME' itself, from which we 'divide' equal periods of one Earth orbit; from the signals of mechanical contraptions made by man to 'keep pace' with it.

We then have TWO things that can change without affecting 'time', both the 'rate' of the toys we build AND the rate at which we come across their emitted artifactual signals. We may designate both as giving only APPARENT time.

When we check back how long it's taking Earth to rotate, once our intellect has reached an adequate stage, then it will become clear how nonsensical our assumptions have been. See the conversation with Tom and James above.

You're knocking at the door with 'points of reference', but 'speed' is only 'absolute' wrt the each emitter INSIDE it's near/far field transition zone. (Maxwell's TZ). At the 2-fluid TZ it's changed to the 'far field' emitter reference datum c.

We may then think of c always as a local propagation SPEED (as SR) but one that changes when the next 'LOCALE' is in motion, to also be c there. (Doppler shifted). I have advised this takes much careful thought to first visualise, then assimilate. In the past you dismissed and ignored that advice. Perhaps if you also read the above posts carefully it may help this time. I'm trying to find a better way to explain the hierarchical kinetics. I hope you may eventually help with that.

One idea I have is that to make the clear distiction with 'emission theory' we call it 're-emission' theory. Once beyond the near field/TZ the speed has NO relation to the original emitter. Does that help visualise the DFM dynamics?

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

There is no mixing of gas with plasma. The rest frame is of course the first medium of hydrogen gas. The molecule that has its electron that releases the photon was stated that it was at rest in the medium. The scenario was the real world. The transition zone is minor mixing of two densities of hydrogen gasses and no collisions occur anywhere along the path of the photon. There is no refractive zone because there is only one photon and it has no interactions with atoms. The distances traveled by the photon can be long because the two mediums are very, close to ideal gas status. The photon can travel a large distance without being absorbed. There is no scattering.

The photon has a velocity because it is traveling in a direction that does not change unless you state that there are effects resulting from atoms that are far from the photon. You stated that the speed part of the velocity of the photon is the same C as in a vacuum. I will take the liberty of stating your answer in a general way. The answer was: The speed of a photon anywhere in any medium is always The vacuum value C unless there is absorption and emission along the path. Do I have your answer correctly stated?

Your also stated that "The emitter dictates the speed..". So now I will change the example slightly by giving the atom that emits the photon a velocity in the horizontal direction toward medium B. There photon then travels a path into medium two without encountering any absorptions by atoms. What is the speed of the photon with respect to medium one. Medium one has no velocity of its own. Its individual molecules are in motion, but the medium as a whole is not moving. There transition zone consists of minor mixing. The photon passes through it without encountering any atoms. It is a rest frame.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The model is axiomatic. To ask questions of it demands the axioms are followed. You can't set conflicting ones. I pointed out your mixing gas with plasma for good reason. Molecular gas electrons theoretically orbit. Free electrons only exist as/in plasma. If you leave the direct path you'll find the boggy ground again. The electron may be at rest or in motion wrt the 'medium virial frame' so your scenario should have no problem.

I only referred to the 'refractive zone' as that is what the TZ 'is' (standard optics), not necessarily as what it 'does'. i.e In the first case I agreed no interaction there. But we'll return to that as we must stick to nature here not construct impossible scenario's.

You re-characterized my answer which opened room for error again; "anywhere in the medium" can include the (2 in THIS case) emitting and absorbing particles so your statement is wrong. What is correct is "C anywhere between particles" with respect to the last emitter's frame.

Lastly I also stated that in nature the distance (near field depth) cannot be 'long', and explained how it's calculated, which is a function of wavelength. This is for instance partly due to the non-linear Schrodinger equation having the 'spread function', which is poorly understood. Photons' are not some 'ballistic' entity. In quantum and laser optics Huygens Construction is ubiquitous and the only logic matching observation. This is then implicit both in findings and in the model. The emitter does not then emit a 'bullet' but a focussed fluctuation which spreads and interacts with others ('self focussed' only in Bessel beams and partly in lasers).

Now you decided to set your own axiom, suggesting; "The photon can travel a large distance without being absorbed. There is no scattering." With respect that's some other theory James, it uses old assumptions and doesn't correspond to nature. You also make other contrary assumptions, about vectors and the like. You should discuss those with someone else if you wish to insist on them as I'm here describing a different (and far more coherent!) scenario.

Now deciphering mediums 'one', 'two' and 'B', we must again identify two scenario's, one with and one without a 'dark energy' Higgs field condensate frame.

If 'With' a condensate, which is at rest in the medium one virial rest frame, then as soon as the emission (at 'c+v' in that frame) has travelled the near field depth, a fermion pair is instantaneously propagated from the excess energy (over the gamma/c optical breakdown density) in the 'medium' frame, which absorbs the photon of energy and re-emits it at c (Doppler shifted). This is what's familiarly termed 'continuous spontaneous localisation' (CSL). It has then formed a local TX of it's own. That is how they are formed (the particles mainly then instantly annihilate or 'cancel charge' over the Debye length).

If we then run it without a condensate, there are two further choices, either the pair production 'pops up' from 'nowhere' and does the same, or the emissions carry on and do relative c+v into the more dense zone until they meet a particle and are converted to the local c by it's set 'rpm' (sans Doppler shift).

In either event there is a slight rotation of the optical axis (called 'stellar aberration', 'refraction' or sometimes' curved space-time'.

In both cases any observer is simply an absorber, and will find the multi-refringence (orig. found 1921, also found as 'scintillation') caused by some axis being rotated before others in a diffuse medium (where gas is very diffuse there is still always plasma). It may be wrong, but last count there were something over 20 anomalous findings or poorly understood and non-linear effects which are predicted naturally by this model, i.e. the Kerr effects, Interstellar Faraday rotation, ecliptic plans transition, KRR, the kSZ effect etc.

pjackson

Tom,

Change Einstein's meaning however you wish to fit your beliefs. He was disengaging himself from the maths and returning to it's conceptual roots; "space s in motion within space S" He indeed never found exactly WHERE the problem lay, but he did hope those looking would find it, as early as 1944 in fact; "I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find."

Why do you think it's only that particular paper that's been suppressed so severely and can't be found on the web! It's because so many disagreed with changing their beliefs so fundamentally. Face it, you've been duped Tom. I blame the guy who taught you SR. I was taught it as a theory, as the ruling paradigm, with certain assumptions and proofs of certain things, but then also certain apparent inconsistencies with other theory, including the major one over 'time' with QM. That is the correct description correct. You seem to have been indoctrinated with it as a religion!

They may have told you you'll find the answers by putting your head in the sand. You won't. It only makes you shut your eyes to ignore nature.

I consider Einstein left his best genius and work until last. I'm with him.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter, you can't intimidate me on questions of relativity, so you may as well quit trying. You have no idea of what it means for a theory to be entirely contained within its postulates, nor what Einstein meant when he said it of special relativity. It's as completely contained as Euiidean geometry, which Einstein thoroughly understood -- because he is the one who replaced a postulate of Euclid in order to make general relativity also complete.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

The electron that emitted the photon is not free. I didn't say it was free. It changes one energy level to its base level. The hydrogen atoms are all intact. No free electrons or protons.

Your model absorbs something and re-emits something. That is the part that matters. You recently wrote that the emitted something appears re-quantized. What do you mean by 're-quantized"? Can you please describe its physical description?

I take matters step by step. Simplified examples are understood now to be unacceptable to you. They can never be reality because they are meant to focus.

Is there anything about the actual absorption and re-emission immediately before and immediately after that you wish to add? If the energy arrives in a waveform does it collapse to the one particle or is it divided up among several particles? I don't presuppose what your answer is. Pease just say what you think is happening immediately before absorption.

Please keep in mind that your model is not reality yet. You invited me to consider talking my talk with someone else. Do you wish to not discuss this with me. I will continue to try for one or a few answers at a time. Everything I learn needs to be checked out mathematically. I am not going to try to do that with all of nature at once. Is this a problem?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

'Twas I, of course.

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

In choosing between cherry picking Einstein's evolving views and taking his final answers I chose the latter. By all means take the former, no intimidation to do otherwise, but to me that not only lacks respect for Einstein but also doesn't lead to the mechanism he sought.

Hold yourself out as some kind of 'expert' on SR if you wish. Einstein was more realistic. I assure you I understand precisely what his earlier musings meant and implied, as did he. You're showing it's you who may not. His views on the importance of "Mathematically complete", whether true or not, are very clear (to those without heads in sand); i.e. "Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." ....also; "Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts." ... and;

"as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... "

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."

And even more importantly, in the 1930's; ; "There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century. ... "

and;

"Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of a mathematical construction,"

But a value of humanity is in it's diversity. All ideas should be tested, and perhaps faith will prove a better answer than the scientific method. Who knows?

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Hold yourself out as some kind of 'expert' on SR if you wish. "

You don't have to believe me. I have not only studied the subject for many years, I have quoted you source and chapter from emininent physicists who also know what a mathematically complete theory "entirely contained within its postulates" means.

The only one who disputes this meaning is you.

Tom

Thomas Ray

Peter,

Try and understand what you quoted: "And even more importantly, in the 1930's; 'There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century. ... '"

*That* is what Einstein means by his theory entirely contained within its postulates. The inductive method he is talking about is exactly what James means by "what the emprirical evidence is telling us." Einstein did not trust inductive conclusions made by examing phenomena -- he chose his system of postulates to completely exclude adding or subtracting anything from the theory.

You, James and John all believe in inductive methods. Doubting Thomas chooses scientific method. :-)

Best,

Tom

pjackson

James,

I didn't suggest you specified free electrons, I pointed out they made life far simpler; "we must simplify as much as possible but not too much" and take great care that what we assume models nature. The DFM 'corresponds' well to nature only because it adheres to that rule. I'm happy to discuss, but you must accept some fundamental hidden assumptions will be found which need removal.

We may consider bound molecular gas, but then need to specify more; Firstly, the absorption/charge time is far greater (so higher charge) giving greater index 'n'. (slower propagation in the medium bulk frame). Then the re-emission is not CFS but more 'all round' scattering. (i.e. we can detect gas and dust from the 'side'). The re-emission and speed between particles is also then NOT at c wrt the electron 'orbital' speed, it is c wrt the gas molecule frame. All the above is know optical science, the last effect first found by Chandrasekara Raman and contributed to his 1930 Nobel. There are other common traps, i.e. electrons, positrons, protons etc absorb different wavelengths etc, (Molecules may also of course absorb and reflect almost ALL the energy!), but we'll run with your 'atoms' for now.

Rather than do all cases, now we have a Higgs mechanism let's incorporate it, so we have fluctuations in a 'dark energy' condensate (which may be particulate if you wish) from which matter condenses (pair production). Quantized re-missions spread out, as explained, (Scrodinger spheres at reducing surface 'bundle' density, which intersect) allowing the energy density equations to predict where intersection energy will peak. But, simply, all emission is at c.

If a body (particle) is then put in the field, to simplify as you asked; it will absorb up to a certain energy (akin to Plancks 'loading theory') and re-emit the focussed 'wave bundle.' My essay explains how these are 3D not just 2D, and driven by orbital angular momentum (OAM), so are toroidal in a 'static' equation, but describing a continuous and 'opening' 'helical path' with translation (on the axis).

So THAT is 're-quantization' (also Google '2nd quantization' etc). Continual focussing and spreading on every interaction. (simpler with the most common form of matter; 'plasma', and much complicated by binding). The trickiest bit may be to imagine Huygens construction of expanding 3D spheres with varying surface densities and moving with OAM (or indeed elliptically with any lateral particle motion). In CFS the sphere surface energy distribution is also axially 'focussed' so highly asymmetric).

I certainly don't claim the model as 'complete' in describing nature! But just point out that unlike any present theory it coherently predicts and corresponds with our observations. In fact not many of the 'pieces' of the puzzle are new, most were laying there in the experimental sciences and astronomy, or swept under the carpet' and ignored by theorists as inconsistent with current doctrine.

Again, if any bits don't seem to correspond please flag them up.

Peter

pjackson

Tom,

"Try and understand what you quoted:" Do you really believe I don't understand inductive and deductive reasoning? I follow and agree with Einstein's far subtler thinking process, and of the dangers of induction (as WELL AS just mathematics), which may be summed up well as 'inference'. He was not referring to Heuristic thought. I use data, and deduction wherever appropriate, in the Scientific Method. I don't rely entirely on manipulating symbols.

But rather than keep getting into the silly argument of; "..no it's me who knows and YOU who doesn't understand", which you can't win, as I do, why don't you show some respect face up to the correspondence of theory with with evidence, which is the final arbiter, and which I've demonstrated consistently. I think I know why, and it's up to you to show me wrong and your beliefs correct. Until then you're words are just the reflection of Pentcho's.

Science is not an election. I quite agree more agree with you than not. It's your claim that that makes it correct which is clearly false logic.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter,

" ... why don't you show some respect face up to the correspondence of theory with with evidence, which is the final arbiter, and which I've demonstrated consistently."

If you say so. It isn't I whom you have to convince.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

Please correct this statement from your point of view:

Your particle receives light and releases light. Generally that which it receives arrives at a different speed than the speed of that which it releases. I understand that you often refer to both of the speeds as C. The particle experiences a difference in the two speeds. In one case it would be that the particle receives slow light. In another case the particle would receive light moving faster than the C of the released light. I am speaking only about light being absorbed by the particle and released by the particle. I have not taken anything else into consideration at this time. I am interested in your response to my saying that the particle experiences two different speeds of light.

Thank you.

James Putnam

« Previous Page Next Page »