Alternative Models of Reality

pjackson

Richard,

Nice, but a few flaws which may be important or not. That Maxwell was way earlier isn't that important.

Firstly the model not only doesn't explain but seems to preclude the foundation of astrophysics and cosmology 'dark energy', the Quantum Vacuum we know IS there with all it's effects, and also now the important Higgs Field, from whence all the fermion pairs that end up creating us 'pop up' from. (Atomic conjugate fermion pair production). It also doesn't answer any of the questions Einstein was asking, so to replace all the above you have to invoke this mechanism fee 'space time' which retains the 'chasm' with QM. i.e. It doesn't seem to take us anywhere we need to go.

Now what we DO know about the plasma that makes up 99% of the universe and permeates space is that it's particles have high coupling co-efficient and low EM profile n=1. By adding those into the mix in the proportions actually found (

pjackson

Rich,

That damn 'up to' chevron got me again! The end was something like;

...particle density found at up to 10^14/cm^-3, which added into your mix as the implementer of the refraction found by the VLBA (and explaining Stellar Aberration) makes all then slot logically into place.

One of the major slips you make is blithely assuming and stating 'it can't be ether' on the M&M evidence, when Michelson's later (1925) experiment proved ether!

There is a good reason it can't be assigned to 'ether', but M&M's assumption of a medium at rest with the sun on the surface of earth certainly can't be it! Is the sun really the only star in the heavens?, and if at rest with the sun locally, why not more locally at rest with the earth, which the atmosphere's refraction proves beyond doubt! Is there some hidden fault in that logic?

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Lewis

Peter,

Thank you for your comments on the post on the nature of light. I accept your points that the Spacetime Wave theory is inconsistent with some points of accepted physics. This applies to some aspects of cosmology theory and the standard model of particle physics.

I understand that the standard model of particle physics provides an explanation of particle physics within its own context and I am not trying to say that it is wrong. What I am saying is that the way it is constructed it will never be able to answer certain fundamental questions and so I am proposing to position the Spacetime Wave theory as an alternative explanation which is allowed to run alongside the standard model as an alternative viewpoint.

As long as the Spacetime Wave theory agrees with observation and experiment it is a worthwhile line of investigation.

The limitations of the standard model are that it does not explain:

1. The nature of light and how it is transmitted through space.

2. What the fundamental particles are made of.

3. What is electric charge.

4. What is mass and how does an electron curve spacetime.

The advantage of the Spacetime Wave theory is that it does explain mass, charge, force and field in fundamental terms.

Regarding the concept of dark energy, I did read that the energy associated with a quantum vacuum or a sea of negative energy electrons would be far too great to explain dark energy. The explanation of why the concept of dark energy is not needed is covered in:

The Evolution of the Universe

Here it is explained that the ideas about the mechanism for the expansion of the universe are flawed because of false assumptions about the cause of the expansion of space.

I know that my ideas are contrary to the accepted wisdom of particle physics and cosmology but I feel they are worth following.

Thank you very much for taking the time to look at it and I would welcome further comments particularly if you can identify experimental or observational results which contradict the theory.

Best wishes

Richard

pjackson

Richard,

You're very welcome. I agree the value of original approaches. I'm also no fan of the SM which is just an outline/framework which can't even attempt to address the key points you identify. A better outline is certainly a worthy goal.

What I'm saying is that I see your current 'outline' as being considerably improvable to perhaps allow development into something which may challenge it. But as it is it clearly has major shortcoming which will preclude that. I think I've shown ways ahead in those areas in my own work. For an overview see my post to Tom. The ontology is constructed in my last 3 essays.

I've not been 'protective of a pet theory' in developing my work, which is an essential approach. You'll need to be the same. Have a look and revert. The end of the 2nd essay derives an underlying mechanism implementing the effect we call 'curved space-time', addressing one of the major blocks to ALL theories. Do read and revert.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Tom

"ALL physics is local. No superfluous assumptions required." Good. But you've missed my point. There was an unnecessary assumption tacked on that something entirely NON Local, i.e. a quasar jet pulse billions of Lt.yrs away, so only measurable by angle change rate, ALSO had to somehow be 'slowed down'. It did not. Nothing ANYWHERE exceeds propagation speed c, including the pulse.

It's only the proposed "solution" to that non-existent problem that introduces nonsense, paradox and the arithmetical rule violation to SR.

So I agree the postulates are correct, it was only that added 'interpretive assumption' that has caused all the problems, and will continue to do so. It is a cancer in relativity. But there is now a simple cure. Why try to hang on to it when it now serves no useful purpose?

Both SR and GR will be freed of dissent by simply recognising that the particles from the Higgs field have an assignable 'rest frame' and the coupling constant science already knows and uses?

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Both SR and GR will be freed of dissent by simply recognising that the particles from the Higgs field have an assignable 'rest frame' and the coupling constant science already knows and uses?"

Peter, the coupling constant doesn't apply to relativistic measures.

Special and general relativity are already free of dissent.

One cannot speak of Higgs bosons at relative rest, because they are bosons -- any number of them can occupy the same point.

Best,

Tom

Richard Lewis

Peter,

Thank you for your comments and I would like to read an overview of your work and in particular the last three essays. I could not find the post that provides the link so can you help me with this?

Richard

pjackson

Richard,

PRJ paper resolving the c+v reflection anomaly, link here; Hd.Jnl, arXiv 2012.

The model is developing all the time, but the last 3 essays review different aspect, starting from an overview. Less abridged here;

Academia, fqxi top 10 finalist; 2020 Vision. then;

Academia, fqxi top 10 finalis; Much Ado..; and;

Academia, fqxi 2nd scoring finalist; The Intelligent Bit.

As good background, and also for Tom (if you're reading this Tom). A very good Unruh effect analysis, showing observer dependence of apparent speed where not real propagation (Proper) speed.

UNRUH Effect. (pair production creating local inertial system backgrounds.)

Do question anything. It's difficult to assimilate, unfortunately impossible to successfully 'speed read', and even when successful beware, it can drift away afterwards as neural networks have no ready made dynamic match!

Best wishes

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.

James Putnam

The speed of light varies. It varies everywhere. Practically speaking, it is never exactly the same magnitude anywhere in the universe. It has its maximum value of C in the hypothetical vacuum of free space. Locally, the speed of light always measures as C everywhere. That results from the existence of length contraction. The same measuring rod varies in length everywhere if observed from a remote perspective and yet always appears to be the same constant length locally everywhere.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Locally, the speed of light always measures as C everywhere. That results from the existence of length contraction."

No. Length contraction and time dilation are observer dependent relativistic effects, not physically real independent phenomena.

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

James Putnam

Tom,

""Locally, the speed of light always measures as C everywhere. That results from the existence of length contraction.""

"No. Length contraction and time dilation are observer dependent relativistic effects, not physically real independent phenomena. "

Within a gravitational field: Length contraction exists everywhere; The speed of light varies; Time dilation exists nowhere.

This is not special relativity. That theory fails in a gravitational field except for one special case. The theory doesn't acknowledge this, but, it mimics a circumstance where there are say two observers with relative velocities, both having identical gravitational fields that do not change or vary with distance or otherwise. In that case, and that case only, both observers will correctly see the other undergoing equivalent length contraction and equivalent slowing of processes. The effects, if such a circumstance actually existed, would be real physical effects. Both observers would continue to measure the speed of light locally as C resulting in no awareness of the changes they have undergone.

The above circumstance does not exist in a varying gravitation field. For an observer having a velocity with respect to, parallel to, and close to the surface of the Earth, the observer will undergo length contraction and a slowing of their processes. Those effects will be real whether anyone is watching or not. The Earth will not undergo length contraction or slowing of processes. The traveling observer will see the Earth as expanding, the opposite of length contraction. That effect will not be real. It will be only a visual effect resulting from the traveling observer's measuring rod having undergone length contraction.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Within a gravitational field: Length contraction exists everywhere; The speed of light varies; Time dilation exists nowhere."

James -- no. The gravitational field has nothing to do with it. The phenomena result from aysmmetric measurements of time-distance between observers in relative motion.

James Putnam

Tom,

"---no. The gravitational field has nothing to do with it. The phenomena result from aysmmetric measurements of time-distance between observers in relative motion."

This is not special relativity. It is modified general relativity after being corrected with a variable speed of light and no time dilation. I am not trying to instruct you about how to understand special relativity. That mystical world is part of theoretical physics.

I am speaking about how relativity type effects occur after correcting physics with a defined mass. A relative velocity through a gravitation field has everything to do with it

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"A relative velocity through a gravitation field has everything to do with it"

I don't see how, but go on.

James Putnam

""A relative velocity through a gravitation field has everything to do with it""

"I don't see how, but go on."

You do not see how because you are working with a theoretical physics that has missing parts. One of those missing parts is a definition for mass. You are working with an indefinable mass. You are working without knowing what mass is. Energy is 'defined' in terms of mass. Mass is not defined. Writing E = m without units demonstrates the lengths to which theoretical physics must distort itself in order to appear to represent reality. You say to 'go on', but, you don't follow. You accept a theoretical physics that is very dependent upon the property of mass and yet continues to develop itself without knowing what mass is. Whether or not my defined mass is correct is not the issue. The issue is that physics cannot proceed passed f=ma without defining mass except by institutionalizing fundamental disunity as foundational for theoretical physics.

James Putnam,

« Previous Page Next Page »