No Tom,

There is no trace of a man in the boy who may become a man unless you falsifies the notion trace. A trace is a sign which shows you that someone or something has been (not will be) in a place.

Feynman asked: What is the most fundamental equation? What is the equation of everything? Does it exist? I consider such Feynmanity ironically a nullity because it has proven so far about as infertile as Descartes' cogito ergo sum. Well, a higher dimensional picture may simplify sets of equations. However, it will perhaps never explain the first origin or the absolute end of anything. Box squared looks nice but it does not explain the now that worried Einstein seriously. Physics might need my "naive" unFeynmanity: There is no real trace of future in advance.

Rob argued that the initial conditions are unknown. This was my opinion too. The map is not the territory, and anything in reality is subject to an infinite variety of influences. When I was a student I was told that for application of the unilateral Laplace transformation the initial conditions would in principle have to include all derivatives at t=0 too. Meanwhile I prefer to abandon this naive merely future-directed Adam and Eve models of engineers. Instead I am simply distinguishing between traceable unilateral elapsed and abstract bilateral time.

Eckard

Information = New Information. I consider Rob's quote of Shannon's oxymoron a key not just for physiology of brain.

What about Tom, I feel sympathy after he revealed how he was banned from Wikipedia editing.

What about me, I see my strength in skepticism towards any belief. It enables me to find out and admit having overlooked for a while mistakes that were quite common.

Eckard

"I see my strength in skepticism towards any belief."

I do, too, Eckard. "I do not believe in belief," as E.M. Forster said, and Popper echoed.

I do believe, however, in the correspondence principle of truth. And while one can be skeptical even of our ability to know truth in the absolute sense, to be skeptical of the correspondence principle is to reject the scientific method itself.

Best,

Tom

9 days later
a month later

I may be in the wrong, but concerning SR there seems to be an acceptance of the absence of the absolute. An absence of the absolute leads to the absence of absolute understanding, and thus instead has allowed an acceptance of incompleteness.

I, though having no education in physics, was fascinated with "MOTION". and the paradox that it seemed to present. Motion contains 2 variables,....1) Speed,...and 2) Distance. To understand these variables I set both variables to infinity such that I could see the complete picture concerning motion. This leads to crossing an infinite distance at an infinite speed. And this leads to the paradox of going on forever across the infinite distance, but doing so in no time at all due to travelling at an infinite speed. Thus you go on forever in no time at all. Fascinated with this paradox, I continued to investigate motion.

Soon afterward I figured it all out and then converted my understandings into equations. After borrowing a physics text book, I found that my equations were identical to the equations known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation.

Yet I have seen no other derive these equations in the manner of which I did, nor have I seen SR explained in the same manner. I threw some videos together to expose this derivation method. See the following link. Images were necessary since I am terrible with words.

KSP Special Relativity Video Playlist

If this classifies as spamming, then so be it, but I can't fit the entire derivation of all of the equations here in mere text. In short, other than the obvious, it also explains the cause behind the speed of light always being the speed of light, and the speed of light always being observed to be the speed of light. Most importantly, it exposes the absolute foundation that creates the relativistic outcome.

I hope that this is helpful.

Kevin,

Nice effort, but it seems to share the limitations of the non-physical mathematical interpretation of SR. (I have no issue with Einstein's SR; 'The postulates').

If you now the basics of optics, let's have a beer and give me your view in the case of a glass of beer sliding down the bar.

Now we can set up apparatus on the glass to check that all light passes through the beer at c/n wrt the beer. We can do the same for an evacuated sealed glass (glass n~1.55). Now you'll also agree, as also found, that the above is true whatever planet or train the glass is on (rest frame).

Now lets sit at the bar and slide the glass past us (and another speed check instrument I) at v. I finds light from a bulb at the end of the bar doing c in the bar rest frame (or c/n, but n~1.0003 is negligible). We find of course the arrival time t (at the far end of the bar) of the light passing through the glass (fringe shift)is later wrt the light passing by. And when the glass is slid in the opposite direction, TOWARDS the source, the difference in arrival t is greater. Nothing shocking there then because light takes the same time to pass through the glass in all cases.

But now lets slow down and video a 'light pulse' passing through the beer when it's being slid past us away from the source. There are two options as to what we'll find;

A. We see an APPARENT speed c (c/n)+v, which is the pulse PROPAGATION speed within the glass c (and c/n), plus the glass speed v wrt US. or;

B. We trust the way we're applying the maths without question and so we see the glass shrink instead. (That's still a common belief so don't be too embarrassed to pick it).

Now option A achieves exactly the same as B but applying the known physical mechanism of Compton/Raman atomic scattering. No light propagates at over c.

The postulates are recovered, as is the 'absolute' time (in all local backgrounds) which causes all the problems of consistency with QM. It also recognises the ambient medium of space (ISM/IGM) which is an established fact of astrophysics. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, just diffuse dielectrics.

Your choice?

Peter

    Robert,

    Can you prove the coins were there if no lens existed within a light year? We then have the case of the tree falling in a forest. I propose that is a valid interpretive rationalisation of QM. The detector is part of the system, converting the EM fluctuations reflected off the 'coins' to an image. But if the detector is in motion the wavelength will vary (due to the simple evolution of the sequential interaction over time = Doppler shift).

    And there you have the case I describe above to Kevin. Do read carefully and make your choice. I propose it's the wavelength that changes on localising c, changing the SIGNALS emitted by the clock (we can't change the 'rate of time' itself!)

    Light is localised to propagate at c on ALL interaction with matter, so in all, REAL, 'discrete fields' (inertial systems). Am I really the only one (actually about 7 so far) who can see how important that mechanism is to all of physics!?

    Or if we're crazy please do explain how.

    Peter

      Kevin,

      I don't want to speak to soon, but do want to encourage you. I viewed only the first part of your derivation of SR and want to fully digest it. You may have hit on an independently obtained proof, so don't let people distract you from pursuing the history in literature of the theory itself with their own interpretive application to a personal model. You are right, light velocity is always that velocity and always measures out as that. Physically, EMR interacts with matter in two distinct ways, as an absorption/re-emission event and/or as a electrostatic/magnetostatic field inductance reactance event. But you will notice that at present proponents of either form of interaction do not work from a physical model that depicts the actual shape in space of an EM wave or particle. So be careful, you're in the Lion's Den now, jrc

      John,

      Scattering and Inductance describe the same thing. "at present proponents of either form of interaction do not work from a physical model that depicts the actual shape in space of an EM wave or particle."

      That's only generally true, certainly not completely. I thought you'd read my essay. The Intelligent Bit,. consistent empirically, both are helical in 3D (OAM), so electrons considered toroidal in the static case.

      In any event the plasma coupling potential is fully proven, including recently in deep space too. New VLBA Finding.

      So which description do you believe John. One matches a scientific findings consistently and without apparent paradox, but the other one is still the most popular belief.; A or B.??

      Peter

      Peter,

      "Can you prove the coins were there if no lens existed within a light year?" Of course - the same way Quantum Theorists prove that their entangled pairs exist - they create them. The pair's creator is a privileged observer, unlike "the case of the tree falling in a forest."

      The pair of coins is fundamentally different than the more familiar pair of gloves, that is usually discussed. A real glove, with the fingers curling towards the palm, is indeed in a known state before being observed - it is KNOWN, a priori, that a right-handed glove will be identifiable as such, REGARDLESS of what angle it is eventually viewed from. But the came is not KNOWN about a coin - it is not KNOWN, a priori, that a coin, viewed from every angle, will always be "heads".

      Unlike "handedness", which is indeed an attribute of a glove, "heads or tails" is NOT an attribute of a coin. It is an attribute (like spin and polarization), of the relationship BETWEEN the observer and the observed.

      Rob McEachern

      Peter,

      All due respect, but a helix in space does not differentiate a spatial volume which can explain at which concise point in space one wavelength is distinguishable in producing the photoelectric effect for which AE was awarded the Nobel Prize. And where there is Lorentz, there is angular momentum. Just as where there is curvature of spacetime, there is mass.

      My only point was that Kevin Proudler would do better to sit at the feet of those in classical physics that made the discoveries which culminated in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", rather than those muddied in the aftermath.

      What if in his own naïve way has discovered an independent route to the same conclusion? That is what is topical, not my model or yours.

      peace, out. jrc

      Kevin,

      Peter Jackson is correct, Michelson used that same geometry as the design for his original experiment in 1887, and also accepted the experimentally defined speed of light as you have. It is a nice and easy to follow explanation however, just from a different angle. Nice presentation, jrc

      Dear Readers,

      Submitted for your approval.

      The Unified Theory of Proportionality states, simply:

      1) Matter condensed from Energy

      2) Matter and Energy constitute a singular, self-contained mechanism, from which, all other properties derive.

      Boundary conditions of pure energy, not an 'infinitely dense' mass.

      - Just as we might predict, based on what's been observed and our understanding of the EM Spectrum, higher-and-higher energies might eventually blot-out or burn-away smaller-and-smaller particles entirely.

      - Without matter, therefore reference, distance, space, or time, it represents a perfect beginning, from which, the universe might result, in a relaxed, lesser-energy state.

      A ubiquitous phase change.

      - The first of matter; One 'degree cooler', one 'shade darker', one 'pitch lower', however characterized, one indivisible moment, defined.

      - Matter would condense into a finite but unbounded cubic-lattice tessellation, with the remaining energy flowing wave-like, seeking a new equilibrium, endlessly over an atomic terrain. Trapped, outside the atom, but within a universe. Relative and proportional, potential and kinetic.

      - An asymmetry. An imbalance. Physical, observable dimensions of positive and negative curvature, in the most expansive and efficient way possible, (As a more reasonable manifestation of the geometry Einstein & Rosen suggested, than large-scale portals to other worlds).

      - Set forever in motion, as everything in the universe is.

      Matter would continue to sphere-pack in this collapsing system, further displacing energy, as predictable, definable, discrete, larger, concentric-layered structures are built, (As suggested by Linus Pauling, but limited by his adherence to the Classical Nuclear Shell Model).

      - Moment two; Collapses into a hexagonal-lattice tessellation, as any two cubic (remaining) regions, surrounding and separating each spherical (condensate) nucleus, can accommodate a third into that 'space', (Each Sphere-Matter 4.189 cu & Each Cube-Energy 8.000 cu).

      - Establishing a 'kissing number', centered upon which, these elementary condensates could begin to aggregate, nestle, separate, and congregate.

      Stable, unstable, and exotic formations would build and break under predictable conditions.

      - Where energy would affect matter, but never (at levels below which it could no longer) destroy it, no longer transmutable, and quantifiable "only" by its affect on matter.

      - And matter would displace, direct, focus, divert, and define a spectrum of energy, but never fully contain it. As every observation of Matter and Energy indicates.

      Stable structures would then provide an imperfect conduit, through which, energy would 'leak' and 'draw' as it flows, much as we observe the relationship between electricity and magnetism to be.

      The largest of structures and vast regions would then complement and contend, churn and swirl, like convection currents or weather patterns or the iridescent swirling on a soap bubble, (As we currently observe the disparate motions of planets and galaxies and vaster regions to be).

      One universe which is seamless, whole, steady, and discrete.

      Steve Lenane

      8 days later

      The attachment was intended to be my entry in FQXi's 2014 Contest - and it's also an unconventional, alternative model of reality - but the link on the contest page for submitting essays hasn't been working for weeks (Kavita Rajanna sent me a link which does work when I emailed her about the problem). When I click on "form" or "webform" to submit the essay, it takes me to a page with the heading FQXi Community and gives me the message " Page Not Found - Sorry...the page "community/www.fqxi.org/community/essay/application/main" could not be found." If Kavita hadn't supplied me with a link, I still wouldn't be able to enter the current contest. Every other potential entrant might be getting the same Page Not Found message that I get, which means FQXi may not receive any other entries and the contest will be cancelled. So just in case the worst does happen, I'll post my entry on Zeeya's page where some readers will get to see my ideas.

      RodneyAttachment #1: NEW_PHYSICS_SUGGESTS_DARWINS_ORIGIN_OF_SPECIES_IS_INCOMPLETE_AND_THAT_GODLIKE_HUMANITY_WILL_EMERGE.pdf

      Rob,

      A well made point. I agreed Chirality is critical in my essay. However I referred to something else, addressing the apparent paradox of SR and the 'chasm' with QM.

      If no observer (detector) exists then no interaction exists, so no image can be created or measurement made, and the light carries on at c wrt the local ambient medium (non-privileged) rest frame.

      If one particle of mass of one lens or antenna of one detector DOES exist then, (by Compton atomic scattering) it immediately localises the propagation speed of the part that interacts to the local c wrt the particles rest frame.

      Now consider 10 bunches of particles, each bunch ('lens') in relative motion. A wave front arrives and each particle localises the propagation speed to c (again before 'measurement').

      All observers MUST then find c whatever their state of motion!!! And what is more it took the Copenhagen interpretation (the detector as part of the system) to expose the wrong assumption we currently make. We only ACTUALLY measure 'frequency' (a derivative) and make assumptions to find c. We are not allowing for the Doppler delta lambda and speed to modulate the new c.

      This is equivalent to what Liberati's nominated 'paper of the year' says; That CSL is "both true and false at the same time". Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update.

      c is local because it changes, so changes 'datum', between the 'discrete fields' along with the choice of reference system (rest frame).

      The effect of the hypothesis and it's importance seem quite difficult to initially grasp, but it's essentially the identical process to that of sound moving between moving media. This 'Discrete Field Model' is then really very simple.

      The 'elephant' may be some 1,500 times the size of the one you're expecting. Does it show up to you?

      Best wishes

      Peter

      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