Alternative Models of Reality

Thomas Ray

Peter, aside from the fact that I would never trust Wikipedia as a single source of science authority, I fail to to see how you relate the Unruh effect -- a quantum-mechanical conjecture -- to the classical case you propose and to which my questions are addressed.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

Here are a couple of points for you to address. I think you have covered a couple of them but I am asking again in the context of the group of statements. The main one concerns the relationship of the wave number to energy as velocity varies:

The first one contains several statements:

"The rest of your statement ignored the simple fact that ALL ENERGY IS CONSERVED in the wavenumber."

It is frequency that is directly proportional to energy. Frequency is the number of cycles received per unit of time. The Doppler affect, for two approaching sources, increases the received frequency.

The relationship between wave number and energy holds only for a specific velocity. A change in velocity involves a change in the wave number and its relationship to energy.

The new wave number relationship to the changed energy results from solving for the new wave number using the new frequency.

In the case of the Pound-Rebka experiment, the frequency of the wave is increased for its downward trip as calculated using the highly successful Equivalence Principle.

In Relativity theory, energy is proportional to frequency as calculated using the relativistic transformation of energy. The energy changes by the same factor as frequency for a new reference frame.

The second one:

Why does your model remove the partial derivative with respect to time for Maxwell's equations?

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom,

The effect described by Unruh is well verified from motion in the QV as ionization but not as he originally seemed to propose; proportional to 'acceleration'. I entirely agree about Wiki, but there are also many PRJournal references, some free access;

The Unruh effect and its applications. and; http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4833

It's existence it undeniable not just conjecture, though theoretical beliefs may scream otherwise at many. The solution is very simple. The background frame is LOCAL, as Einstein specified. It does not also have to be 'ABSOLUTE' as he and most have assumed. The assumption it had to be absolute CAUSED the apparent paradoxes and the chanting of the deniers. That will never stop until the interpretive flaw is corrected and the theory completed (M= E/c^2 then also obeys the rules of mathematics and logic).

No 'ether' has to do anything apart from provide the 'dark' energy of the Higgs field from which the new conjugate fermion pairs are ionised. We've known about pair production throughout modern science, and space is full of 'collisionless shocks' around all moving matter, also still 'poorly understood'.

It's been overwhelmingly demonstrated that scattering system particles are propagated in some LOCAL rest frame, which you can consider simply as an ion cloud.

It has also been overwhelmingly demonstrated that light is 'frame dragged' on meeting the new co-moving systems (termed Geodetic drag in Earth's case) which is the same effect but simply not recognised as that due to ingrained 'theoretical barriers'.

So could you really suggest light on Venus 'propagates at c' wrt Earth's frame not Venus's frame? Einstein said 'propagates', and was clearly correct. When that light reaches Earth it Doppler shifts like sound to propagate at c wrt Earth.

Bets wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"The background frame is LOCAL, as Einstein specified. It does not also have to be 'ABSOLUTE' as he and most have assumed."

Einstein specified that all physics is local. And since the premise of relativity is that neither space alone nor time alone are absolute (only spacetime is absolute), it is impossible for me to understand what you are getting at.

The Unruh effect still applies to quantum field theory, and not to the cases of uniform and accelerated motion that you proposed. No amount of capital letters and exclamation marks make a difference.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

To the extent that you are trying to connect the Unruh effect to classical field theory, I said in the blog disingenuously titled "Ripping apart Einstein" ... " ... information instantaneously exchanged between two bodies is retained by the particles, and not by the spacetime. Also as Einstein deduced, a field theory obeys Lorentz invariance regardless of scale, or general relativity doesn't hold at any scale.

"We can only recover the role of spacetime in any interaction (event) geometrically, because there are no preferred rest frames, in principle. The stress-energy tensor is symmetric."

This means that the observer effect is retained at the quantum field level. It does not mean that every particle event requires background rest frame.

Hope this helps.

Tom

pjackson

James,

An axiomatic theory is like a key, code or chain. One part missing or wrong and it doesn't work. I stated the new understanding required in discrete field (DFM), frame transitions which is that, as in optical science, the 'WAVENUMBER' contains the energy for any given amplitude.

Yet you revert to the old erroneous belief; "It is frequency that is directly proportional to energy." You'll find that that key STILL doesn't fit. You must accept and rationalise the DFM ontology if you want entry. You can't 'pick and chose'.

I have explained this once, but the fault lies in the treatment of 'time' (and the 'partial time derivative' nonsense). You are correct in saying;

"Frequency is the number of cycles received per unit of time."

So now think very hard. If a clock at rest in an inertial system approaching you at 0.5 c emits a single pulse of a fixed total energy taking one second, will that pulse last one second on arrival at your OWN rest frame?

And do you not receive the same TOTAL energy!?

The simple logical answer is unique to the DFM. Once you have understood that, if you can then explain to me what on Earth partial time derivatives and virtual electrons are and do, and why Snell's Law and Fresnel refraction currently fails at Maxwell near/far field frame transitions, Then I'll explain why they are not required - if still necessary.

I suspect that may also solve the 3rd problem you referred to but haven't yet stated.

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

"An axiomatic theory is like a key, code or chain. One part missing or wrong and it doesn't work. I stated the new understanding required in discrete field (DFM), frame transitions which is that, as in optical science, the 'WAVENUMBER' contains the energy for any given amplitude.

I didn't revert to anything. I guess I should have explained in clear terms that those statements were a compilation of typical textbook type challenges. It was an opportunity for you to respond to them together. Up until now, my intent was to discuss your theory and maybe be able to give reworded explanations of your model that might help in communicating it. I have not expressed my own opinion about it. Quoting from above "...the 'WAVENUMBER' contains the energy for any given amplitude." The textbook type explanation would say that "...the wave number is proportional to energy only for a specific velocity. If the velocity changes, the wave number must change in accordance with a change in frequency. The energy changes with the frequency. The new wave number can be calculated from the new frequency." You state that "Energy is conserved in the wave number." Is this your new view that you are introducing or have I misstated what is presently taught? I understand it to be your newly introduced conservation rule.

"I have explained this once, but the fault lies in the treatment of 'time' (and the 'partial time derivative' nonsense). You are correct in saying;

""Frequency is the number of cycles received per unit of time.""

And do you not receive the same TOTAL energy!?"

I better make certain we are talking about the same 'partial time derivative'. The partial time derivative in Maxwell's equations representing the relations between a changing electric field and a changing magnetic field is not referring to the velocity of the wave. It is limited to describing what is occurring at a point on the wave. Is this incorrect? As an aside "So now think very hard.", you could run a person out of patience fast by posting repeated judgments like this. I don't need to think 'very hard' about something so simple.

"The simple logical answer is unique to the DFM. Once you have understood that, if you can then explain to me what on Earth partial time derivatives and virtual electrons are and do, and why Snell's Law and Fresnel refraction currently fails at Maxwell near/far field frame transitions, Then I'll explain why they are not required - if still necessary."

You can explain if what I said above about Maxwell's field equations is incorrect.

"I suspect that may also solve the 3rd problem you referred to but haven't yet stated."

I don't know what this is referring to. You are invited to use whatever it is to clarify your model for readers.

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom,

It will be impossible for you to 'understand' and falsify any axiomatic theory if you insist on using your own different axioms.

Can you not use the SM and suspend any prior assumptions to allow objective evaluation? You assured us you could. Let's give it a try;

But before starting, back with the 'other' assumptions; If ALL physics is local, which I agree, can space-time really be 'absolute'? I suggest space-time itself may also be local. But the specification postulated here may still vary slightly as it is quantized.

Please also note that the axioms are entirely Lorentz invariant, c is c everywhere including on frame transitions, which are each 'locally real' at some point in space where matter exists, not just imaginary. The gamma curve is produced by an underlying mechanism (also using matter).

The Unruh effect is not an effect of 'quantum theory'. It is a REAL effect (empirically well confirmed) for which a theory was constituted to explain. Just because something involves particles does not make it part of QM. Indeed far from it; Particle, plasma and HE physics and quantum optics are not part of QM, which disallows any structure to a particle apart from singlet spin states. The model then shows QM is essentially wrong and the postulates of SR are correct.

So here we have it; The proposal is; Light changes speed to the local c on arrival, by a mechanism limited by gamma, so behaving exactly like sound. We can then also allow the 'apparent' distant superluminal motion we can only estimate by 'change of angle' over time, because all local "propagation speed" is still c.

So are you able to understand and falsify that 'scientifically. i.e without deflection and as specified, so without simply invoking some other axioms?

Thomas Ray

Peter, who told you that physics is axiomatized?

[deleted]

Tom,

Non axiomatic theory has limited value, did you never study 'axiomatic theory'? the foundation of good science?

I didn't suggest "physics is axiomised" far from it. Nature is nature. It is theory that requires axioms and resultant falsifiability. The postulates of SR are essentially the axioms of the theory. Testable statements embodying it's essence.

An example; Someone suggests DM is 'axions'. They cam waffle meaninglessly and say they believe this or that theory but NONE of that is 'science'! The axioms may be;

1. Axions are dark matter, made up of 3 gravitons and 2 gluons.

2. Axions are undetectable spectroscopically as n=1 and they're painted black.

3. Axions can't penetrate rock as they're only 34GeV and are also too big.

4. They form when a Higgs boson decays to 1 Axion and 3 neutralinos.

Now the overall logic and must first be tested for consistency and then each one of those can be tested against data and observation (importantly NOT past theory or interpretation of observations, which are both subjective).

If none can be falsified the theory is valid. If just one fails and can't be consistently re-stated the theory is ruled out. If valid it is not automatically verified as true but may, only then and not before, be compared with other inconsistent theory to see, still objectively, which is more consistent with nature overall. If black paint proves detectable by BB radiation, and they'd otherwise be visible in x-ray, then it's falsified.

Subjective opinions, viewpoints and other beliefs don't enter into it. They're for religion. Our brains have a pre-set 'default' mode of neural patterns which we'd otherwise just 'offer' new stuff up to, and reject it if it didn't fit. That is what the SM is designed to overcome (it still often fails to as past doctrine trumps new data!).

I'm not surprised you've struggled to understand anything not entirely following the popular SR specification if you didn't understand how important it is to objectively evaluate axiomatic theory.

So now how about responding to the actual and very pertinent and central points I made in the last post. But objectively, with no evangelism please. This is a science site after all.

best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

" ... did you never study 'axiomatic theory'? the foundation of good science?"

No. Where?

Akinbo Ojo

James,

What is vc in your equation and what is C?

"I do say that the speed of light varies and slows as it approaches the Earth"

This implies it was faster.

"I don't have values with enough significant digits to carry out this calculation"

It does not matter at this stage, but C is higher than vc, whatever vc is.

"Please notice that I use the locally measured speed of light, that I have, as C. The speed of light at the Earth's surface measured by an observer in free space would be less than that value".

How will an observer in free space measure speed of light at Earth surface from his remote location? It has to be deduced and confirmed experimentally by sending two-way signals from earth to free space and back, and then measuring the transit time taken compared to the distance to the free space location, if I may put it that way.

Akinbo

pjackson

James,

I'm not repeating old doctrine. More coherent logic lies in the specification I'm taking great lengths to repeat.

You say "I don't need to think 'very hard' about something so simple." Yet you'd failed to take note so had missed the point yet again;

This really must be the last time I try! Perhaps forget the near/far field TZ and just focus on this. The solution IS ostensibly simple but it's the implications that matter. The DFM identifies that are TWO cases of energy emissions;

1. A pulse of a certain wavenumber, say 10 is emitted taking 1 second.

2. A continuous stream of fluctuations is emitted, at 10 per second.

First we consider A) the kinetic effect. If the observer is at rest wrt the emitter he detects them both over 1 second, but if he is in motion (say towards the emitter) the two cases vary. In case 2, the continuous wave, he times it for 1 second (for 'frequency) and finds it blue shifted and, guess what; "Higher Energy"!! But that is only because he now has MORE WAVES jammed into that 1 second (or less if he's receding). There is no 'change' in energy only the relative times.

Now case 1 of the short 10 wave pulse. He again times it to find frequency, and finds the SAME frequency as case 2! Now what present text books have missed is that the energy in case 2 is actually the same as emitted, just squashed into less time, so when a second in the NEW frame is used, the energy appears higher. Case 1 just gives us a 'control' case to analyse it with.

What that means is that the Doppler shift equation we use in theory, which is shift of 'frequency' makes nonsense of everything. We need to know wavelength through the background frame, which is not available to us. We can however calculate it if we know OUR OWN speed wrt the emitter (or background propagation frame) and the new 'wavelength' propagating in our own rest frame. Current theory doesn't bother with any of that so ends up as nonsense.

The case for a gradually changing medium density is different again as speed between particles is always c, and just the 'number of delays' changes. Wavelength then also changes, as does 'apparent/global' propagation speed. Again a fool not working on lambda and wavenumber would simplistically assume it is the emitted 'energy that has been changed.

The 10 wave parcel REPRESENTS a time signal of 1 second. If it dilates it does't mean 'time' has mysteriously been altered somehow! It's only because the mechanical signal sequence has been contracted or dilated.

Understanding each bit of that is not the battle, it's applying it across all current beliefs and seeing how they must change. Maxwell equations are greatly simplified, as given in my essays. I won't do this again but if you haven't rationalised it all yet don't worry, it took me months to unravel the knotted mess, just keep re reading, plus my essays. (but don't 'read over' any). I hope the hidden simplicity emerges.

best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

"This really must be the last time I try!" ... " Again a fool not working on lambda and wavenumber would simplistically assume it is the emitted 'energy that has been changed."

That which must be must be:

For other readers: My statement about Maxwell's equations relating electric field changes to magnetic field changes is correct. The partial time derivative applies to changes occurring at a point anywhere along the wave independent of the size, shape, or velocity of the wave. It is, strictly speaking, independent of whether the Doppler effect has occurred or not. Other readers are invited to critique my statement at my own thread in this same forum, if it is incorrect please say so.

James Putnam

While theory can proceed forward at anytime by simply inventing substitutes to serve in the place of the unknown, nature didn't leave gaps in the operation of the universe to be filled in later by humans. We can learn that which empirical evidence makes known to us by avoiding closing that door. The door closes as a result of allowing theoretical inventions to enter into physics equations. The means by which the door can remain open is explained in this message which I repeat again below:

F=ma begins its existence as an empirical equation. It begins with the recognition that the empirical evidence of acceleration of objects tell us that, besides the empirical properties of length and time, there are two additional properties. One is the cause of the acceleration and the other is resistance to acceleration. We don't know what the cause of acceleration is but the equation symbolizes it with the letter F. We don't know what the cause of resistance to acceleration is, but, the equation symbolizes it with the letter m. The names chosen for them are force and mass.

There immediately arises a challenge of how to define force and mass. Acceleration doesn't need to be defined. It consists of measures of length and time. There are no properties before length and time by which they may be made defined properties. Length and time are naturally fundamental indefinable properties. We either find a way to define both mass and force using only properties of length and time or we must invent a fundamental indefinable status for one of them. It has not been known how to define both force and mass so the choice was, and remains, that mass would be arbitrarily be made a fundamental indefinable property.

That act was the first intrusion of theory into a physics equations. From that point on f=ma became subservient to a theory instead of representing that which empirical evidence is communicating to us. nature communicates its mechanical information to us by the acceleration of objects. Instead of allowing that evidence to show us what mass is, physicists told the equation that mass would be a theoretical invention.

Adding to this: My opinion is that if one accepts the indefinable status of mass, then one is adopting a theoretical belief system. One has to have a definition for mass because the status of mass infects almost all physics equations that follow f=ma. If one uses an indefinable mass, then one is adopting an indefinable physics. Making matters worse is the acceptance of an indefinable temperature. Then there remains one more theoretical obstacle to remove from physics equations. That one can wait until mass receives the defined status that it must have to advance scientific learning. The end result is direct dependence upon empirical evidence for direction, and thereby, learning that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom,

If you never learnt axiomatic theory it would explain your often non objective approach. So let's see if you can now be objective as promised. Please provide your scientific analysis of this scenario;

1. We observe pulses moving in a quasar jet by telescope, call the galaxy 'M87'.

2. We measure light emitted by a pulse moving across but towards our line of sight, finding speed c and a blueshift.

3. We measure the jet bulk plasma flow propagation speed by angle and time, and find 0.9c wrt the fixed stars around the flow and rate of change of angle.

4. We measure the speed of a new energetic pulse within the flow by angle and time, finding it propagating at 0.8c in the pulse frame, so apparent 1.7c wrt the local stars and angle change rate.

Does this finding falsify SR? Or, objectively may there be two distinct cases involved, one of propagation speed, (in Proper Time) and one only apparent?

Of course collimated astrophysical jets have far more than just one layer of collimation.

NASA M87 Internal jet pulses 2013.

FRSQ PKS 1510-089, one of endlesly many other examples.

Thanks

Peter

Thomas Ray

Yes, Peter, that's probably it. Until I find the source of this superior "axiomatic theory" that you are keeping to yourself, I'll be no match for your model objectivity.

pjackson

Tom,

So can you now answer the question?

Is SR falsified by those findings? ..Or are there 2 distinct cases, as there are with 'time'? ('proper' and 'co-ordinate').

The discrete field axiom is;

There are two cases of 'speed'; 1) 'Propagation' (c), and 2) 'Apparent' (calculated from distance and rate of change of angle). Quasar jet pulses are case 2.

The latter is also equivalent to a shadow racing across a curved surface.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"The discrete field axiom ..."

I take it that this is something you made up to support your case.

" ... are there 2 distinct cases, as there are with 'time'? ('proper' and 'co-ordinate')."

No, there are not two distinct cases. Spacetime in relativity is an absolute continuum. That speeds may be measured exceeding the speed of light under certain specified conditions does not imply that physical influences between bodies exceed the speed of light.

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

"That speeds may be measured exceeding the speed of light under certain specified conditions does not imply that physical influences between bodies exceed the speed of light."

Excellent, and agreed. Nobody is proposing physical influence at >c. But do those 'certain specified conditions', which obviously include the progress of a shadow, also include the cases of apparent superluminal pulses found in collimated jets. (In those cases the shear surfaces forming collimations will prevent any 'physical influence'.)

It's clear there are only two options; either the finding meets the 'certain conditions' so is a different case, or SR is falsified. I propose the former. Do you disagree? (If so then Pentcho may be correct and it's the latter).

You've been trying to avoid answering this (we all well know what SR says thanks). It now needs your decision.

Peter

Thomas Ray

"we all well know what SR says ..."

No, we apparently do not.

" ... do those 'certain specified conditions', which obviously include the progress of a shadow,"

The movement of a shadow is only an apparent, or effectively measured, superluminal speed, not physically real.

" ... also include the cases of apparent superluminal pulses found in collimated jets. (In those cases the shear surfaces forming collimations will prevent any 'physical influence'.)"

Not the same case.

"The scientists believe the pulses appear to travel faster than light because of an 'interplay between the time scales present in the pulse and the time scales present in the medium.' The faster-than-light pulses do not violate Einstein's theory because technically the pulse carries no information. The effect has been known in laboratory experiments, but these observations were the first in an astrophysical context."

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

Your case is c+ 'propagation', not 'change of angle' as the case I specified, which is indeed, as you said;

"only an apparent, or effectively measured, superluminal speed, not physically real."

We're considering a mainly orthogonal case. Quite different. Rather like if the pulse was propagating at c through a long spaceship passing across your field of view at 0.2c. By measuring the angle change of the apparent pulse position over a given time, the calculation will give you a superluminal sum, but no actual superluminal propagation is implied.

The light emissions from the pulse propagating between the ship and your lens are each doing so at c, which is then the same distinct case as the signals emitted in turn at the unbra of the moving shadow.

Can you identify where anything is breaching c in the pulse scenario? I put it to you that clearly nothing is, otherwise SR is falsified.

So the original choice stands;

Apparent and not physically real, as it is c in each LOCAL frame, as specified in SR,

or; real c+v, so falsifying SR?

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Apparent and not physically real, as it is c in each LOCAL frame, as specified in SR,"

Right. With relativity, *all* physics is local.

pjackson

Tom,

Good. A new realization is then possible; A normal case; 1)Propagation speed; always c LOCALLY within each inertial system, but with no relevance to other bodies in other frames at any arbitrary other speed. Each of those is equivalent LOCALLY.

Then case 2) is 'Apparent'; speed, such as shadow and apparent superluminal pulse progressions which is only determined mathematically; by rate of change of angle, and implies NO propagation speed over c,(or information transfer).

All possible challenges to SR's postulates (it's axioms) then melt away as irrelevant, as does all apparent paradox and the 'disguised' violation of the rules of mathematics by m = E/c^2 requiring a different definition and quantity m to E =mc^2. Consistent logic then permeates physics, enabling the faulty assumption underlying QM to also be exposed (I won't discuss that herein).

As Bragg said; "science is not so much about fining new things but finding new ways of looking at familiar things."

More complete definitions for 'propagation', 'observation' and 'detection' can be established, as proposed in my essay and agreed by those who commented.

But yes, this does demand a small sacrifice to achieve. It demands one more step towards 'Local Reality', the modern QV and Higgs field. Inertial systems are REAL and LOCALISED, implemented by all matter with an assignable 'state of motion' and which couples with EM energy (in whatever form we wish). That coupling modulates to c locally because all emission is LOCAL and at c.

All lenses and antenna then convert arriving signals to their own local c during the process of 'arrival' (detection). Their ability to do so is only LOCAL.

I propose there is no other price to pay.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Good. A new realization is then possible; A normal case; 1)Propagation speed; always c LOCALLY within each inertial system, but with no relevance to other bodies in other frames at any arbitrary other speed. Each of those is equivalent LOCALLY."

Peter, your new realization is over 100 years old now.

pjackson

Tom,

"your new realization is over 100 yrs old" Now you see my point. I agree, but like QM wasn't fully consistent (von Neumann), Local Reality also wasn't fully consistent.

The assumption that a far distant observer HAD to see an apparent (quasar pulse) speed as c isn't necessary and is the root cause of the m=E/c^2 issue. Completing the "2nd case" of the moving shadow with other phenomena also only detectable by rate of angle change resolves that issue. It'd also finally remove increasing dissent.

There would be no need for the physical length contraction of rigid bodies, which was never found. c is modulated LOCALLY. It is only the light 'signals' that can contract and dilate on dynamic evolution of an interaction after their emission. (The Lorentz Factor emerges from that mechanism.)

The change needed to make QM fully compatible with Relativity is slightly greater but no more difficult. As c is modulated locally, by an observer (lens/antenna) interaction, the observer IS then part of the system dictating what is observed.

But Bohrs 'no structure' assumption for particles has to go, or 'be updated'. A 3-spin toroidal electron exposes all the 'spookyness' as nonsense. In fact we may say that removing the one unnecessary assumption in SR (no local background frame) exposes a better solution for QM that shows Joy's thesis to be correct.

We know the content of space, and now Higgs field, DOES form a 'local discrete field' model (DFM), so relativity no longer needs to deny it's existence! Is not the price; dropping one old unproven assumption, small enough?

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Local Reality also wasn't fully consistent."

It absolutely was, and is, Peter. That all physics is local, is -- as you yourself have pointed out -- entirely contained within the postulates of special relativity. What makes quantum mechanics mathematically incomplete is a lack of postulates of what constitutes the quantum configuration space and how it differs from physical space.

Because Bell's theorem explicitly proves that quantum configuration space cannot be mapped onto physical space without a nonlocal model, quantum mechanics is not about microscale models -- it absolutely assumes (without either empirical or mathematical support) that quantum correlations are independent of scale, i.e., that classical physics at some point emerges from quantum physics. Where? At what point do quantum mechanical probabilistic functions become smooth classical continuous functions? No one can say; it remains a mystical assumption; IOW, the theorems supporting a probabilistic reality merely assume what they purport to prove.

A complete classical framework, such as Joy Christian's, allows no boundary -- either real or imagined -- between classical and quantum domains.

"We know the content of space, and now Higgs field, DOES form a 'local discrete field' model (DFM) ..."

ALL physics is local. No superfluous assumptions required.

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

"At what point do (QM's) probabilistic functions become smooth classical continuous functions?"

Good question. But I suggest the real answer is first physical, not 'just' it's mathematical description.

I drew a real smooth geometric 'probabilistic function' in my essay. It's a Bayesian cosine inverse probability amplitude distribution (iPAD). In fact it's helical in reality (OAM), but represented simply as a 2D curve. QM binary 'cardinalisation' is then only an "approximation" of reality. But that does not disqualify the distinguishable 'quanta' which condense to make up 'matter'.

The hypothesis is then simply that the QV of space is like any other dielectric medium, just far more diffuse. Quantum scale mechanisms (Comptom atomic scattering at c) then manifest on a classical scale, logically deriving the Postulates of SR with none of the anomalous findings and tangled web of apparent paradox neither QM or SR will likely ever otherwise shake off (like it or not!)

The question is, can you objectively falsify the hypothesis. i.e. without having to resort to; "...it's different, so it must be wrong"?

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Lewis

This post discusses the nature of light and tries to answer the question: What is light and how is it transmitted through space?

First let us look at how ideas have evolved on this topic. Experiments show that light is a wave and so it was natural to conceive the idea of a hypothetical substance which they called the aether which was supposed to fill all of space. They reasoned that light would propagate as a wave through the aether just as sound propagates as a wave through air.

Experiments were conducted by Michelson and Morley to try to detect aether drift by taking into account the movement of the Earth and expecting that there would be different experimental results depending on the orientation of the apparatus with respect to the motion of the Earth. No aether drift was found and it was concluded that the aether did not exist as conceived.

Subsequently the theory of special relativity identified that the speed of light is a constant for observational frames of reference in uniform relative motion. The special theory of relativity therefore explained the experimental results of Michelson and Morley.

At about this time, Maxwell was studying the properties of electricity and magnetism and he found that a moving electric charge created a magnetic field and a moving magnet created an electric field. It was concluded that a wave of fluctuating electric and magnetic fields would travel outwards at the speed of light. This led to the concept of light as a wave of fluctuating electric and magnetic fields. The idea of light as a wave of propagating electromagnetic fields does not provide a complete answer to the question of how light is transmitted through space. A field has to have an underlying cause as can be seen from consideration of electric, magnetic and gravitational fields.

Experimental results showed that light and other forms of radiation exist in discrete quanta of energy. The photoelectric effect and the nature of black body radiation led to this conclusion. The question of whether light is a wave or a particle was addressed in quantum theory by the concept of wave particle duality in which it is stated that light sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle. The particle like properties are associated with emission or absorption. Light always behaves like a wave during transmission.

We still need to identify the actual medium of transmission for the energy of the light wave. It is not the aether. It is not interacting electric and magnetic fields. It is not a particle moving independently through empty space.

We need to turn to the general theory of relativity (GR) for new ideas. The equations of GR do have a solution which is the propagation of waves through spacetime. The analysis has been completed for gravitational waves so the principle is established that spacetime can support wave disturbances of spacetime travelling through spacetime at the speed of light.

The proposal here (Spacetime Wave theory) is that light is a wave disturbances of spacetime travelling through spacetime at the speed of light.

The importance of this can be seen when going on to consider how light is emitted. We know that light is emitted when an electron associated with an atom changes state from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The idea of light as a spacetime wave leads directly to the conclusion that the electron must be some form of wave in spacetime because it would require a wavelike disturbance of spacetime (the electron) to emit a wavelike disturbance of spacetime (the photon). The model of the electron as a looped wave in spacetime then follows. The looped spacetime wave of the electron travels at the speed of light in the loop.

When a photon is emitted, a portion of the spacetime wave energy of the electron is released as a quantum of energy into the medium of spacetime as the electron changes state from a higher to a lower energy.

So the answer to the original question posed is that light is a moving disturbance of spacetime travelling through spacetime in discrete quanta of energy.

Reference links:

The nature of mass

The unification of physics

Richard

« Previous Page Next Page »