Alternative Models of Reality

Eckard Blumschein

"light can be observed by a co moving observer A who considers it stationary" ?

Being used to think in terms of ideal resonance I cannot imagine a real Aaron Bernstein sensor that moves with the ideal vacuum speed c of light propagation.

++++

Georgina Woodward

Hi Eckard,

great to hear from you. You have quoted me incorrectly. I was talking about an observer moving with the light clock so that its lateral translation is not observed only the up down of the light beam. I actually said "Thinking about the light clock illustration : it can be observed by a co moving observer A who considers it stationary." This is important because it gives two different views of the light beam one without lateral translation A, and one with lateral translation B. The difference between the two views is the spatial distance of the translation. The intrinsic period is not affected by the different observer viewpoints. This is an important deviation from the conventional explanation of time dilation using the light clock.

Georgina Woodward

The time it takes for the light to travel up and down without apparent lateral translation is the same as the time for it to travel with the translation. In Object reality it is the same event and the light is travelling a certain distance in a certain period regardless of how it is observed. Though it would seem the wave speed for the translated route must be higher if wavelength is increased but period remains the same. That is about appearance. In Object reality the speed is determined by the relationship of magnetic and electric constants and is c. Einstein would instead have the period of the clock pass more slowly as "time itself is slowed" allowing the wave speed to remain the same for the observer of the translated clock and also for more distance to be covered at the unaltered speed in extended time. Both methods can give the same distance traveled in the same number of cycles.

Georgina Woodward

For analogy 3 walkers could have an intrinsic speed of 10 miles per hour that is the product of the motion of their bodies, and unaffected by how they are observed. It is a function of metabolism, nervous and sceleto-muscular relations. They are then made to walk in parallel straight paths. The walkers are watched by 3 observers. One remains with the walkers. One follows the walkers taking the straight path but at half their speed and one watches the two walkers on the straight path from a stationary position as they pass.This gives 3 different relative speeds for one intrinsic speed. The lateral translations being 0, 5 and 10 miles in one hour. If the walkers were instead a light beam there would be still be 3 different relative speeds for the unchanged intrinsic speed of light that is product of the relationship with electric and magnetic constants.

Georgina Woodward

All 3 light beams have traveled the same distance in the same time in Object reality , so are traveling at the same speed, even though they are all seen with different lateral, spatial translations from the different relative perspectives, implying different speeds.

Georgina Woodward

This is about the light clock illustration of time dilation.

There seems to be something wrong with multiplying the intrinsic speed of light by relative distance. It converts what was simply differences in observed lateral spatial displacement into differences in time taken. The spring analogy works well to make the difference in distance of the relative viewpoint compared to the distance in Object reality intuitive. Using that analogy it can be seen that the spiral path is the same length for the same event however it is viewed. As the same distance is traveled at the same intrinsic speed there is no difference in time taken for the different relative viewpoints of the clock. Multiplying the intrinsic speed of light by relative distance is introducing a time error.

Any comments or thoughts related to this welcome.

Georgina Woodward

I see that I got a bit muddled. d=v X t. Its not c being multiplied by the relative diagonal distance but change in time. The diagonal light paths ABC is equated to c X (change in time to complete path ABC) as seen by the stationary observer. And if the distance straight up and down between the mirrors is L then change in time for the observer staying with the clock is 2L /c

It still seems that the intrinsic speed of light ( in which it travels both 2L and ABC in the same time ) is being muddled with the relative distances to give different times i.e.delta t=/=delta t'.

It must travel both 2L and ABC in the same time in Object reality because it is the same event. It starts within the same starting configuration of the object universe and ends within same ending configuration of the Object universe.

Georgina Woodward

Some comment on what I've written would be much appreciated. What is the general impression? Am I thinking about this in a constructive way or making some kind of fundamental error? I'm not convinced by the common illustration of moving clocks slowing, demonstrated with the light clock thought experiment. I hear it said (and animated) that the diagonal paths are longer than up and down only and thus the time counted by the clock is slowed. Yet the light is still doing 2L up and down only from the co moving observer viewpoint and as far as the clock itself is concerned.It is important to me because the twins paradox is about substantial matter acting clock like and being affected by time dilation. I am not convinced that it is while at the same time time dilation due to transmission and receipt of signals does occur. It will be useful to eliminate that paradox while retaining the useful aspects of special relativity.

Georgina Woodward

Light is a periodic phenomenon. Some evidence:... Recording the field variation of visible light calls for an oscilloscope that exhibits a temporal resolution of several hundred attoseconds (1 attosecond being a thousandth of a femtosecond). The researchers recently succeeded in developing a technique which can measure the instantaneous electric field of red light (quarter period ~ 620 attoseconds) and record its variation with a resolution of 100 attoseconds. Max Plank Gesellschaft. Quantum physics Light oscillations become visible

In mathematics, a periodic function is a function that repeats its values in regular intervals or periods. ...Periodic functions are used throughout science to describe oscillations, waves, and other phenomena that exhibit periodicity.........Geometrically, a periodic function can be defined as a function whose graph exhibits translational symmetry. Specifically, a function f is periodic with period P if the graph of f is invariant under translation in the x-direction by a distance of P. From Wikipedia, Periodic function, my emphasis. This seems to show that mathematically the period is unaffected by the translation. It is only a spatial change. So it follows that the period of the light clock should be unaffected by lateral translation.

Georgina Woodward

Elimination of the twins paradox

As the period of periodic motion is unaffected by linear translation (mathematical fact), it follows that the period of clocks themselves are unaffected by linear translation (ideal physics). (Though there are variables that can affect timekeeping of clocks in practice that need considering, see the discussion about atomic clocks in 'Gravitational time dilation and the RICP amended' file.) In support of the twins paradox, human metabolism has been likened to a clock, sometimes reduced to an argument about the oscillation of individual atoms. That argument can be turned around and used in support of no alteration of metabolism under translation. This is only elimination of one of the paradoxical conclusions from special relativity not an attempt to discredit special relativity.

Georgina Woodward

My previous post was in regard to how translation affects clocks themselves (and by extrapolation matter with 'clock like' atomic vibrations) rather than what different observers see because of their reference frames.

To deal with the latter issue: Special relativity works for inertial frames, that is non accelerating frames. In the Twins paradox scenario there are many different reference frames and the majority are accelerating.I don't think the number of different reference frames has been fully appreciated.

The stay at home twin is in the circular motion accelerated frame on the Earth. The travelling twin has 7 different reference frames. 5 out of the 7 being accelerating (or decelerating) frames. They are as follows -1. linear acceleration up to near light speed 2. steady velocity near light speed 3. deceleration prior to turning (no hand break turns in space, especially not at the speed of light!)4. circular motion acceleration as space ship turns around. 5. linear acceleration back up to near light speed 6.steady velocity near light speed 7. deceleration on approach to landing. Therefore it can be concluded that the twins paradox, in regard to observation, is an error due to misapplication of the theory.

Georgina Woodward

I meant handbrake turn. Its amusing to me anyway. Imagine a spaceship travelling at near light speed turning on a point.

Georgina Woodward

Thanks all,

I have found that acceleration can be handled in calculations involving special relativity but it isn't treated relative to a stationary observer but as a constant velocity observed by a co moving observer. It makes me wonder how the patchwork of different reference frames would work.

There are a number of different frequency shifts and changes in latency or lag of the signals. For the spaceship there is non reciprocal 'gravitational ' red shift of the signal from Earth throughout. There is increasing lag or latency on the way out first accelerating and then increasing steadily until slow down for turn around, when the increase in lag slows. On the way out there will also be an accelerating increase in Doppler red shift as it accelerates away from the Earth, then a steady red shift while it is cruising and decreasing as it slows to turn. There will be a period of relatively little change in the lag and no (or insignificant) Doppler shift during turn around. There is similar inconsistent changing blue shift and decreasing lag on the return journey. The Earth observer will have non reciprocal 'gravitational' blue shift throughout, reciprocal lag, and red and blue shifts associated with change in direction (Away or towards signal source)and correlated with the accelerations.

Comparison of just two reference frames, ship and twin seems inadequate.

Georgina Woodward

I should have said 3 reference frames (one stay at home and 2 traveling, out and back )are inadequate for representing the scenario.

Nainan Varghese

Reality is associated with real entities. Although sensory perception and mental faculty are essential to recognize reality, they are not directly related to reality. Superfluous engagement of mental faculty can cause imaginary phenomena to appear as real.

Objective reality and positive existence in space endow reality to entities. Substance (stuff) that forms real entities bestows these attributes. In material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Therefore, existence of matter is the only basic reality (definite assumption). Matter, alone, provides substance to all real entities.

Genuine actions are with respect to real entities. They are not related to observer, method of observation, time of observation, different frames of reference or any other imaginary phenomena. Reality is with respect to an absolute reference that is real. As reality is definite, observer, sensual perception, probability, mutual relations, uncertainty, mental or mathematical analyses, etc. do not influence it.

Contemporary physics deals with structured matter-bodies. Structured matter-bodies have tendency to spread into all available spatial dimensions. A free structured matter-body will eventually attain spherical shape.

Depending on their structures, structured matter-bodies exhibit unique properties, sometimes, contrary properties. This can happen only if unstructured matter has no particular properties, except its ability to exist. Ability to exist confers free unstructured matter with tendency to reduce its existence to minimum spatial dimensions. A free unstructured matter-body has tendency to reduce its existence into single spatial dimension. This is opposite to tendency of structured matter. Due to this tendency, unstructured matter fragments into very small single dimensional quanta of matter. For brief description on unstructured matter, see: [link:vixra.org]Unstructured matter[/abs/1206.0048]

Production of quanta of matter leads to formation of an aether-like universal medium that fills entire space, outside basic 3D matter-particles. Universal medium is particulate continuous medium that is simultaneously homogeneous & heterogeneous and isotropic & anisotropic. As it is inherently stable and serene, it can provide an absolute reference. Universal medium executes all physical actions in nature, including creation, sustenance, interactions and destruction of 3D matter.

For details, see: 'MATTER (Re-examined)', MATTER

I would appreciate comments from members, especially from those who do research in unstructured state of matter.

Nainan

Georgina Woodward

Hi Nainan, you wrote "Therefore, existence of matter is the only basic reality (definite assumption). " I think that it necessary to allow wave phenomena, including EM radiation to be a part of basic reality. There are many things that can not be accounted for with matter alone.

FQXi Members rarely visit.

Nainan Varghese

Thanks Georgina Woodward.

Wave phenomenon needs something real to wave about and EM Radiation needs something real to be radiated. These are not imaginary phenomena. Both these phenomena not only require real entities but they also require mechanisms of action by real entities. Matter (a real entity), being the basic assumption in this concept, can provide real entity (matter) for these phenomena and their mechanisms of action. Hence, there is no need to consider wave motions or radiations as separate realities.

I think explanations to all physical phenomena can be based on a single assumption on 'existence of matter'. There would be no 'action at a distance through empty space', imaginary effects, virtual particles, mysterious physical actions by imaginary entities, etc. Creation, sustenance, destruction of 3D matter-bodies and all physical phenomena in nature would be based on simple mechanical actions by matter.

Nainan

Branko Zivlak

Zeeya and all

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT

If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it.

It is clear from your call who represents the conventional model of reality. I think I have noted substantial errors in some lectures of Professors, as:

Differentiation of breaking function, Incorrect values of physical quantities, the imposition of the spherical shape of the universe as if it is known fact ...

Since, they have not got the answers to my comments, please reply me whether I'm right.

Take a look at the YouTube lectures and my comments.

prof. Fay Dowker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhHE86d-Th8

Branko Zivlak In 56:06 prof. Fay Dowker says „The volume of Universe is 10 to 240 in Plank units". But how it can be when Radius of observable Universe in Plank lenght is 10 to 60. Then what is with formula for lambda fluctuations!?

and again prof. Fay Dowker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKjgNznlkcI

Branko Zivlak At 37:50 "Black hole horizon is comprized of number of Planck sized m o l e c u l e s"! Really?!!!

prof. Leonard Susskind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-medYaqVak

Branko Zivlak Great lesson! Now I know where the mistake is. How does he know that "scalling factor" is differentiable? It is not.

DrPhysicsA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G5NAHsQkOA

Branko Zivlak Thank you very much for the great courses. But I would like to pose question: who was more wrong? 1. Columbus' sailors who thought the Earth was flat surface; 2. The autor of the video who says that the universe is a sphere.

Comments welcome.

Steve Dufourny

For your information,I share just my theory in a total transparencesince more than 8 years on net, everywhere.I improve it,I correct it, I add, ......My theory of spherisation is not Fallen from the sky like that?I class all since the age of 16,I am 40 years old.Happy tosee people focusing on my works with or without the approvements of others.It is that the sciences and the transparence.I am conscious of my discovery.A lot of people of centers d like to have found.For what ,the international recognizings???Where are wegoing ?If now the good general works are not well understood or have several peopleagainst it????What is this planet ???Regards

Steve Dufourny

In my theory of spherisation, the universe is a sphere with a central sphere, the biggest BH probably.And the particules also are sphères with different volumes and rotations and quantum of energy.This universal logic seems foundamental.You spoke of the observable universe.It is important at my humble opinion to analyse the electromagnetic expansion, thephotonic sphère and the gravitational spherical expansion with particules, named in my theory the spherons,particules of gravitation produced by cosmologicalspheres different than planets and stars.The BH are probably the solution.The spherons in logic implying gravitation are speeder than bosons photons.And smaller also and more numerous.It explains the dark matter.like it exists a sphere ofphotons around a galaxy, it exists also a sphere more important of spherons gravitation.Probably also that the cosmological volumes where they are produced are correletad with their linear speed before encoding in our nuclei.Their volumes also are correlated probably.That is why the smallest and speedest spherons are produced by the central cosmological sphere of the universal sphere.The biggest cosmological volume produces the smallest and speedest spherons in logic.The gravitation has an important velocity.The encodings, them in our nucleis are like our bosons fermions but with different spheroical volumes andabove our lenght planck at 10^-35m ,the gravitation is so weak correlated with the spherical volumes.It can be classed also more far than our standardmodel.The relevance is their velocities and their number implying a more important energy than for our standard model and the electromagnetic forces.The quantum of gravitational energy becomes very relevant.If this Dark matter is correlated with this gravitation, so thespherons answer.We see an other mass of 25% of this universe.Our standard mass, about 5%.It implies the necessity to insert these particles of gravitation.This energy can be transformed into others énergies, works .....I am persuaded that the rotations of spherical volumes are universal keys.Regards

Richard Lewis

I would just like to post the latest versions of The Unification of Physics and The Evolution of the Universe published on Academia.

The Unification of Physics

The Evolution of the Universe

Richard

Georgina Woodward

Have taken a look at 'The unification of physics paper.' I didn't appreciate having to go through the Academia join up process to do that. If you just want your papers read why not link to it directly from here?

Richard Lewis

Hi Georgina,

I did not know that you would have to sign up to Academia. I thought that the links were to pages which were publicly available. Actually the Academia website is the only place where these papers are published on the web as I do not have my own website.

Can you suggest a place where I could publish the papers to make it easier for people to access?

Thank you for letting me know about the problem.

Richard

Georgina Woodward

Hi Richard,

it really isn't a big problem, I just found it bothersome at the time. You are able to link documents directly onto this site using the add attachments below the dialogue box. It seems that many people use arXiv but that requires endorsement from someone or there is Vixra, that doesn't require endorsement but probably because of that lacks the greater credibility of arXiv. Though I have just read that 15% of papers on ViXra have been in peer reviewed journals (Quora). I have read other people's papers on arXiv and have not had to fill out personal details or join anything to do so.

Richard Lewis

Hi Georgina,

Thank you for the information.

I am going to try to post the papers in this thread as an attachment.

Richard

« Previous Page Next Page »